I’m betting the majority of drivers who drive faster than 70, 75 miles an hour on Interstate 35 are from out of town. For some unknown reason that has to be completely unfathomable to those of us who have chosen to make Kyle our home, I’m guessing there’s a small faction of drivers who desire to get through our fair city as quickly as possible. Oh, how I’m looking forward to hearing how many of these misguided miscreants get nabbed for speeding Monday by the Kyle Police Department.
You see, thanks to a grant from the Texas Department of Public Safety, our local gendarmes are going to beef up their presence along the interstate, as well as the highway’s access roads, this coming Monday expressly to nab those folks attempting to break the San Antonio-Austin land speed record. The action, according to a news release emanating from the City today, is to attempt to reduce the number of accidents on the highway.
"We are giving everyone a heads up because we want you to slow down," the news release slyly claimed a Kyle Police Lt. Andre Marmolejo actually said. I wonder about the authenticity of the statement only because obviously he can’t give "everyone a heads up" because, like I said earlier, I fully expect those caught in the speeder’s web will be from out of town.
And if they’re not from out of town, they deserve every punishment the law allows because Lt. Marmolejo did give you "a heads up" and I did what I could to pass it along.
You can’t say we didn’t warn you.
The Kyle Report
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Goods news and perhaps some not so good news about proposed Goodwill store
I must admit I was struck by a feeling of wistfulness bordering on sadness as I left City Hall following tonight’s Planning & Zoning Commission, turned left to walk to where my car was parked and immediately cast my eyes on the Kyle Library Thrift Store. That emotion swept over me because of the sudden and stark realization that, because of what just took place during that Planning & Zoning meeting, the days of the Kyle Library Thrift Store may be numbered.
That’s because the commissioners unanimously approved a conditional use permit for a 30,000- (30,001 actually) square-foot Goodwill Store immediately to the east of the Wal-Mart on Kyle Parkway. Frankly, I don’t see how the much smaller Kyle Library Thrift Store can compete against the overwhelming presence of a Goodwill giant whose operators told the commissioners this evening that they plan on employing as many as 300 persons to work at the facility. I’m not saying they can’t compete, but it’s going to be tough. So tough, in fact, I hope the owners/operators of the Kyle Library Thrift Store are thinking about another business model that would allow their establishment to remain as a locally owned and operated landmark in what hopefully will shortly become a revitalized and re-energized downtown Kyle.
But, then, I’m a relic of a bygone era, a product of the times when there weren’t giant chains dominating the retail market, when one did all their grocery shopping at the corner market with the fresh fruits and vegetables on display outside the store and that was no larger inside than … well … the Kyle Library Thrift Store. Oh, there were some chains — Robert Hall’s for men’s clothing and Buster Brown’s for kids’ shoes — but those stores didn’t overwhelm the mom-and-pops. On the contrary, they co-existed alongside with them.
And I know, no matter how much I miss listening to those radio episodes of The Lone Ranger, that I’m never going to be able to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, but that’s not going to stop me from feeling at least of tinge of nostalgia because of what is likely to be the fate of the Kyle Library Thrift Store.
On the positive side, I spoke to the individuals who made the pitch for the Goodwill Store before the commission immediately after the commission’s vote and learned Goodwill plans to lease the building, not own it. That’s good news because, if Goodwill Industries owned the building, being a 501(C)(3) corporation, it could have been exempt from property taxes and everyone knows that Kyle needs all the commercial property tax it can muster flowing into the city’s coffers.
Everything on the commission’s agenda tonight was approved unanimously, possibly because the one semi-controversial item, a zoning change request for a parcel of land largely in a 100-year flood plain, was withdrawn from consideration. The only item that didn’t receive affirmative votes from all seven commission members was the loopy letter the commission will be sending to the City Council which the commission decided to send instead of the Comprehensive Plan mid-term update the Council requested from the commission. I have absolutely no clue how the Council is going to receive this letter when it specifically requested an actual update. Not only that, I posed that question to Council member Shane Arabie who, as is his custom, attended tonight’s meeting, and he told me he had no clue either. Watch this space.
The only reason it did not receive the blessing of all seven commissioners was because newly appointed commissioner Brad Growt abstained from the voting because everything that took place regarding this issue occurred before he joined the commission.
In other action this evening, the commissioners
That’s because the commissioners unanimously approved a conditional use permit for a 30,000- (30,001 actually) square-foot Goodwill Store immediately to the east of the Wal-Mart on Kyle Parkway. Frankly, I don’t see how the much smaller Kyle Library Thrift Store can compete against the overwhelming presence of a Goodwill giant whose operators told the commissioners this evening that they plan on employing as many as 300 persons to work at the facility. I’m not saying they can’t compete, but it’s going to be tough. So tough, in fact, I hope the owners/operators of the Kyle Library Thrift Store are thinking about another business model that would allow their establishment to remain as a locally owned and operated landmark in what hopefully will shortly become a revitalized and re-energized downtown Kyle.
But, then, I’m a relic of a bygone era, a product of the times when there weren’t giant chains dominating the retail market, when one did all their grocery shopping at the corner market with the fresh fruits and vegetables on display outside the store and that was no larger inside than … well … the Kyle Library Thrift Store. Oh, there were some chains — Robert Hall’s for men’s clothing and Buster Brown’s for kids’ shoes — but those stores didn’t overwhelm the mom-and-pops. On the contrary, they co-existed alongside with them.
And I know, no matter how much I miss listening to those radio episodes of The Lone Ranger, that I’m never going to be able to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, but that’s not going to stop me from feeling at least of tinge of nostalgia because of what is likely to be the fate of the Kyle Library Thrift Store.
On the positive side, I spoke to the individuals who made the pitch for the Goodwill Store before the commission immediately after the commission’s vote and learned Goodwill plans to lease the building, not own it. That’s good news because, if Goodwill Industries owned the building, being a 501(C)(3) corporation, it could have been exempt from property taxes and everyone knows that Kyle needs all the commercial property tax it can muster flowing into the city’s coffers.
Everything on the commission’s agenda tonight was approved unanimously, possibly because the one semi-controversial item, a zoning change request for a parcel of land largely in a 100-year flood plain, was withdrawn from consideration. The only item that didn’t receive affirmative votes from all seven commission members was the loopy letter the commission will be sending to the City Council which the commission decided to send instead of the Comprehensive Plan mid-term update the Council requested from the commission. I have absolutely no clue how the Council is going to receive this letter when it specifically requested an actual update. Not only that, I posed that question to Council member Shane Arabie who, as is his custom, attended tonight’s meeting, and he told me he had no clue either. Watch this space.
The only reason it did not receive the blessing of all seven commissioners was because newly appointed commissioner Brad Growt abstained from the voting because everything that took place regarding this issue occurred before he joined the commission.
In other action this evening, the commissioners
- Recommended the City Council approve a request to rezone 1.118 acres at 289 Anton Drive, just off Beebee on Kyle’s eastern edge, from Agriculture to Retail Services to allow the owners to locate an automobile inspection facility there. The owners stressed the facility would conduct state inspections exclusively and the only thing remotely connected with automobile repair would be they might replace burned out light bulbs in the vehicles they inspected..
- Recommended the Council approve a request to rezone a 3.576 acre lot on the corner of Porter and Cockerham streets, just behind the Exxon station/convenience store on Rebel Drive, from single family residential to community commercial. According to Kyle’s zoning ordinances, "The purpose of the community commercial district [CC] is to provide for slightly more intense commercial uses than allowed in the neighborhood commercial zoning district. The district is established to provide areas for quality retail establishments and service facilities. This district should generally consist of retail nodes located along or at the intersection of major collectors or thoroughfares to accommodate higher traffic volumes." These are the kinds of establishments that may be located there: multi-family on the second floor and above shall be permitted by right regardless of base zoning; bed and breakfast up to five rooms; retail; restaurant; restaurant with drive-through; religious assembly; art gallery; child care center (outdoor playground allowed); fire/police station; professional office; funeral home; barber/beauty shop; convenience/grocery store; fuel station; nursing/retirement homes; veterinarian without outdoor boarding; health and fitness center; and/or a financial institution with drive-through banking. A spokesperson for the developer said the developer had specific plans for the lot. He wouldn’t divulge what they were, but said they adhere to what’s allowed in that zoning district.
- Granted a conditional use permit to construct two warehouse-type office buildings behind two similarly styled and constructed buildings on the east side of I-35, directly across the interstate from where Opal Lane intersects on the highway on the west side.
- Granted a variance from the Landscape Ordinance for an apartment complex being constructed on Marketplace Boulevard almost directly across the boulevard from the Kohl’s store because the land did not contain enough acreage to accommodate the number of trees required by the ordinance.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
City Charter, in its own way, addresses tie vote
This is an update to correct the confusion caused by my earlier reference to a section of the Texas Election Code that deals with elections decided by a plurality vote (i.e., an election where the person with the most votes wins regardless of that candidate’s percentage) when I should have referred to that section of the code referring to elections decided by a majority vote (i.e., a vote that requires the winner to have 50 percent of the vote plus one more, which is how elections are decided in Kyle).
Let me state at the outset, I don’t expect this Place 1 City Council election between incumbent Diane Hervol and business owner Travis Mitchell to end in a tie. A recount of yesterday’s votes will be conducted and I have never, ever, in my lifetime seen a recount in which the results weren’t altered. Most of those times those alternations were not large enough to affect the outcome of the election, but, obviously, in the case of a tie vote, any alteration most likely would change the results.
But what happens in the unlikely event the two candidates have the same number of votes even after the recount? I’ve heard several people express concern over the fact that the City’s charter doesn’t address that situation.
I’m here to tell you that it does. Section 5.11 of the charter reads: "If no candidate for an elective office receives a majority of the votes cast for that position in the regular or special election, a run-off shall be held between the two (2) candidates who received the greatest number of votes." That section is definitely applicable here. Obviously neither received a majority and the two candidates who tied "received the greatest number of votes" even though they were the only two candidates in the race. The charter does not specify how many candidates are required in a council election to trigger these provisions so, ergo, they must apply in all "regular or special elections."
The charter even addresses the prospect of another tie vote after the runoff. Later in that same section, the charter says "…if the run-off results in a tie vote, the tie shall be broken in a manner that is not inconsistent with the Texas Election Code."
And section 2.021 of the Texas Election Code says basically the same thing: "If no candidate for a particular office receives the vote necessary to be elected in an election requiring a majority vote, a runoff election for that office is required." And section 2.023 adds "…the candidates in a runoff election are the candidates who receive the highest and second highest number of votes in the main election or who tie for the highest number of votes."
Section 2.024 states: "Not later than the fifth day after the date the final canvass of the main election is completed, the authority responsible for ordering the main election shall order the runoff election" and the next section adds "…a runoff election shall be held not earlier than the 20th or later than the 45th day after the date the final canvass of the main election is completed."
I still think, however, all this probably won’t be necessary, because a recount of the vote, which should take place automatically in case of a tie, will solve the issue. And, if a recount isn’t automatically ordered, Mitchell told me today he would ask for one.
"It’s the right thing to do," the candidate said. "Even if the recount reveals I lost the race, I would rather lose knowing the vote was counted correctly than to have to go through all the trials and all the expense of another election."
Let me state at the outset, I don’t expect this Place 1 City Council election between incumbent Diane Hervol and business owner Travis Mitchell to end in a tie. A recount of yesterday’s votes will be conducted and I have never, ever, in my lifetime seen a recount in which the results weren’t altered. Most of those times those alternations were not large enough to affect the outcome of the election, but, obviously, in the case of a tie vote, any alteration most likely would change the results.
But what happens in the unlikely event the two candidates have the same number of votes even after the recount? I’ve heard several people express concern over the fact that the City’s charter doesn’t address that situation.
I’m here to tell you that it does. Section 5.11 of the charter reads: "If no candidate for an elective office receives a majority of the votes cast for that position in the regular or special election, a run-off shall be held between the two (2) candidates who received the greatest number of votes." That section is definitely applicable here. Obviously neither received a majority and the two candidates who tied "received the greatest number of votes" even though they were the only two candidates in the race. The charter does not specify how many candidates are required in a council election to trigger these provisions so, ergo, they must apply in all "regular or special elections."
The charter even addresses the prospect of another tie vote after the runoff. Later in that same section, the charter says "…if the run-off results in a tie vote, the tie shall be broken in a manner that is not inconsistent with the Texas Election Code."
And section 2.021 of the Texas Election Code says basically the same thing: "If no candidate for a particular office receives the vote necessary to be elected in an election requiring a majority vote, a runoff election for that office is required." And section 2.023 adds "…the candidates in a runoff election are the candidates who receive the highest and second highest number of votes in the main election or who tie for the highest number of votes."
Section 2.024 states: "Not later than the fifth day after the date the final canvass of the main election is completed, the authority responsible for ordering the main election shall order the runoff election" and the next section adds "…a runoff election shall be held not earlier than the 20th or later than the 45th day after the date the final canvass of the main election is completed."
I still think, however, all this probably won’t be necessary, because a recount of the vote, which should take place automatically in case of a tie, will solve the issue. And, if a recount isn’t automatically ordered, Mitchell told me today he would ask for one.
"It’s the right thing to do," the candidate said. "Even if the recount reveals I lost the race, I would rather lose knowing the vote was counted correctly than to have to go through all the trials and all the expense of another election."
Saturday, May 7, 2016
Mitchell, Hervol tie; Arabie wins easily
In yet another election with a dismally poor voter turnout, local business owner Travis Mitchell and incumbent Diane Hervol each captured 510 votes for Kyle City Council Place 1, according to today’s unofficial tally. Incumbent Shane Arabie easily won re-election, winning 533 votes (57.56%) to 393 for bartender Randall Lloyd. Neither Mitchell nor Lloyd had ever held a political position — elected or appointed — prior to the election. All the proposed charter amendments, except the one involving the dismissal of the Finance Director, passed handily.
Only a paltry 6.04 percent of the city’s 17,409 registered voters cast a ballot and the Hervol-Mitchell tie officially buries the notion of "Why should I bother to vote? My vote doesn’t count anyway."
The tie vote apparently triggers an automatic recount. Provisional and overseas ballots still need to be tabulated and, apparently, when all that’s said and done, in the rather unlikely event the election results are still knotted, another election will have to be held.
"I’m disappointed," Hervol said. "I worked really hard, but I am determined to work even harder the next time."
Mitchell said he "went from being very dejected" when the early voting results were announced "to being bewildered. No one thought I could come back when only 300 votes were cast today, but I’ll be forever thankful to all those voters who showed up for me today."
Mitchell only won 34.62 percent of the absentee votes against Hervol’s 65.38 percent, according to the returns posted by Hays County. Hervol also won 51.14 percent of the early voting to Mitchell’s 48.86 percent. But Mitchell rebounded to win today’s totals 57.67 percent to 42.33 percent for Hervol, an indication of who had the superior election day get-out-the-vote effort.
Arabie, elected to his first full three-year term (he was first elected in 2014 to fill an unexpired term) said he was "elated" over the results. "They are a reflection of the work we put forth. Now I’m happy it’s over."
Arabie also called the overwhelming support of the charter change recommendations an endorsement of "just how well the Charter Review Commission did its job. I could not be happier about these results." He said he believed the rejection of the one proposed charter change had more to do with the way it was worded than because of its substance and believed the low turnout in today’s election would not be repeated now that the municipal voting will be moving to November.
Lloyd said he was resigned to the outcome even before the votes weere tabulated.
"I find of figured that’s how it would turn out," Lloyd said. "I wish Shane the best of luck and look forward to talking with him soon." Lloyd did not rule out another City Council campaign in the future. "It just might happen," he said.
The charter election turned out like this:
Prop. 1:Shall Sections 4.03 (g) (o) (p), 5.11 of the City Charter be amended to require submission to the qualified voters of the City to eliminate provisions which have become inoperative because they have been superseded by state law; replace obsolete references; update terminology to current legal usage, and to eliminate obsolete transitional provisions? For: 806 (81.5%); Against 183 (18.5%)
Prop 2: Shall Section 3.05 of the City Charter be amended to require submission to the qualified voters of the City to add causes to remove any elected officer to also include habitual substance abuse and conviction of a misdemeanor involving a crime of moral turpitude which are crimes involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, deliberate violence, or that reflect adversely on an elected official’s honesty, trustworthiness? For: 871 (86.49%); Against 136 (13.51%)
Prop 3: Shall Sections 4.01 and 4.03 of the City Charter be amended to authorize the City Council to recommend and approve appointments to all City Boards and Commissions? For: 643 (65.08%); Against: 345 (34.92%).
Prop 4: Shall Section 4.03 (a) of the City Charter be amended to eliminate the requirement of Council confirmation on the dismissal of the Director of Finance? For: 468 (48.9); Against: 489 (51.1%).
Prop.5: Shall Section 4.05 of the City Charter be amended to clarify that neither the Mayor nor Council shall instruct the City Manager or any city employee to hire or terminate any city employee and require the Mayor and Council to go through the City Manager for administrative and management functions of the City? For: 765 (78.3%); Against: 212 (21.7%)
Prop. 6: Shall Section 5.02 of the City Charter be amended to move the City’s general election date for the Mayor and Councilmembers from May to November and approve a transitional provision extending terms of those elected in May 2016 and those expiring in May 2017 and May 2018 to November 2017, November 2018 and November 2019? For: 702 (72.6%); Against 265 (27.4%).
Prop. 7: Shall Section 7.10 of the City Charter be amended to clarify that the City Attorney shall report to the City Manager but remain appointed by the Mayor and City Council? For: 718 (74.48%); Against 246 (25.52%).
Prop. 8: Shall Section 8.09 of the City Charter be amended to require two authorized signatures, one must be either the City Manager or Finance Director, for checks, vouchers, warrants or withdrawal of funds from city depositories? For: 859 (88.28%); Against 114 (11.72%).
Prop. 9: Shall Section 8.11 (e) of the City Charter be added so that any issuance of debt not have a repayment period greater than the life of the asset(s) being funded? For: 836 (86.54%); Against: 130 (13.46%).
Prop 10: Shall Section 8.11 (f) of the City Charter be added so that any issuance of debt or instrument of obligation exceeding 5% of the annual assessed valuation of the city shall only be issued with a binding referendum being placed on the ballot and such expenditure approved by the voters? For: 802 (83.8%); Against: 155 (16.2%).
Prop 11: Shall Section 13.10 of the City Charter be added so that all meetings, hearings and workshops of the Council, any Board, Commission or Committee of the City shall comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act and shall provide a time for public comment? For: 912 (91.75%); Against: 82 (8.257%).
I must admit, those 82 votes against Prop. 11 is a real head-scratcher. I prefer to think there are 82 semi-misguided souls out there who simply robotically voted against all 11 proposed charter changes. I only hope there are not actually 82 deranged wackos out there who really believe all city government business should be conducted in secret, behind closed doors, with the public permanently excluded from any and all deliberations and decision-making.
One can always hope.
Only a paltry 6.04 percent of the city’s 17,409 registered voters cast a ballot and the Hervol-Mitchell tie officially buries the notion of "Why should I bother to vote? My vote doesn’t count anyway."
The tie vote apparently triggers an automatic recount. Provisional and overseas ballots still need to be tabulated and, apparently, when all that’s said and done, in the rather unlikely event the election results are still knotted, another election will have to be held.
"I’m disappointed," Hervol said. "I worked really hard, but I am determined to work even harder the next time."
Mitchell said he "went from being very dejected" when the early voting results were announced "to being bewildered. No one thought I could come back when only 300 votes were cast today, but I’ll be forever thankful to all those voters who showed up for me today."
Mitchell only won 34.62 percent of the absentee votes against Hervol’s 65.38 percent, according to the returns posted by Hays County. Hervol also won 51.14 percent of the early voting to Mitchell’s 48.86 percent. But Mitchell rebounded to win today’s totals 57.67 percent to 42.33 percent for Hervol, an indication of who had the superior election day get-out-the-vote effort.
Arabie, elected to his first full three-year term (he was first elected in 2014 to fill an unexpired term) said he was "elated" over the results. "They are a reflection of the work we put forth. Now I’m happy it’s over."
Arabie also called the overwhelming support of the charter change recommendations an endorsement of "just how well the Charter Review Commission did its job. I could not be happier about these results." He said he believed the rejection of the one proposed charter change had more to do with the way it was worded than because of its substance and believed the low turnout in today’s election would not be repeated now that the municipal voting will be moving to November.
Lloyd said he was resigned to the outcome even before the votes weere tabulated.
"I find of figured that’s how it would turn out," Lloyd said. "I wish Shane the best of luck and look forward to talking with him soon." Lloyd did not rule out another City Council campaign in the future. "It just might happen," he said.
The charter election turned out like this:
Prop. 1:Shall Sections 4.03 (g) (o) (p), 5.11 of the City Charter be amended to require submission to the qualified voters of the City to eliminate provisions which have become inoperative because they have been superseded by state law; replace obsolete references; update terminology to current legal usage, and to eliminate obsolete transitional provisions? For: 806 (81.5%); Against 183 (18.5%)
Prop 2: Shall Section 3.05 of the City Charter be amended to require submission to the qualified voters of the City to add causes to remove any elected officer to also include habitual substance abuse and conviction of a misdemeanor involving a crime of moral turpitude which are crimes involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, deliberate violence, or that reflect adversely on an elected official’s honesty, trustworthiness? For: 871 (86.49%); Against 136 (13.51%)
Prop 3: Shall Sections 4.01 and 4.03 of the City Charter be amended to authorize the City Council to recommend and approve appointments to all City Boards and Commissions? For: 643 (65.08%); Against: 345 (34.92%).
Prop 4: Shall Section 4.03 (a) of the City Charter be amended to eliminate the requirement of Council confirmation on the dismissal of the Director of Finance? For: 468 (48.9); Against: 489 (51.1%).
Prop.5: Shall Section 4.05 of the City Charter be amended to clarify that neither the Mayor nor Council shall instruct the City Manager or any city employee to hire or terminate any city employee and require the Mayor and Council to go through the City Manager for administrative and management functions of the City? For: 765 (78.3%); Against: 212 (21.7%)
Prop. 6: Shall Section 5.02 of the City Charter be amended to move the City’s general election date for the Mayor and Councilmembers from May to November and approve a transitional provision extending terms of those elected in May 2016 and those expiring in May 2017 and May 2018 to November 2017, November 2018 and November 2019? For: 702 (72.6%); Against 265 (27.4%).
Prop. 7: Shall Section 7.10 of the City Charter be amended to clarify that the City Attorney shall report to the City Manager but remain appointed by the Mayor and City Council? For: 718 (74.48%); Against 246 (25.52%).
Prop. 8: Shall Section 8.09 of the City Charter be amended to require two authorized signatures, one must be either the City Manager or Finance Director, for checks, vouchers, warrants or withdrawal of funds from city depositories? For: 859 (88.28%); Against 114 (11.72%).
Prop. 9: Shall Section 8.11 (e) of the City Charter be added so that any issuance of debt not have a repayment period greater than the life of the asset(s) being funded? For: 836 (86.54%); Against: 130 (13.46%).
Prop 10: Shall Section 8.11 (f) of the City Charter be added so that any issuance of debt or instrument of obligation exceeding 5% of the annual assessed valuation of the city shall only be issued with a binding referendum being placed on the ballot and such expenditure approved by the voters? For: 802 (83.8%); Against: 155 (16.2%).
Prop 11: Shall Section 13.10 of the City Charter be added so that all meetings, hearings and workshops of the Council, any Board, Commission or Committee of the City shall comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act and shall provide a time for public comment? For: 912 (91.75%); Against: 82 (8.257%).
I must admit, those 82 votes against Prop. 11 is a real head-scratcher. I prefer to think there are 82 semi-misguided souls out there who simply robotically voted against all 11 proposed charter changes. I only hope there are not actually 82 deranged wackos out there who really believe all city government business should be conducted in secret, behind closed doors, with the public permanently excluded from any and all deliberations and decision-making.
One can always hope.
Incumbents lead in early voting
Incumbents Diane Hervol and Shane Arabie led in early voting in the election for Kyle City Council and all but one of the proposed charter changes — the one involving how the city’s finance director can be replaced — appear heading for approval by comfortable margins.
Hervol, seeking her third term on the council, led local businessman Travis Mitchell with 53 percent of the early vote (383-337). Arabie held a slightly more comfortable lead over bartender Randall Lloyd, capturing 58 percent of the early votes cast (390-281).
The only proposed charter change in any trouble of being rejected was one that would have eliminated the requirement that the council must confirm any action taken by a city manager to dismiss the city’s finance director. It’s close, however, with 50.8 percent of the absentee voters casting ballots against that change. Somewhat surprisingly, the proposed change to make this election that last municipal one to be held in May is passing easily with almost 73 percent of the absentee voters favoring that change. If that passes, as it looks like it will, future municipal elections will be in November.
A breakdown of the early voting on all the charter amendments looks like this:
Prop. 1:Shall Sections 4.03 (g) (o) (p), 5.11 of the City Charter be amended to require submission to the qualified voters of the City to eliminate provisions which have become inoperative because they have been superseded by state law; replace obsolete references; update terminology to current legal usage, and to eliminate obsolete transitional provisions? For: 579 (83%); Against 122 (17%)
Prop 2: Shall Section 3.05 of the City Charter be amended to require submission to the qualified voters of the City to add causes to remove any elected officer to also include habitual substance abuse and conviction of a misdemeanor involving a crime of moral turpitude which are crimes involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, deliberate violence, or that reflect adversely on an elected official’s honesty, trustworthiness? For: 623 (87%); Against 92 (17%)
Prop 3: Shall Sections 4.01 and 4.03 of the City Charter be amended to authorize the City Council to recommend and approve appointments to all City Boards and Commissions? For: 456 (65%); Against: 244 (35%).
Prop 4: Shall Section 4.03 (a) of the City Charter be amended to eliminate the requirement of Council confirmation on the dismissal of the Director of Finance? For: 334 (49%); Against: 345 (51%).
Prop.5: Shall Section 4.05 of the City Charter be amended to clarify that neither the Mayor nor Council shall instruct the City Manager or any city employee to hire or terminate any city employee and require the Mayor and Council to go through the City Manager for administrative and management functions of the City? For: 546 (79%); Against: 147 (21%)
Prop. 6: Shall Section 5.02 of the City Charter be amended to move the City’s general election date for the Mayor and Councilmembers from May to November and approve a transitional provision extending terms of those elected in May 2016 and those expiring in May 2017 and May 2018 to November 2017, November 2018 and November 2019? For: 506 (74%); Against 181 (26%).
Prop. 7: Shall Section 7.10 of the City Charter be amended to clarify that the City Attorney shall report to the City Manager but remain appointed by the Mayor and City Council? For: 520 (76%); Against 165 (24%).
Prop. 8: Shall Section 8.09 of the City Charter be amended to require two authorized signatures, one must be either the City Manager or Finance Director, for checks, vouchers, warrants or withdrawal of funds from city depositories? For: 614 (89%); Against 78 (11%).
Prop. 9: Shall Section 8.11 (e) of the City Charter be added so that any issuance of debt not have a repayment period greater than the life of the asset(s) being funded? For: 606 (88%); Against: 87 (12%).
Prop 10: Shall Section 8.11 (f) of the City Charter be added so that any issuance of debt or instrument of obligation exceeding 5% of the annual assessed valuation of the city shall only be issued with a binding referendum being placed on the ballot and such expenditure approved by the voters? For: 576 (84%); Against: 106 (16%).
Prop 11: Shall Section 13.10 of the City Charter be added so that all meetings, hearings and workshops of the Council, any Board, Commission or Committee of the City shall comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act and shall provide a time for public comment? For: 656 (93%); Against: 51 (7%).
Hervol, seeking her third term on the council, led local businessman Travis Mitchell with 53 percent of the early vote (383-337). Arabie held a slightly more comfortable lead over bartender Randall Lloyd, capturing 58 percent of the early votes cast (390-281).
The only proposed charter change in any trouble of being rejected was one that would have eliminated the requirement that the council must confirm any action taken by a city manager to dismiss the city’s finance director. It’s close, however, with 50.8 percent of the absentee voters casting ballots against that change. Somewhat surprisingly, the proposed change to make this election that last municipal one to be held in May is passing easily with almost 73 percent of the absentee voters favoring that change. If that passes, as it looks like it will, future municipal elections will be in November.
A breakdown of the early voting on all the charter amendments looks like this:
Prop. 1:Shall Sections 4.03 (g) (o) (p), 5.11 of the City Charter be amended to require submission to the qualified voters of the City to eliminate provisions which have become inoperative because they have been superseded by state law; replace obsolete references; update terminology to current legal usage, and to eliminate obsolete transitional provisions? For: 579 (83%); Against 122 (17%)
Prop 2: Shall Section 3.05 of the City Charter be amended to require submission to the qualified voters of the City to add causes to remove any elected officer to also include habitual substance abuse and conviction of a misdemeanor involving a crime of moral turpitude which are crimes involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, deliberate violence, or that reflect adversely on an elected official’s honesty, trustworthiness? For: 623 (87%); Against 92 (17%)
Prop 3: Shall Sections 4.01 and 4.03 of the City Charter be amended to authorize the City Council to recommend and approve appointments to all City Boards and Commissions? For: 456 (65%); Against: 244 (35%).
Prop 4: Shall Section 4.03 (a) of the City Charter be amended to eliminate the requirement of Council confirmation on the dismissal of the Director of Finance? For: 334 (49%); Against: 345 (51%).
Prop.5: Shall Section 4.05 of the City Charter be amended to clarify that neither the Mayor nor Council shall instruct the City Manager or any city employee to hire or terminate any city employee and require the Mayor and Council to go through the City Manager for administrative and management functions of the City? For: 546 (79%); Against: 147 (21%)
Prop. 6: Shall Section 5.02 of the City Charter be amended to move the City’s general election date for the Mayor and Councilmembers from May to November and approve a transitional provision extending terms of those elected in May 2016 and those expiring in May 2017 and May 2018 to November 2017, November 2018 and November 2019? For: 506 (74%); Against 181 (26%).
Prop. 7: Shall Section 7.10 of the City Charter be amended to clarify that the City Attorney shall report to the City Manager but remain appointed by the Mayor and City Council? For: 520 (76%); Against 165 (24%).
Prop. 8: Shall Section 8.09 of the City Charter be amended to require two authorized signatures, one must be either the City Manager or Finance Director, for checks, vouchers, warrants or withdrawal of funds from city depositories? For: 614 (89%); Against 78 (11%).
Prop. 9: Shall Section 8.11 (e) of the City Charter be added so that any issuance of debt not have a repayment period greater than the life of the asset(s) being funded? For: 606 (88%); Against: 87 (12%).
Prop 10: Shall Section 8.11 (f) of the City Charter be added so that any issuance of debt or instrument of obligation exceeding 5% of the annual assessed valuation of the city shall only be issued with a binding referendum being placed on the ballot and such expenditure approved by the voters? For: 576 (84%); Against: 106 (16%).
Prop 11: Shall Section 13.10 of the City Charter be added so that all meetings, hearings and workshops of the Council, any Board, Commission or Committee of the City shall comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act and shall provide a time for public comment? For: 656 (93%); Against: 51 (7%).
Giant Goodwill store planned next to Wal-Mart
The Planning & Zoning Commission will be asked Tuesday evening to grant a conditional use permit that will pave the way for the construction of a 30,000-square foot Goodwill Industries store at 901 Seton Parkway, basically just east of the Wal-Mart store on Kyle Parkway.
This is the same project that recently asked for and received from P&Z a request for an extension of the city’s cul-de-sac length limitations
Goodwill retail stores, as most know, fund the operations of Goodwill Industries, a nonprofit 501(C)(3) organization that provides job training, employment placement services, and other community-based programs for people who have disabilities. In 2014, the last yea figures were available, Goodwill organizations generated $5.37 billion in revenue, 83 percent of which was spent directly on programs. In that time, the group created 89 million jobs.
Goodwill was started in Boston in 1902 by Methodist Rev. Edgar J. Helms, who, together with his congregation at Morgan Methodist Church, collected used household goods and clothing that was discarded in the wealthiest sections of the city, then hired unemployed workers to repair or mend them. Those products were then redistributed to those in need.
I’m guessing the permit request will be granted without much controversy.
Another item on the commission’s agenda might face a more contentious discussion, however.That’s one seeking the rezoning of a five-acre plot at 245 Lehman, just north of RR 150, from agricultural to warehouse. I’m not sure what the applicant wants to do at this location, which currently houses one residence and two other buildings. The accompanying materials only say the applicant wants "to provide locations for outlets offering goods and services to a targeted segment of the general public as well as industrial users," which could mean just about anything.
Here’s the Rub: 60 percent of the lot is located in the 100-year floodplain of the Elliot Branch. Another problem is the Comprehensive Plan which has labeled this area as a Regional Node, where warehouse zoning is not recommended, even conditionally. According to the Comprehensive Plan, Regional Nodes "should provide a mixture of uses that complements regional commercial activity, as well as encourage high intensity residential development." In other words, this would be a perfect area for mixed use developments, according to the Comprehensive Plan. Currently, Kyle does not offer any kind of mixed-use specific zoning, but I’m expecting that to change soon.
But that floodplain location presents a definite deterrent.
The complete agenda for Tuesday’s meeting can be found here.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Kyle expands by 50 percent, Mayor wants city to take over wrecker services
According to official City figures, Kyle’s geographical footprint is 20.36 square miles. Last night, by a 5-1 vote (council member Diane Hervol dissenting and council member Becky Selbera was absent) the City Council approved on second reading an ordinance annexing 6,517 acres into the city. Using the conversation rate of 640 acres to a square mile, that’s 10.267 square miles annexed which has the effect of increasing the size of the city by a whopping 50 percent. Not only that, this is prime property, encompassing both sides of the Blanco River, that is not only ripe for development but on which major developmental projects — commercial as well as residential — are already underway, even if some are only at the conceptual stage at the moment.
The annexation was okayed following the approval, by a 4-2 vote, of two complex development agreements and, by a 5-1 vote, a third "interim" agreement. Both Hervol and council member Daphne Tenorio cast "nay" votes on the first two agreements. Tenorio voted in favor of the third one, but, she told me after the meeting, that was only because it was an "interim" agreement and she’ll have the opportunity to vote again when the final agreement is reached. Others on the council said a second vote won’t be necessary, but they seem to be mistaken, at least according to the city’s staff.
"The interim development agreement between the city and Blanco Ranch Properties LP is a binding legal development agreement which stipulates that additional terms are still being negotiated," city spokesperson Kim Hilsenbeck told me today. "In essence, it is the first of a two-part agreement, with the final agreement simply augmenting the first. Both parties will continue to negotiate in good faith and come to a final agreement, which would then come back to Kyle City Council for a vote."
Hervol and Tenorio objected to the development agreements because, they maintained, they only received the voluminous documents right before the vote and hadn’t had time to study them, which, in Hervol’s case, was a touch hypocritical because earlier in the meeting she asked the council to approve a stop sign ordinance for the Amberwood subdivision which she changed radically (by changing the location of most of the stop signs) seconds before the vote, thus denying her colleagues the opportunity to study the necessity and the ramifications of those changes.
Prior to this discussion and after hearing the owner of one particular wrecking company grousing about being deliberately excluded from a meeting she actually attended, Mayor Todd Webster surprised everyone in the chambers by suggesting the City assume control of its wrecker needs and create its own auto pound, the proceeds of which could also be used to fund an in-house small-vehicle maintenance department. After the initial shock of the suggestion wore off, the majority of the council appeared to like the idea and, as part of passing, on second reading, amendments to the current wrecker ordinance, instructed the city’s staff to look into the feasibility of such a takeover. I’m guessing there’s a good chance such an idea could be a part of the City’s FY 2016-17 budget. It makes sense because currently, to cite just one example, the City has to send its police cars out to a privately owned garage every time one of them needs a tuneup or an oil change. It would be a significant taxpayer savings if those and similar chores could be performed in-house.
Following a one-hour, 18-minute executive session during which, presumably, the city attorney briefed the council members ad nauseam about the terms of the annexation development agreements, Assistant City Manager James Earp, who led the negotiations on most of the agreements, explained them publicly.
"We have looked at preserving certain rights and privileges afforded to the property owner prior to annexation," City Manager Scott Sellers said, launching into a description of the first development agreement between the City and Blanco River Investments LTD, Miriam McCoy and Robert Scott Nance. "For example, there are certain special exemptions that this property would receive, such as hunting, firearms, burning and other grandfathered uses. The term of the annexation would be based upon development. There are certain phases of development."
Sellers then asked Earp to continue.
The first agreement, Earp said, "is a 20-year term on the agreement, with two renewal periods. The first renewal period is an additional 15 years and the second renewal period is10 years. That totals 45 years which is the amount allowed by state law. The entitlements for development standards are included in the development agreement. They are entitling a base R-1-2 zoning and specifying 70 acres specific for multi-family and 162 acres for commercial and they’ve included their variances from the development code. Those variances have been reviewed by planning staff and negotiated with them and ultimately accepted by planning staff. Included in the agreement is a five-year freeze on fees and that five-year freeze occurs at the execution date. At the end of five years the fees re-set to the prevailing rate and those rates lock in for another five years. So, for every five years, their fees lock into whatever the prevailing rates are. They’ve included park land. They will include park land dedication and they will agree to pay the park land fees that are established to date, which is $600 for park land dedication and $600 for park land improvements per lot. They have requested a partial recovery of impact fees which would be credited to them for any utilities that require over-sizing by the City’s request. In other words, they have to assume 100 percent of the costs to put in the utilities for their development, but if the City should require the oversize of that utility, they would be eligible to recover the incremental difference. They request a 380 sales tax rebate for the commercial property. Their exposure for commercial property is mostly limited to the (Highway) 150 realignment and they’ve requested that be a 10-year term on the commercial property at 90 percent rebate for years one through four, a 70 percent rebate for years five through eight, and a 50 percent rebate for years nine and 10. That is on the city’s 1 percent sales tax it would collect in the area for the commercial property and again is limited to the 162 acres of commercial that they’ve identified. They currently have several homestead residences that are on the property so they’ve asked for a 10-year window whereby they would receive 100 percent rebate of the city’s property tax on their current homesteads as if they had not been annexed. For commercial property they’re asking for 75 percent property tax rebate for 10 years as the commercial comes on-line. The development agreement also requests a 100 percent city rollback tax for a 10-year window. They have the ability to form a PID in the future. They are entitling 8,200 LUEs. Their total acreage roughly is 3,203 acres. They have included provisions for a property owners association/homeowners association. And that gives an overall density of the project of 2.56 units per acre."
Earp said because the total commercial was only 162 acres, the potential sales tax loss to the city would be "fairly negligible." Earp also added "I am aware that the ESD has mentioned here in public session that they are looking to petition for the additional sales tax that’s available. If the properties don’t annex, then the city would never collect any sales tax on that property from now on without a separate agreement with the ESD. So this is a 10-year rebate to them for commercial development which is line with our other economic development incentives."
The terms of the second agreement, between the City and Robert Scott Nance, Jason Bradshaw and Joel Bradshaw, Earp said, were almost identical to the previously outlined one "because both the McCoy and the Nance family from the very beginning came with a unified front and a unified vision for what they wanted their properties to look like. And they did a lot of the planning together. They did use different attorneys and (thus) have different agreements."
One of the differences, Earp said, is the owners involved in the second agreement did not specify the acreage "that would be set aside for the different commercial and multi-family portions." They did, however, designate a specific area to be developed into a park, a 15-acre tract along the Blanco River, plus an additional 30-acre park as well as hike-and-bike trails that would connect the two parks. The 380 agreement was slightly different as well — 75 percent rebate for years one through five and a 25 percent rebate years six through 10.
"Their property has the potential for a bridge to be built across the Blanco River that would serve the west side of the Blanco River," Earp said. "That’s a huge capital expenditure for any individual developer to try to tackle. So they’ve asked for the potential for government participation in that expenditure, the vision being the bridge would then serve as a regional asset to those folks living on the other side of the river that don’t have a way out whenever the river floods."
They have also asked the City to provide a utility plan "and that the owner reserves the right to build the infrastructure for that utility plan should the City fail to perform," Earp said. If that happens, then the City would be required to reimburse the owner for those expenses.
Sellers led the discussion on the third proposed agreement, one between the City and Blanco River Ranch Properties, that Sellers described as "a little different" from the previously outlined pacts. The developer involved in this agreement "is much closer to development," Sellers said, "has a plan that’s already been put in place and is seeking for very quick turnaround from the Council. As such there were certain financial mechanisms the developer was looking for to assist in the ultimate construction and development of the property. Several options were discussed and it was finally determined that the City would enter into an out-of-city PID arrangement with the developer with the ability to finance certain rough proportional infrastructure improvements back to the City as part of each PID bond issue, These issues would take up to 10 percent of the total PID allotment of the total project — not necessarily 10 percent per issue, but at the end of the day, it could not exceed 10 percent of the PID bonds. Their property is not going to be annexed like the other properties, but rather the City will annex all the commercial portions of the property first. This will allow the residential areas to remain out of the city and be part of the residential PID."
Although Sellers acknowledged this was an interim agreement, he added "The developer has held out if we cannot come to an agreement as we negotiate this final development agreement, then the developer will have the ability to petition for disannexation and the City Council would proceed, in good faith, with disannexation."
On another subject discussed previously during the Council session, Mayor Webster, after listening to wrecker service owners grumble they were not aware of meetings they actually attended and did not have a large enough role in the drafting of the wrecker ordinance amendments, plus hearing one council member fret that the changes to the existing ordinance might cause at least one wrecker company to lose income (a subject I plan to deal with quite forcibly in a separate article), appeared to be fed up with the overall tenor of the debate.
"This entire conversation is backwards." he said. "The longer it has taken place, the less supportive I have become. I want to end this. I don’t understand why we just don’t go into this business for ourselves if all these people are just going to claw each other’s eyes out over whether this person has screwed that company. It feels really dirty to me. All of it. I’m just going to say it. This is the worst example since I’ve been mayor of underhanded, behind-the-scenes lobbying going on.
"This is wrong, what’s going on here," the mayor stated. "On all sides. What this started out two weeks ago was just a cleanup to correct a few problems with (the original ordinance) and now it has been turned into ‘Let’s see how my company can get leverage over another company. Let’s see who we can screw out of the business, who we can keep out of Kyle and who we can keep in.’
"The problem here is we’re not focused on the people that need the service," the mayor said. "We’re not focused on that. Instead, we’re focusing on the people who will be providing the service. And that’s wrong. So, from where I sit, at this point I feel we need to do our own impound lot, get our own tow truck and put ‘em all out of business."
Frankly, his idea has a lot of merit, although it would not put the other wrecker companies out of business because they would still be able to contract with private businesses, apartment complexes, etc., to handle specific needs. They simply would be excluded from dealing with vehicles involved in accidents on public roadways or vehicles impounded at the reuest of the City for other reasons.
One thing that was not mentioned, but I’m positive Police Chief Jeff Barnett would agree with me, that a city-operated impound lot could also help police criminal investigators who need to quickly examine automobiles seized for their possible involvement in criminal activities.
There was a lot of affirmative head-nodding taking place among the Council members to convince me that, at least right at this moment, they are looking favorably at this idea of a City-operated wrecker service and impound lot, the proceeds of which could be used to fund an in-house fleet maintenance department; i.e., the proverbial two birds with one budget item.
The annexation was okayed following the approval, by a 4-2 vote, of two complex development agreements and, by a 5-1 vote, a third "interim" agreement. Both Hervol and council member Daphne Tenorio cast "nay" votes on the first two agreements. Tenorio voted in favor of the third one, but, she told me after the meeting, that was only because it was an "interim" agreement and she’ll have the opportunity to vote again when the final agreement is reached. Others on the council said a second vote won’t be necessary, but they seem to be mistaken, at least according to the city’s staff.
"The interim development agreement between the city and Blanco Ranch Properties LP is a binding legal development agreement which stipulates that additional terms are still being negotiated," city spokesperson Kim Hilsenbeck told me today. "In essence, it is the first of a two-part agreement, with the final agreement simply augmenting the first. Both parties will continue to negotiate in good faith and come to a final agreement, which would then come back to Kyle City Council for a vote."
Hervol and Tenorio objected to the development agreements because, they maintained, they only received the voluminous documents right before the vote and hadn’t had time to study them, which, in Hervol’s case, was a touch hypocritical because earlier in the meeting she asked the council to approve a stop sign ordinance for the Amberwood subdivision which she changed radically (by changing the location of most of the stop signs) seconds before the vote, thus denying her colleagues the opportunity to study the necessity and the ramifications of those changes.
Prior to this discussion and after hearing the owner of one particular wrecking company grousing about being deliberately excluded from a meeting she actually attended, Mayor Todd Webster surprised everyone in the chambers by suggesting the City assume control of its wrecker needs and create its own auto pound, the proceeds of which could also be used to fund an in-house small-vehicle maintenance department. After the initial shock of the suggestion wore off, the majority of the council appeared to like the idea and, as part of passing, on second reading, amendments to the current wrecker ordinance, instructed the city’s staff to look into the feasibility of such a takeover. I’m guessing there’s a good chance such an idea could be a part of the City’s FY 2016-17 budget. It makes sense because currently, to cite just one example, the City has to send its police cars out to a privately owned garage every time one of them needs a tuneup or an oil change. It would be a significant taxpayer savings if those and similar chores could be performed in-house.
Following a one-hour, 18-minute executive session during which, presumably, the city attorney briefed the council members ad nauseam about the terms of the annexation development agreements, Assistant City Manager James Earp, who led the negotiations on most of the agreements, explained them publicly.
"We have looked at preserving certain rights and privileges afforded to the property owner prior to annexation," City Manager Scott Sellers said, launching into a description of the first development agreement between the City and Blanco River Investments LTD, Miriam McCoy and Robert Scott Nance. "For example, there are certain special exemptions that this property would receive, such as hunting, firearms, burning and other grandfathered uses. The term of the annexation would be based upon development. There are certain phases of development."
Sellers then asked Earp to continue.
The first agreement, Earp said, "is a 20-year term on the agreement, with two renewal periods. The first renewal period is an additional 15 years and the second renewal period is10 years. That totals 45 years which is the amount allowed by state law. The entitlements for development standards are included in the development agreement. They are entitling a base R-1-2 zoning and specifying 70 acres specific for multi-family and 162 acres for commercial and they’ve included their variances from the development code. Those variances have been reviewed by planning staff and negotiated with them and ultimately accepted by planning staff. Included in the agreement is a five-year freeze on fees and that five-year freeze occurs at the execution date. At the end of five years the fees re-set to the prevailing rate and those rates lock in for another five years. So, for every five years, their fees lock into whatever the prevailing rates are. They’ve included park land. They will include park land dedication and they will agree to pay the park land fees that are established to date, which is $600 for park land dedication and $600 for park land improvements per lot. They have requested a partial recovery of impact fees which would be credited to them for any utilities that require over-sizing by the City’s request. In other words, they have to assume 100 percent of the costs to put in the utilities for their development, but if the City should require the oversize of that utility, they would be eligible to recover the incremental difference. They request a 380 sales tax rebate for the commercial property. Their exposure for commercial property is mostly limited to the (Highway) 150 realignment and they’ve requested that be a 10-year term on the commercial property at 90 percent rebate for years one through four, a 70 percent rebate for years five through eight, and a 50 percent rebate for years nine and 10. That is on the city’s 1 percent sales tax it would collect in the area for the commercial property and again is limited to the 162 acres of commercial that they’ve identified. They currently have several homestead residences that are on the property so they’ve asked for a 10-year window whereby they would receive 100 percent rebate of the city’s property tax on their current homesteads as if they had not been annexed. For commercial property they’re asking for 75 percent property tax rebate for 10 years as the commercial comes on-line. The development agreement also requests a 100 percent city rollback tax for a 10-year window. They have the ability to form a PID in the future. They are entitling 8,200 LUEs. Their total acreage roughly is 3,203 acres. They have included provisions for a property owners association/homeowners association. And that gives an overall density of the project of 2.56 units per acre."
Earp said because the total commercial was only 162 acres, the potential sales tax loss to the city would be "fairly negligible." Earp also added "I am aware that the ESD has mentioned here in public session that they are looking to petition for the additional sales tax that’s available. If the properties don’t annex, then the city would never collect any sales tax on that property from now on without a separate agreement with the ESD. So this is a 10-year rebate to them for commercial development which is line with our other economic development incentives."
The terms of the second agreement, between the City and Robert Scott Nance, Jason Bradshaw and Joel Bradshaw, Earp said, were almost identical to the previously outlined one "because both the McCoy and the Nance family from the very beginning came with a unified front and a unified vision for what they wanted their properties to look like. And they did a lot of the planning together. They did use different attorneys and (thus) have different agreements."
One of the differences, Earp said, is the owners involved in the second agreement did not specify the acreage "that would be set aside for the different commercial and multi-family portions." They did, however, designate a specific area to be developed into a park, a 15-acre tract along the Blanco River, plus an additional 30-acre park as well as hike-and-bike trails that would connect the two parks. The 380 agreement was slightly different as well — 75 percent rebate for years one through five and a 25 percent rebate years six through 10.
"Their property has the potential for a bridge to be built across the Blanco River that would serve the west side of the Blanco River," Earp said. "That’s a huge capital expenditure for any individual developer to try to tackle. So they’ve asked for the potential for government participation in that expenditure, the vision being the bridge would then serve as a regional asset to those folks living on the other side of the river that don’t have a way out whenever the river floods."
They have also asked the City to provide a utility plan "and that the owner reserves the right to build the infrastructure for that utility plan should the City fail to perform," Earp said. If that happens, then the City would be required to reimburse the owner for those expenses.
Sellers led the discussion on the third proposed agreement, one between the City and Blanco River Ranch Properties, that Sellers described as "a little different" from the previously outlined pacts. The developer involved in this agreement "is much closer to development," Sellers said, "has a plan that’s already been put in place and is seeking for very quick turnaround from the Council. As such there were certain financial mechanisms the developer was looking for to assist in the ultimate construction and development of the property. Several options were discussed and it was finally determined that the City would enter into an out-of-city PID arrangement with the developer with the ability to finance certain rough proportional infrastructure improvements back to the City as part of each PID bond issue, These issues would take up to 10 percent of the total PID allotment of the total project — not necessarily 10 percent per issue, but at the end of the day, it could not exceed 10 percent of the PID bonds. Their property is not going to be annexed like the other properties, but rather the City will annex all the commercial portions of the property first. This will allow the residential areas to remain out of the city and be part of the residential PID."
Although Sellers acknowledged this was an interim agreement, he added "The developer has held out if we cannot come to an agreement as we negotiate this final development agreement, then the developer will have the ability to petition for disannexation and the City Council would proceed, in good faith, with disannexation."
On another subject discussed previously during the Council session, Mayor Webster, after listening to wrecker service owners grumble they were not aware of meetings they actually attended and did not have a large enough role in the drafting of the wrecker ordinance amendments, plus hearing one council member fret that the changes to the existing ordinance might cause at least one wrecker company to lose income (a subject I plan to deal with quite forcibly in a separate article), appeared to be fed up with the overall tenor of the debate.
"This entire conversation is backwards." he said. "The longer it has taken place, the less supportive I have become. I want to end this. I don’t understand why we just don’t go into this business for ourselves if all these people are just going to claw each other’s eyes out over whether this person has screwed that company. It feels really dirty to me. All of it. I’m just going to say it. This is the worst example since I’ve been mayor of underhanded, behind-the-scenes lobbying going on.
"This is wrong, what’s going on here," the mayor stated. "On all sides. What this started out two weeks ago was just a cleanup to correct a few problems with (the original ordinance) and now it has been turned into ‘Let’s see how my company can get leverage over another company. Let’s see who we can screw out of the business, who we can keep out of Kyle and who we can keep in.’
"The problem here is we’re not focused on the people that need the service," the mayor said. "We’re not focused on that. Instead, we’re focusing on the people who will be providing the service. And that’s wrong. So, from where I sit, at this point I feel we need to do our own impound lot, get our own tow truck and put ‘em all out of business."
Frankly, his idea has a lot of merit, although it would not put the other wrecker companies out of business because they would still be able to contract with private businesses, apartment complexes, etc., to handle specific needs. They simply would be excluded from dealing with vehicles involved in accidents on public roadways or vehicles impounded at the reuest of the City for other reasons.
One thing that was not mentioned, but I’m positive Police Chief Jeff Barnett would agree with me, that a city-operated impound lot could also help police criminal investigators who need to quickly examine automobiles seized for their possible involvement in criminal activities.
There was a lot of affirmative head-nodding taking place among the Council members to convince me that, at least right at this moment, they are looking favorably at this idea of a City-operated wrecker service and impound lot, the proceeds of which could be used to fund an in-house fleet maintenance department; i.e., the proverbial two birds with one budget item.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)