The City has announced a special City Council meeting for 10 a.m. Monday to canvass the results of Saturday’s runoff election. I found that strange when it canvassed the returns from the May election at a regularly scheduled meeting and a regularly scheduled City Council meeting was scheduled for the very next day after this specially called one. Was there a deadline that forced the special meeting? The City Charter states "The City Council shall canvass the returns in accordance to state law." State law (specifically, section 67.003 of the state Election Code) states "each local canvassing authority shall convene to conduct the local canvass at the time set by the canvassing authority's presiding officer not earlier than the eighth day or later than the 11th day after election day." In the case of this most recent Kyle election, that means the canvass must take place between Sunday and June 22. Well, the canvass is probably not going to take place on Father’s Day, which is Sunday, but the next regularly scheduled Council meeting is June 21, so why move it up a day? I posed that question to City spokesperson Kim Hilsenbeck, who received the following reply from Mayor Todd Webster:
"Section 5.12 of the city charter says that a new member elected in a runoff election shall take ‘office’ on the first Tuesday following the day on which the votes for the runoff election are canvassed. For the newly elected council member to participate in the next regular meeting, the Special Meeting had to be called to canvass.
"State law only requires two council members to canvass an election. I believe I have called a special meeting to canvass once before because of timing. I think the reasoning then was so we could meet timelines to hold a runoff.
"I wanted to seat the new council as quickly as possible so that the newly elected member would participate in as many council meetings as possible prior to engaging in the budget process, which begins in July.
"I believe that waiting until July for Mr. (Travis) Mitchell to participate in his first meeting would not have been the best option for us as a city council moving forward with the budget process. We have had more than one runoff resulting in new members being elected. It is my opinion that the budget meetings that took place at that time, including after my election, would have gone more smoothly with the new folks having more experience in how meetings operate and in working with their fellow council members."
All very well and good but it comes across as mean, vindictive and petty. It all could have been handled in a far more dignified that way as well as in a way that would still have allowed Mitchell "to participate in his first meeting" only minutes, not weeks, later than is now planned.
It’s no secret that Diane Hervol, the incumbent Mitchell defeated in the runoff after the two candidates tied the first time around, is not that popular among her colleagues. Council member Damon Fogley came right out and endorsed Mitchell, which he has every right to do, and I’d be willing to bet every dollar I hope to receive the rest of my life that at least four of the remaining council members who voted in the runoff voted for Mitchell, which, of course, they also have every right to do. But that is the reason why the council is treating her in the way it is now comes across as so mean, vindictive and petty. It’s like the rest of the council is showing her the back door and telling her to get out and the sooner the better.
Here’s the way I think it would have been the best way to handle the transition. The council would take the following steps in order as outlined on the agenda:
- With Hervol still a member of the Council, she would be recognized by the rest of the members for her service to the city, not only her six years on the Council, but her tenure on the Planning & Zoning Commission as well as the countless hours she devotes to participating in many civic functions here in Kyle. Hervol would then be given the opportunity to make a farewell address.
- The June 11 vote would be canvassed.
- Mitchell would be sworn in as the new Place 1 City Council member.
- Hervol would ceremoniously relinquish her position on the dias to Mitchell.
- Mitchell would then be given the opportunity to address the meeting during which, among other things, he could offer his thanks to Hervol for her service, congratulate her on the campaign, thank his supporters and briefly state what he hopes to accomplish on the Council.
- Then the rest of the council meeting could proceed, beginning with the Public Comments section of the agenda, with Mitchell as an active member of the Council.
To be fair, I had a telephone conversation with Mayor Webster about my concerns on the possible public perception of how this transition is being handled and he assured me he was planning to place an item on Tuesday’s agenda recognizing Hervol’s service. (Hilsenbeck later confirmed such an item would appear on the agenda.) He told me the plaque that will be presented to her had already been ordered and was in the process of being engraved even as we spoke.
At least, there’s that.
He also told me it was unfair to blame the entire Council for how this is transpiring, that these decisions were his and his alone.
So there’s that as well. But there’s still the perception of how all this looks and my sincere belief that someone on the council could have spoken up to argue it could have been handled far more, shall I say, diplomatically.
Challenger Travis Mitchell soundly defeated incumbent Diane Hervol Saturday collecting 58.6 percent of the vote in a runoff in which more residents voted than cast ballots in the original May election, although, still, only 7 percent of Kyle’s registered voters turned out.
The May 7 election ended in a tie with each candidate receiving 510 votes. Hervol actually wound up with one less vote, 509, this time around. Mitchell was favored by 722 voters.
Hervol is a two-term council member, having won her seat for the first time in 2010. Mitchell, making his first foray into politics, is the owner of Mitchell Motorsports and touted his experience as a local small business owner as a reason voters should support his candidacy.
"I was really optimistic about how today’s vote would turn out," said Mitchell, who collected an astounding 65.4 percent of the votes cast today. He said the major difference between the runoff and the original election was "This time I worked harder. I focused much more on door knocking and engaging with the voters."
Mitchell said in the weeks between the May 7 election and today "I spent six days a week, four to six hours a day knocking on doors" and this time around, he acknowledged, he worked from a list of those with a history of voting in Kyle instead of just random visitations.
Mitchell said he plans on spending the first weeks on the Council "getting my feet wet and learning the intricacies of city government from the inside. But my focus has always been on finding ways to help small businesses in Kyle and I plan to devote a lot of my energies to doing just that."
In a statement posted on Facebook, Mitchell said:
"With a few exceptions, being elected to the Kyle City Council is one of the greatest honors of my life. So many people supported me going down the stretch, starting with my wife. I am grateful and humbled to be given this opportunity. I will do my best to serve our town with integrity, vision, and a strong ear to the citizens of our great city.
"I would like to thank Councilmember Hervol for her years of service to this community," Mitchell’s Facebook posting continued. "I know she will continue to be an advocate for the citizens and I wish her the best. And to the people who voted in their first local election this year — you are my heroes. You are the reason I decided to run and who I wanted to reach. You are the future of Kyle."
Mayor Todd Webster said he’s looking forward to working with Mitchell on the City Council.
"I’m sure he will bring a fresh, new perspective to our deliberations that will help us a lot," the Mayor said. "I am very comfortable with the notion that he will work very hard to be a successful council representative."
Hervol said she was "disappointed, but I congratulate Travis and wish him the best of luck. I hope he manages to represent all the citizens of Kyle."
Hervol did not rule out another run for a Council seat, saying "I’ll just have to wait and see what the future holds." But, she added, "It’s a different political world out there today than what it used to be, particularly with social media and Facebook playing such an important role in the process."
She said Mitchell had the financial resources to hire a consultant for the runoff which, along with a phone list she claimed Mitchell had and she didn’t, gave him an advantage.
"A whole lot of money was spent in this campaign," Hervol said. "It was phenomenal."
Hervol posted the following on Facebook:
"I would like to thank all of my supporters. It was my honor to serve the citizens of Kyle for the last six years. Even though the results were not what we anticipated, I am proud of the race we ran. I congratulate Travis Mitchell and I wish him all the best."
Challenger Travis Mitchell collected 55 percent of the early voting totals, according to results of the Place 1 Kyle City Council runoff election announced tonight, and appears well on his way to unseating incumbent Diane Hervol.
Hervol would have to have seen a lot of her supporters wait until today to vote to pull out a victory and in the May election just the opposite occurred: She led after early voting totals were announced and Mitchell pulled into the tie that resulted in today’s runoff because of his election-day totals.
"I’m not willing to say the election is over right now," Mitchell said after the early voting results were announced. "Everyone knows what happened the last time (in May). I’m just thankful for all the voters who supported me."
Hervol said "she was a little surprised we’re so far behind" after the early totals were announced. However, she added "We worked pretty hard today" to get her supporters to the polls and she was not prepared to concede the election at this point. "I want to wait until the final results are in."
The early voting totals were 461 for Mitchell to 371 for Hervol.
Sac n Pac, the convenience store chain that began business in 1966 with one store on the corner of Hopkins and Moore streets in San Marcos and soon expanded to 17 other San Marcos outlets and 30 others in surrounding cities and counties before it was purchased two years ago by Susser Holding Corp,, the parent company of the Stripes convenience store chain, the 23rd largest such chain in the country, will go before Kyle’s Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday seeking a conditional use permit to construct a 17,300-square-foot mall-type structure on the southbound service road of I-35 immediately across East Lockhart Street from the CVS Pharmacy at I-35 and Center Street.
Sac n Pac currently operates three stores in Kyle, one of which is under the Stripes banner and is located on the northbound I-35 service road just south of Kyle Parkway (20925 I-35). One Sac n Pac can be found a little further north at 19350 I-35. The third outlet is on Jack C. Hays Trail at Rebel Drive.
The traditional convenience store averages 2,800 square feet which means most of this property will be available for lease by other retailers. In fact, drawings accompanying the application indicate the building will house two sort-of anchor stores at either end (one of which I’m guessing will carry either the Sac N Sav or Stripes banner) and between three and six smaller outlets between them.
According to a staff presentation, the Planning and Zoning Commission is supposed to determine during their deliberations Tuesday if this mini-strip mall "will promote, preserve and enhance, and will not damage or detract from the distinctive character of the community; will preserve and protect property values and taxable values; will not be detrimental or inconsistent with neighboring uses and occupancies; will not be detrimental to the general interests of the citizens; and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare." If previous commissioners had no problem with the CVS in this regard, I can’t see how the current ones could argue against this mall. The commissioners, however, must also consider traffic flow, development density and neighboring historical designs.
The staff made no recommendation for or against approving the conditional use permit, but did list some issues it had with the proposal, although none of them were labeled "deal killers," by any stretch of the imagination. Those issues include:
-
"Four-sided landscape would be preferable to the three-sided solution presented;"
- "A provision for onsite water quality/quantity management is preferable to the proposal for sheet flow as shown;"
- "A proper list of material types and specific colors would be preferable to the marketing renderings submitted;"
- "No lighting plan was submitted;"
- "No interior sidewalks (except alongside the building) or pedestrian refuge spaces are provided."
The building would be within the I-35 Overlay District, for what that’s worth.
Sac n Pac was started when one Garland Warren and his wife Janelle, while visiting friends in San Marcos in 1965, hit the city’s only convenience store right around its closing time to purchase milk for their babies. While at the store they noticed the manager setting a mousetrap on the counter and when they got home they discovered the milk’s sell-by date had long since passed. They immediately saw there was a need for something better and they returned the following year to open that first Sac n Pac store. Warren sold the stores in 1998 to his three children, Blair, Blake and Cheryl. Following Warren’s death in 2010, Cheryl and Blair bought out Blake’s interest. In January 2014 Susser Holding paid Cheryl and Blair $88 million for the stores and as well as its companion fuel provider, Warren Fuels, Ltd., which supplied gasoline and diesel fuel to the Sac n Pacs and other convenience stores and also served as a distributor for Exxon, Shell and Valero.
Here’s something to think about (or not) the next time you’re in the shower. You are paying approximately eight-tenths of one cent for every gallon of water that comes out of that shower head which is a fantastic deal when you consider the average price of bottled water in the United States is $1.22 a gallon. That’s right, bottled water is slightly more than 154 times more expensive than tap water. But also think about this while you’re in the shower: that water you’re paying for is only with you for a fleeting second. It comes out of the shower head, where most of it hits your body, bounces off and immediately flows right down the drain. Not only that, you’re paying another four tenths of a cent for each gallon of water that goes down the drain. In fact, your water bill is based on the assumption that the water that comes out of your kitchen or bathroom faucets, into your dish or clothes washer, or is used to flush your toilet is only there momentarily. Check it out: the number of gallons you are charged with using each month on your water bill identically matches the number of gallons listed for your sewer use.
Hey, somebody has to think about these things.
Somebody also has to think about what happens when that water that flowed through your life with all the speed of a lightning strike leaves your domicile. It flows through
a portion of the City’s 199 miles of sewer pipes, eventually winding up at the wastewater treatment plant located at the end of New Ridge Drive in East Kyle. According to the City’s website, the plant treats about 3 million gallons of wastewater per day and part of that treatment includes separating the solids found in that wastewater from the liquid. Under normal conditions, 3 million gallons of wastewater will produce around 33,000 gallons of solids. I’m not saying that’s the amount of solids produced daily at Kyle’s plant. That’s a general industry average.
Normally those solids are then sent to a biosolids management facility where bacteria is introduced to the solids that kill most of the disease organisms found in those solids. That process usually takes up to 60 days. This further reduces the volume of the solids and then those solids are pressed again to remove whatever water is left. The product you are left with at the completion of all that is known as sludge.
Which brings me to Item No. 12 on tonight’s City Council agenda which is an item to "approve a contract with SHERIDAN ENVIRONMENTAL DBA SHERIDAN CLEARWATER, LLC, and the City of Kyle for wet handling and disposal of biosolids from the wastewater treatment plant at a cost of $76 per wet ton, estimated annual cost of $350,000."
I had a bunch of questions about this item and received answers to some of them from the city’s staff. I was hoping to get the answers to the rest of them at tonight’s City Council meeting.
One of the questions is the typical Butch Cassidy one: Who are these guys? I Googled Sheridan Clearwater LLC and that search produced a comparatively small company (1 truck, two drivers) located on FM 973 in East Austin between the toll road and the Colorado River just south of Long Park. One of the questions I had was if this was the same Sheridan Clearwater LLC referenced in the agenda item. City spokesperson Kim Hilsenbeck confirmed it was but also wrote me that "Our Division Manager (for) Water Operations, Jason Biemer, does not know the size of the organization or number of vehicles it operates," a revelation I found somewhat dismaying.
I also wondered whether the City’s biosolids management facility was located at the wastewater treatment facility or someplace else. I didn’t get an answer to that question or exactly what stage in the sludge evolutionary process the city’s biosolids are in when they are hauled away from the wastewater treatment plant.
I also know that this sludge, when combined with composting, can produce soil that can be sold at a nice profit. I wondered whether Sheridan Clearwater LLC had the ability to do this and whether that profit could be applied to the price we are paying for the hauling company’s services. I got a possible partial answer to that question (see full quote in the next paragraph) when Hilsenbeck referred to Sheridan Clearwater’s facility as a "composting site." I received the rest of the answer following the Council meeting when Council Member Shane Arabie told me the $76 per wet ton rate was arrived at after computing the Kyle’s contribution into what Sheridan Clearwater sells.
Then there was a story on the front page of Monday’s Austin-American Statesman, the lead (or first paragraph) of which said "Austin’s sewage sludge might soon be headed to ranchland 70 miles southeast of the city, near the Colorado River, in eastern Fayette County." I have also queried the City of Austin to obtain an official reaction to its desire to take its sludge way out of town while Kyle is planning to dump its sludge inside the Austin City limits less than 1,500 feet from the Colorado River. However, somewhat on that very subject Hilsenbeck wrote me "We believe the composting site is also located at the above mentioned office location, which is where the sludge would go. The sludge is going to their permitted and approved facility. The Texas Commission for Environmental Quality is responsible for permitting those disposal facilities as well overseeing the operators of such a facility with regular inspections of the site and its records, therefore the location and the controls at that facility was approved by the state before it could go into business."
I also wondered how many sludge trips emanate on a monthly basis from Kyle’s wastewater treatment plant. Hilsenbeck replied: "The number of trips can vary considerably from month to month and week to week. It all depends on the amount of solids in the water stream coming into the plant during that time. In May, there were 22 trips out from the plant." Using that industry average I mentioned above, that would come to 45,000 gallons per trip. There’s a formula for converting these gallons to tons, but in order to execute that formula I need to learn the total solids content of the sludge being hauled. I was also hoping to get that answer, perhaps even tonight.
The reason why the total solids content is important is this: Would it be worth it for the City in the long run to invest in more sophisticated equipment that would further reduce the amount of water in that sludge and thus reduce the number of trips, reducing the costs to the taxpayer for this type of contract. I think these are questions worth asking.
So, I marched off to tonight’s City Council meeting hoping to get some clarification on all of this. And here are some of the things I learned.
1. What Sheridan Clearwater is being hired to haul away is not sludge; it is, as the agenda item aptly describes, untreated "biosolids from the wastewater treatment plant." The City doesn’t have its own biosolids management facility. So all that introduction of the bacteria as well as the final pressing takes place at the Sheridan facility in Austin. The question thus becomes when does it become economically feasible for Kyle to construct its own biosolids management facility and no one seemed to have the answer to that question but both City Manager Scott Sellers and Council Member Arabie told me the City is awaiting the results of a water/wastewater management study that should address that issue. Watch this space.
2. Technically, the Sheridan Clearwater facility, although it has an Austin address, is not located within the City of Austin. It is located in Austin’s ETJ on land under the jurisdiction of Travis County. And Austin’s locator places it in a completely different place than Google maps. Austin’s locator map has it south of Highway 71 near the northeast corner of the Austin Bergstrom Airport. It also worth noting that the location identified by Google is also in Austin’s ETJ, although a lot closer to the Colorado River.
3. The City did not Choose Sheridan Clearwater as its partner in this endeavor as much as it inherited it, a realization that made me even more concerned about Hilsenbeck’s statement that "Our Division Manager (for) Water Operations, Jason Biemer, does not know the size of the organization or number of vehicles it operates." The City purchased the water treatment plant from a company called Aqua Texas last year and it was Aqua Texas that first established this relationship with Sheridan Clearwater. This is merely a continuation of that same relationship.
4. Public Works Director Harper Wilder said the company hauls away about 14 tons per load, but that of course is untreated biosolids, not sludge. At $76 per ton, that comes to $1,064 cost to taxpayers per trip. Although Wilder confirmed the number of trips in May was 22, he said usually the city averages a trip each day. Averaging 22 trips per month would mean the total yearly cost of the contract would be in the neighborhood of $281,000, significantly less than the $350,000 annual cost specified in the budget item. However, a trip a day comes to $388,000, a tad above the specified amount.
5. The aforementioned Jason Biemer told the Council all this talk about tonnage was not entirely accurate anyway because only sludge can be measured in tons. Because what is being dealt with here is primarily liquids, using gallons is more appropriate and he said the City sends off between 50,000 and 60,000 gallons of this liquid daily to Sheridan’s biosolids management facility. There’s an industry accepted formula that’s used to convert those gallons into tons but it’s impossible to apply that formula without knowing the solids content of the material. Biemer claimed that what is shipped out is 15 percent solids which I find impossible to believe because, according to a recent study from Iowa State University, "Typical solids concentrations in raw primary sludge from settling municipal wastewater are 6%-8%." So there’s that.
At any rate, the Council unanimously approved the item just as it unanimously approved every single action item on tonight’s agenda during what turned out to be the second straight historically short Council meeting, this one clocking in at one hour and 28 minutes and that included a phenomenally short 17-minute executive session (which, in reality, is the length these sessions should be). The other items approved included:
-
The appointment of Brandon Vasquez to the Library Board.
- The second reading of an ordinance to install four stop signs in the Amberwood subdivision.
- A service agreement to hire what I found to be a rather nondescript rock band called the Midnight River Choir to be the "headline" attraction at the Kyle Hogwash Festival Oct. 21-22. In my estimation, an old-time fiddler’s competition would have been more appropriate, but who am I to judge these things. You can have a listen to the Midnight River Choir yourself right here.
- In what had to be the easiest slam dunk of the night, the Council authorized the City’s Finance Director Perwez Moheet to save taxpayers $1.1 million in interest costs by refunding three series of outstanding Certificates of Obligations. I would have personally demanded impeachment proceedings against any council member who voted against this item.
- After debating who should own and maintain a public restroom (the Council decided it should be the Homeowners Association), it approved a development agreement for the development of a 126-acre subdivision on FM 150 that will be known as Cool Springs.
There are times when statements from locally elected officials really knock me for a loop. For instance, there is one credited to Hays County Precinct 4 Commissioner Ray Whisenant that’s contained in a story in this week’s Hays Free Press in which reporter Samantha Smith quotes Whisenant talking about the proposed FM 150 realignment between Arroyo Ranch Road and the intersection of I-35 and Yarrington Road.
"The purpose of this project is to relieve traffic congestion on I-35," Smith quoted Whisenant as saying.
Now, perhaps Smith misquoted him, but something tells me that’s not the case. Something tells me this Whisenant fellow is simply clueless, unless, that is, he can explain how a new and improved road, designed to handle additional traffic, will relieve traffic congestion on the highway it feeds into.
Not only that, if everything goes according to plan, this FM 150 realignment will, in the long run, be part of a transportation redesign that will have the affect of greatly increasing traffic on I-35 through our city.
The short-term goal of the FM 150 realignment, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with relieving congestion in I-35 and everything to do with giving those motorists traveling from the Dripping Springs area, especially those who want to go south on I-35, an alternate to getting to the interstate via a two-lane road that goes through downtown Kyle and is often backed up by Southern Pacific freight trains. Once that realignment is complete, that stretch of 150 between Arroyo Ranch Road and I-35 that now goes through downtown Kyle will be re-branded as "Business FM 150," which I still think will be the preferred route for those wishing to go north on I-35 toward Austin.
The long-term goal of the realignment is to provide those motorists traveling east on U.S. 290 a faster route to Houston that completely bypasses Austin as well as all those bergs on 290 (or State Highway 71, my preferred route) because eventually another controlled access highway is going to be constructed on the east side of I-35 connecting the realigned FM 150 to Interstate 10.
And that’s what will result in the increased traffic between Austin and Kyle on I-35. That will be the preferred Austin-to-Houston route, especially for those living west of I-35. Incidentally, this was also the reason why developers wanted to put a truck stop right there at the corner of I-35 and Yarrington, to take advantage of all that increased traffic that will be exiting I-35 at that point to go east to Houston and points further east on I-10. That’s also the primary reason the City of Kyle was so anxious to complete its recent voluntary annexation so that it could take advantage of the commercial development that should naturally sprout up along the realigned FM 150, once it becomes part of the Houston bypass. With the annexation, the realigned FM 150 will be within Kyle’s city limits.
If this was Politifact, it would have labeled Whisenant’s statement "The purpose of this project is to relieve traffic congestion on I-35" as "Liar, liar, pants on fire." But this is not Politifact, so I’ll just say "Wise up, Whisenant."
The City will take another step in the development of its Parks Master Plan when it hosts an open house Monday, June 13, from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. at City Hall that’s designed to collect additional input on what features citizens would like to see in Kyle’s parks.
No formal presentations are planned at the open house and participants can arrive and depart at their leisure. According to an announcement posted on the City’s Web site, those attending the open house will have the opportunity to:
-
Review results of the public on-line survey that was conducted during April and May.
- Vote on City park system goals and objectives.
- Learn about, and comment on, suggested City park system needs and priorities.
- Comment on preliminary recommendations regarding the development of City park properties and recreational programs.
In other words, if you think the City really should construct and operate a full-service recreational center somewhere in Kyle, or that the City should substitute water parks in place of municipal swimming pools, this is the place to make that known.
Incidentally, according to Parks Director Kelly Urbanowicz, the City received 1,006 responses from its on-line survey. That's not to say 1,006 persons responded, but if, for the sake of argument, 1,006 persons did respond, that would be only 14 fewer persons than voted in the recent Place 1 City Council election. Just sayin'.
But I digress. The Web site announcement concerning the Open House said "City staff and members of our consultant team will be on hand" to answer any questions.
