You can’t blame Michael Rubsam for feeling like Rocky after climbing the steps of the Philadelphia Art Museum. The one great obstacle to his success as chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission had been removed. No longer is he Coleridge’s ancient mariner. It’s as if Camus had permitted Sisyphus to retire. Goodbye Landscape Ordinance and good luck at your next stop.
The commission finally passed Tuesday evening and sent to the city council its revised Landscape Ordinance. And when that unanimous vote (commissioners Lori Huey and Brad Growt did not attend) was recorded, a broad smile could be seen on Rubsam’s face as he raised both arms in the air.
"The landscape ordinance has been an issue for several years now," Rubsam told me after the commission’s two-hour, 24-minute meeting adjourned. "It’s been through many commissioners and we’ve had a lot of input, not only from the commissioners but also from the public. And I’m very pleased we’re going to move forward with this because I think it will streamline what we’ve been faced with granting variances in planning and zoning. It will clarify the rules for the builders in the future."
C’mon, Mike. Quit sounding like a government official. Tell us how you really feel right now.
"This is one of the best days I’ve had at the end of a P&Z meeting for a long time," he said, another broad smile lighting up his face.
The commissioners spent an hour going through the 21-page document making sure all five of them were pleased with every single word on every single page.
The most substantial discussion involved a section labeled "Exceptions" that read "In order to address atypical, site specific development/redevelopment challenges, the community development director and/or his/her designee is authorized to approve alternative compliance landscape plans when s/he determines that one or more of the following conditions are present" and then it listed four such conditions. Commissioner Timothy Kay wanted the commission to have that authority, not the "community development director and/or his/her designee."
Kay was also concerned about the next paragraph which said anyone "with standing" who didn’t like the staff’s decision to approve an alternative plan could appeal that decision to P&Z within 30 days. Kay wondered how anyone, outside the party who asked staff for the change, would even be aware a change had been made.
Although commissioner Dex Ellision said he agreed with Kay in theory he finally sided with the other three commissioners who said the driving motivation behind the revised ordinance was to keep P&Z from having to rule on all these requests. The commissioner also agreed that giving this responsibility to city staff would speed up the permitting process, something all developers everywhere clamor for (see the complaints of one such developer below). As for informing those "with standing" of a possible change, language was added so that once a change was requested, a sign reflecting that change request had to be posted on the property and the change could not be approved until at least 10 days after the posting of that sign.
That, and the word "Exceptions" was changed to "Variances."
The commissioners also recommended the council approve language amending the ordinances regarding impervious surfaces and postponed until their Oct. 11 meeting deciding the fate of two conditional use permits.
In the first conditional use permit case, the commissioners were concerned the north side of a proposed 9,000-square-foot retail center planned for the northbound frontage road of I-35, just north of the AMM Collision Center, did not contain the required masonry the city dictates must be on all buildings. The building’s owner, Dennis Artale, who said he hoped to lease a portion of the center for a restaurant and eventually construct a hotel just to the south of the center, said since all traffic would be driving north on the frontage road anyway, that side of the building wouldn’t be that visible. In addition, he said, a line of trees on the property line just beyond the building also obscured that side.
City planner William Atkinson said, however, everything Artale said was irrelevant. "The I-35 overlay standards have been in place for quite some time, prior to 2015," Atkinson told the commissioners. "To be honest it really shouldn’t be an issue that the four-side masonry on the north side needs to be in place. We go by our code and it’s a simple as that."
Needless to say, Artale was not happy with the entire process.
"This will end up raising the cost on the property in addition to the added wait time," he said. "I have never built anything in Kyle. This is my first experience and it hasn’t been a good one. I’ve built two retails in Buda off of 967 but I hadn’t built one here in Kyle yet. But it seems like the process takes a lot longer here. I don’t know if there is any way we can speed the process up because the small business person we have to get a loan to buy the land, the loan for the interim and all of that. It just adds more and more layers to the cost. Then we have to hope we can lease it out enough to make ends meet."
In the second case, involving a proposed 16,000-square foot blood bank across Kyle Parkway from Seton Medical Center, the commissioners were hesitant to act until the Board of Adjustments rules on the property owner’s request for additional parking places. That ruling is expected at the Board of Adjustments’ Oct. 3 meeting. The maximum allowable parking spaces for such a facility is 101. The blood bank, BioLife Plasma Services, is seeking 170, which their architect claimed, is the number needed to accommodate customer demand at all the other identical facilities the company has constructed around the country.
The big question on the impervious surface issue was whether a swimming pool filled with water could be considered an impervious surface. In the end, the commissioners decided it was.
The Kyle Report
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Monday, September 12, 2016
P&Z to consider expanding impervious surface definitions
In advance of the city council instituting storm water fees, the Planning & Zoning Commission will consider Tuesday zoning ordinance amendments that will expand what is considered an impervious surface subject to stormwater runoff. Basically, the changes would align Kyle with more accepted impervious surface definitions in place in other communities with active stormwater management programs.
The meeting is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday in the city hall council chambers. A public hearing is scheduled as part of the impervious surface agenda item.
These changes won’t have an immediate dramatic financial impact on homeowners because the city is considering a monthly stormwater fee that will be uniform for all. That’s because Kyle’s housing stock is relatively uniform. But, as the city grows and its housing stock becomes more diverse in size, it is expected residential stormwater fees will be calculated in proportion to the amount of impervious surface contained on a homeowner’s property. That means a homeowner with a large concrete deck, a swimming pool or a large paved entryway could pay more than a neighbor without any of these amenities.
The city is considering requiring commercial property owners, however, to pay a monthly stormwater utility fee based on the total area of impervious surface on their property.
The definitions will have an immediate effect on future developments because it will adjust the percentage of a property that can be covered by an impervious surface is each zoning district. Because more features of a property will be considered impervious, the percentages are increased under the terms of the proposed changes. For example, in residential areas zoned R-1-2, the total amount of a lot that can be covered in impervious surface will increase from 45 to 60 percent; in a warehouse zoned area, from 60 to 75 percent.
Under current definitions, only the actual home counts toward the amount of impervious surface on a residential property. "This manifests itself as a problem," according to the staff analysis that accompanies the proposed changes, "because stormwater detention facilities are effectively sized for expected impervious surfaces, but in Kyle usual and customary paved surfaces like driveways, sidewalks, patios, pool decks, etc., can’t be adequately calculated to be contained during a storm event."
In other words, if the newly created stormwater utility is going to be successful, it must be able to account for all impervious surfaces so "that more effective stormwater control can be implemented in the developmental process," the staff analysis said.
Under the new definition, "Impervious cover means roads, parking areas, buildings, rooftop landscapes, patios, decking and other construction limiting the absorption of water by covering the natural land surface; this shall include, but not be limited to, all streets and pavement within the development, and all other surfaces comprised of wood, stone, concrete, asphalt, metal, brick and other masonry, decorative water features like ponds and pools, and swimming pools. Improved areas established on a suitably engineered sub-base, whose purpose is to capture stormwater from the two-year storm event and recharge ground water, are not impervious."
The amendments will define a "a paved area" as one "surfaced with asphalt, concrete or similar durable pavement, providing a permanent, erosion-resistant, all-weather surface. Gravel, river rock, and/or stone dust (road base) are not acceptable paved surfaces. Proprietary, engineered pre-cast systems incorporating natural surfaces which allow for stormwater management as well as load-bearing vehicle storage such as Geoblocks, Grasscrete, and Truckpave, etc., also qualify as pavement."
P&Z commissioners will also be asked to consider conditional use permits that will enable the construction of a one-story, 16,686-square-foot facility on Seton Parkway, across the street from the under-construction Goodwill store, to be used as a BioLife Plasma Services facility; and one-story 9,000-square-foot "multi-tenant retail center" (mini strip-mall?) on the northbound I-35 frontage road, just north of the AMM Collision Center, between Windy Hill Road and the 149 highway.
The commissioners will also consider much-debated changes to that part of the zoning ordinance dealing with landscape requirements and possibly whether to remove the landscape provisions from Chapter 53 of the ordinance and making it a separate chapter. A public hearing is also attached to the landscape changes agenda item.
In fact, you can read the entire Planning & Zoning Commission agenda right here.
The meeting is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday in the city hall council chambers. A public hearing is scheduled as part of the impervious surface agenda item.
These changes won’t have an immediate dramatic financial impact on homeowners because the city is considering a monthly stormwater fee that will be uniform for all. That’s because Kyle’s housing stock is relatively uniform. But, as the city grows and its housing stock becomes more diverse in size, it is expected residential stormwater fees will be calculated in proportion to the amount of impervious surface contained on a homeowner’s property. That means a homeowner with a large concrete deck, a swimming pool or a large paved entryway could pay more than a neighbor without any of these amenities.
The city is considering requiring commercial property owners, however, to pay a monthly stormwater utility fee based on the total area of impervious surface on their property.
The definitions will have an immediate effect on future developments because it will adjust the percentage of a property that can be covered by an impervious surface is each zoning district. Because more features of a property will be considered impervious, the percentages are increased under the terms of the proposed changes. For example, in residential areas zoned R-1-2, the total amount of a lot that can be covered in impervious surface will increase from 45 to 60 percent; in a warehouse zoned area, from 60 to 75 percent.
Under current definitions, only the actual home counts toward the amount of impervious surface on a residential property. "This manifests itself as a problem," according to the staff analysis that accompanies the proposed changes, "because stormwater detention facilities are effectively sized for expected impervious surfaces, but in Kyle usual and customary paved surfaces like driveways, sidewalks, patios, pool decks, etc., can’t be adequately calculated to be contained during a storm event."
In other words, if the newly created stormwater utility is going to be successful, it must be able to account for all impervious surfaces so "that more effective stormwater control can be implemented in the developmental process," the staff analysis said.
Under the new definition, "Impervious cover means roads, parking areas, buildings, rooftop landscapes, patios, decking and other construction limiting the absorption of water by covering the natural land surface; this shall include, but not be limited to, all streets and pavement within the development, and all other surfaces comprised of wood, stone, concrete, asphalt, metal, brick and other masonry, decorative water features like ponds and pools, and swimming pools. Improved areas established on a suitably engineered sub-base, whose purpose is to capture stormwater from the two-year storm event and recharge ground water, are not impervious."
The amendments will define a "a paved area" as one "surfaced with asphalt, concrete or similar durable pavement, providing a permanent, erosion-resistant, all-weather surface. Gravel, river rock, and/or stone dust (road base) are not acceptable paved surfaces. Proprietary, engineered pre-cast systems incorporating natural surfaces which allow for stormwater management as well as load-bearing vehicle storage such as Geoblocks, Grasscrete, and Truckpave, etc., also qualify as pavement."
P&Z commissioners will also be asked to consider conditional use permits that will enable the construction of a one-story, 16,686-square-foot facility on Seton Parkway, across the street from the under-construction Goodwill store, to be used as a BioLife Plasma Services facility; and one-story 9,000-square-foot "multi-tenant retail center" (mini strip-mall?) on the northbound I-35 frontage road, just north of the AMM Collision Center, between Windy Hill Road and the 149 highway.
The commissioners will also consider much-debated changes to that part of the zoning ordinance dealing with landscape requirements and possibly whether to remove the landscape provisions from Chapter 53 of the ordinance and making it a separate chapter. A public hearing is also attached to the landscape changes agenda item.
In fact, you can read the entire Planning & Zoning Commission agenda right here.
Friday, September 9, 2016
Stormwater fee vote likely for mid-November
Although there has been no official announcement from the city (the last time I checked), I have learned it is likely the city council will conduct its public hearing on a proposed monthly stormwater fee and vote on the second reading of an ordinance to impose the fee at its Nov. 15 meeting.
I am going to go out even further on this limb and predict the council will approve the fee in a 6-1 vote. After all, it has already passed a budget that calls for the creation of a Stormwater Utility and it would be idiotic to create the utility, but not fund it. The most likely scenario is the fee will be $5 a month for residential customers and a much higher monthly fee for commercial customers that will be based on the amount of impervious surface on their property.
Don’t carve that Nov. 15 date in stone just yet, but the council’s second meeting in November looks like the most plausible time for the city to pass the ordinance that will set the fee. The first reading of the ordinance most likely will take place at the council’s first November meeting.
Right now, according to sources within the city, the schedule looks like this:
Even though during a July budget workshop council member Daphne Tenorio not only voiced support of a stormwater fee, she expressed concern the idea of a $3-a-month fee for homeowners was not high enough to adequately fund the utility, her statements expressed on why she could not support passage of the FY 2016-17 budget now reflects an opposition to the imposition of the fee. I have asked her to confirm this apparently reversal, but have not received a reply. Nevertheless, I am expecting her to be the one lone vote against setting the fee.
In a previous conversation, Stormwater Management Plan Administrator Kathy Roecker confirmed customers would not be billed for stormwater fees until sometime after the first of the year.
I am going to go out even further on this limb and predict the council will approve the fee in a 6-1 vote. After all, it has already passed a budget that calls for the creation of a Stormwater Utility and it would be idiotic to create the utility, but not fund it. The most likely scenario is the fee will be $5 a month for residential customers and a much higher monthly fee for commercial customers that will be based on the amount of impervious surface on their property.
Don’t carve that Nov. 15 date in stone just yet, but the council’s second meeting in November looks like the most plausible time for the city to pass the ordinance that will set the fee. The first reading of the ordinance most likely will take place at the council’s first November meeting.
Right now, according to sources within the city, the schedule looks like this:
- Wednesday, September 28: First printing of Storm Drainage & Flood Risk Mitigation Utility (the official name of the utility) ordinance & schedule of charges with public hearing scheduled for Nov. 15.
- Wednesday, Oct. 12: Second printing of the ordinance & schedule of charges along with the public hearing date..
- Wednesday, Oct. 26: Third printing of the aforementioned information.
- Tuesday, Nov. 1: City council meeting with the first reading of the SD&FRMU ordinance and schedule of charges as part of the agenda.
- Tuesday, Nov.15: City council meeting that will include the statutorily required public hearing for the stormwater fee ordinance and schedule of charges as well as a vote on the second reading of the ordinance.
Even though during a July budget workshop council member Daphne Tenorio not only voiced support of a stormwater fee, she expressed concern the idea of a $3-a-month fee for homeowners was not high enough to adequately fund the utility, her statements expressed on why she could not support passage of the FY 2016-17 budget now reflects an opposition to the imposition of the fee. I have asked her to confirm this apparently reversal, but have not received a reply. Nevertheless, I am expecting her to be the one lone vote against setting the fee.
In a previous conversation, Stormwater Management Plan Administrator Kathy Roecker confirmed customers would not be billed for stormwater fees until sometime after the first of the year.
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Council OKs budget, lower tax rate, pre-annexation template but tables loan-for-jobs deal
The City Council unanimously approved an $80 million budget for FY 2016-17 tonight, lowered the property tax rate one cent to $.5748 per $100 property valuation, unanimously passed a template for agreements that will be used whenever a property owner outside the city limits requests utilities from the city, but tabled a plan to offer RSI, Inc., an interest-free economic development loan in return for hiring new employees.
No reason was given during the council meeting for tabling the RSI agreement, an action the council took at the behest of City Manager Scott Sellers. After the meeting I asked Sellers why he made the request and he replied: "I think we just needed a little more time to get everyone comfortable with it." When I asked "Who is not comfortable with it," he just gave me a "C’mon, I can’t tell you that" smile, but added "You’ll know soon enough."
It was really the only unexpected event of the entire 28-minute meeting.
The blank spaces on the agreement template will be filled in and signed by all parties whenever a property owner outside the city limits wants the city to provide utilities to that owner. The agreement basically says that, in return for providing the utilities, whenever the city blows the whistle that property will be annexed into the city limits.
Sellers told the council the agreement applies to "utilities extended within the city’s CCN, meaning our service territory for water/wastewater, another neighboring jurisdiction’s CCN, a neighboring jurisdiction’s ETJ or in their corporate municipal limits. But what this agreement stipulates is any time those services are extended to a property owner they would need to sign one of these pre-annexation agreements which basically states they would dis-annex from whatever territory they are in and, in exchange, annex into either the city of Kyle’s corporate jurisdiction or sign an agreement that says at the time the city of Kyle desires or has the ability to annex that area that it will be a voluntary annexation."
Sellers said the city has extended utilities to some of these areas in the past and when the city tried to annex them, "there are times when we are fought for that annexation. Yet they are taking advantage of that city service we have already provided to them.
"So this basically states," Sellers said, "if you’re going to receive city services that you will annex in at the time that annexation is called upon." He said that annexation might not take place until three to five years after the utilities are provided, "but at the time that annexation is the logical next step for the city, that property owner will annex into the city of Kyle."
Mayor Todd Webster said the template came about largely because of recent annexation efforts.
"We had property owners receiving utilities who didn’t want to be annexed," the mayor said. "They said they already received all the benefits of being within the city without having to pay city taxes, so why should they be annexed? I could see from where they were coming from why they would feel that way. I think this policy will resolve a lot of future disagreements. And it wouldn’t apply to anyone unless they made the choice to ask us for utilities."
As predicted, the vote on the final reading of the proposed budget was 6-1 with council member Daphne Tenorio casting the lone vote in opposition, presumably for the same reasons she gave for opposing it on first reading last Wednesday. The vote on the lower tax rate was unanimous.
In other action tonight, the council:
No reason was given during the council meeting for tabling the RSI agreement, an action the council took at the behest of City Manager Scott Sellers. After the meeting I asked Sellers why he made the request and he replied: "I think we just needed a little more time to get everyone comfortable with it." When I asked "Who is not comfortable with it," he just gave me a "C’mon, I can’t tell you that" smile, but added "You’ll know soon enough."
It was really the only unexpected event of the entire 28-minute meeting.
The blank spaces on the agreement template will be filled in and signed by all parties whenever a property owner outside the city limits wants the city to provide utilities to that owner. The agreement basically says that, in return for providing the utilities, whenever the city blows the whistle that property will be annexed into the city limits.
Sellers told the council the agreement applies to "utilities extended within the city’s CCN, meaning our service territory for water/wastewater, another neighboring jurisdiction’s CCN, a neighboring jurisdiction’s ETJ or in their corporate municipal limits. But what this agreement stipulates is any time those services are extended to a property owner they would need to sign one of these pre-annexation agreements which basically states they would dis-annex from whatever territory they are in and, in exchange, annex into either the city of Kyle’s corporate jurisdiction or sign an agreement that says at the time the city of Kyle desires or has the ability to annex that area that it will be a voluntary annexation."
Sellers said the city has extended utilities to some of these areas in the past and when the city tried to annex them, "there are times when we are fought for that annexation. Yet they are taking advantage of that city service we have already provided to them.
"So this basically states," Sellers said, "if you’re going to receive city services that you will annex in at the time that annexation is called upon." He said that annexation might not take place until three to five years after the utilities are provided, "but at the time that annexation is the logical next step for the city, that property owner will annex into the city of Kyle."
Mayor Todd Webster said the template came about largely because of recent annexation efforts.
"We had property owners receiving utilities who didn’t want to be annexed," the mayor said. "They said they already received all the benefits of being within the city without having to pay city taxes, so why should they be annexed? I could see from where they were coming from why they would feel that way. I think this policy will resolve a lot of future disagreements. And it wouldn’t apply to anyone unless they made the choice to ask us for utilities."
As predicted, the vote on the final reading of the proposed budget was 6-1 with council member Daphne Tenorio casting the lone vote in opposition, presumably for the same reasons she gave for opposing it on first reading last Wednesday. The vote on the lower tax rate was unanimous.
In other action tonight, the council:
- Officially welcomed the city’s new recreation division manager, Jason Miller, who comes to the city after having worked for the city of New Braunfels, as well as Sarah Watson, who will become the city’s new programs and events specialist. Watson is also the staff liaison with Kyle Area Youth Advisory Council (KAYAC) and she told me after the meeting she plans on retaining that liaison position in addition to her new responsibilities.
- Unanimously approved the appointments of seven high school students — Jude McClaren, Skyler Gold, Mia Padron, Dharma Heaney, Raymond "RJ" Navarro, Anna Holsonbake and Samantha Martinez — to KAYAC.
- Unanimously approved Ryan Browning, council member Travis Mitchell’s nominee, to the Ethics Commission.
Friday, September 2, 2016
City to loan RSI $484,234 to be repaid with 82 new jobs
The City Council is expected to vote on an agreement with RSI, Inc., that will grant the company an interest-free loan of $484,234, which the company will repay by hiring 82 additional employees during the next 10 years.
The hiring of the 82 new employees is supposed to bring the total workforce at RSI to 132. Each employee must work at least 30 hours a week for the company to qualify for the repayment.
Under terms of the agreement, RSI is expected to hire seven new employees in each of the first seven years of the loan agreement, 10 new employees in year eight, 11 in year nine and a dozen in the final year. None of the new employees may be undocumented workers.
RSI, Inc., currently owns a five-acre tract at 1670 Kohler’s Crossing. The company describes itself as "an authorized distributor of electro-mechanical parts and services to global industries and markets such as (the) Department of Defense, energy markets, commercial aerospace, industrial markets, and transportation industries."
It is assumed that an increase in the number of employees at RSI will translate into an increase in sales which will mean more sales tax dollars for the city’s coffers. It could also increase the value that five-acre tract RSI owns which would also mean additional revenues to the city.
The loan balance will decrease by one-tenth of the original balance ($48,423.40) every year RSI meets its hiring obligations. If, at any time, the company fails to meet those obligations, the agreement requires RSI to "pay to the city the full balance of the loan payment upon thirty days after receiving notice from the City." In other words, if, in year 5 of the deal, RSI only adds five new employees to its work force, it would be required to pay the city $13,835.26, or two-sevenths of the annual loan installment.
The agreement also requires RSI to "retain and maintain a local intern program and provide opportunity for at least two Hays CISD students for a summer internship each year of this agreement."
There’s also an incentive for RSI to help the city with additional economic development. According to the agreement, "For every meeting (RSI) sets up between the city and executive-level decision-makers from other companies that the city agrees are potential economic development prospects for the city, the city will credit (RSI) $1,000 per qualified meeting. The maximum of these meeting credits is $25,000 for the 10-year period of this agreement."
In other action planned for Tuesday, the council is expected to approve the nominations of seven persons to the Kyle Area Youth Advisory Council and one, chiropractor Ryan Browning, to the Ethics Commission; approve a template that could be used as part of development agreements covering the delivery city utilities to areas proposed tor annexation; and, of course, finally approve a budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 (I'm betting the vote on this will be 6-1) and the corresponding tax rate.
The complete agenda can be found here.
The hiring of the 82 new employees is supposed to bring the total workforce at RSI to 132. Each employee must work at least 30 hours a week for the company to qualify for the repayment.
Under terms of the agreement, RSI is expected to hire seven new employees in each of the first seven years of the loan agreement, 10 new employees in year eight, 11 in year nine and a dozen in the final year. None of the new employees may be undocumented workers.
RSI, Inc., currently owns a five-acre tract at 1670 Kohler’s Crossing. The company describes itself as "an authorized distributor of electro-mechanical parts and services to global industries and markets such as (the) Department of Defense, energy markets, commercial aerospace, industrial markets, and transportation industries."
It is assumed that an increase in the number of employees at RSI will translate into an increase in sales which will mean more sales tax dollars for the city’s coffers. It could also increase the value that five-acre tract RSI owns which would also mean additional revenues to the city.
The loan balance will decrease by one-tenth of the original balance ($48,423.40) every year RSI meets its hiring obligations. If, at any time, the company fails to meet those obligations, the agreement requires RSI to "pay to the city the full balance of the loan payment upon thirty days after receiving notice from the City." In other words, if, in year 5 of the deal, RSI only adds five new employees to its work force, it would be required to pay the city $13,835.26, or two-sevenths of the annual loan installment.
The agreement also requires RSI to "retain and maintain a local intern program and provide opportunity for at least two Hays CISD students for a summer internship each year of this agreement."
There’s also an incentive for RSI to help the city with additional economic development. According to the agreement, "For every meeting (RSI) sets up between the city and executive-level decision-makers from other companies that the city agrees are potential economic development prospects for the city, the city will credit (RSI) $1,000 per qualified meeting. The maximum of these meeting credits is $25,000 for the 10-year period of this agreement."
In other action planned for Tuesday, the council is expected to approve the nominations of seven persons to the Kyle Area Youth Advisory Council and one, chiropractor Ryan Browning, to the Ethics Commission; approve a template that could be used as part of development agreements covering the delivery city utilities to areas proposed tor annexation; and, of course, finally approve a budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 (I'm betting the vote on this will be 6-1) and the corresponding tax rate.
The complete agenda can be found here.
State forces council to lie about tax rate
The current city property tax rate is $.5848 per $100 of taxable property. Assuming the city council on Tuesday passes on second reading the ordinance fixing "the ad valorem tax rate" (which, most assuredly, it will do) for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, that tax rate will be $.5748. It doesn’t take an Einstein to realize the new tax rate will be one cent lower than the current one.
And yet, the state requires the reading of a statement that claims the tax rate is being increased. And that is just flat wrong. That is a lie. It is not being increased.
What the state is requiring the person who moves for the adoption of the reduced tax rate to say is "I move the property tax rate be increased by the adoption of a tax rate of $0.5748, which is effectively a 5.59 percent increase in the tax rate."
It’s that word "effectively" that screws everything up. What is meant by that is that, even by lowering the tax rate by a penny, because of increased property valuations, that lower tax rate will produce 5.59 percent more income during the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 than the higher rate produced this year.
It is also misleading and technically incorrect because, while most property owners will face a higher tax bill next year than this, not all of them will be 5.59 percent higher. In fact, I’m betting the increase in the tax bills of most homeowners will be smaller than that since that 5.59 percent figure includes all commercial property as well as residential.
So for those who decide to attend next Tuesday’s City Council meeting or for those who just watch it at home on their computers (Does anyone really do that?), when you hear the words "I move the property tax rate be increased...," just remember, that person is lying. The rate is being decreased, not increased.
But the great State of Texas is forcing that person to lie.
Go figure.
And yet, the state requires the reading of a statement that claims the tax rate is being increased. And that is just flat wrong. That is a lie. It is not being increased.
What the state is requiring the person who moves for the adoption of the reduced tax rate to say is "I move the property tax rate be increased by the adoption of a tax rate of $0.5748, which is effectively a 5.59 percent increase in the tax rate."
It’s that word "effectively" that screws everything up. What is meant by that is that, even by lowering the tax rate by a penny, because of increased property valuations, that lower tax rate will produce 5.59 percent more income during the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 than the higher rate produced this year.
It is also misleading and technically incorrect because, while most property owners will face a higher tax bill next year than this, not all of them will be 5.59 percent higher. In fact, I’m betting the increase in the tax bills of most homeowners will be smaller than that since that 5.59 percent figure includes all commercial property as well as residential.
So for those who decide to attend next Tuesday’s City Council meeting or for those who just watch it at home on their computers (Does anyone really do that?), when you hear the words "I move the property tax rate be increased...," just remember, that person is lying. The rate is being decreased, not increased.
But the great State of Texas is forcing that person to lie.
Go figure.
Building permits indicate city growing at phenomenal rate
Although the last couple of months have seen a tapering off of residential building permits issued, the city is on a pace to issue 646 such permits this year, 123 more than in 2015.
Looking at the numbers during the last three years and comparing those to the figures from three years before that is what really gives you an idea of Kyle’s amazing growth. Assuming 646 residential permits are issued this year, that would bring the total of such permits issued during the last three years to 1,674. The numbers for the three years before that — 2010-2012 — were 757, less than half of what’s been issued since Jan. 1, 2014.
Translate all that into population numbers, using acknowledged, accepted formulas, it means the city's population is on a pace to grow by 24,079 during the current decade. Stunning!
Commercial growth reflects similar trends. Between 2010-1012, the city issued 103 commercial building permits. This year alone the city is on a pace to issue more than what was issued between 2010 and 2012, an all-time high of 108 (which could be a problematic figure because the numbers are somewhat skewed by the realization 40 such permits were issued just last month alone, very much a one-month aberration. The city would have to average issuing nine commercial permits each month for the rest of the year to reach 108 and the highest number for any one month this year before August was 8 in July. So I’m going to assume the final figure will hover closer to 90). But even that somewhat pessimistic assumption of 90 commercial permits issued this year means, during the last three years, the number of commercial permits issued would be 246, again appreciably more than twice the number from the three preceding years.
The numbers speak for themselves.
Looking at the numbers during the last three years and comparing those to the figures from three years before that is what really gives you an idea of Kyle’s amazing growth. Assuming 646 residential permits are issued this year, that would bring the total of such permits issued during the last three years to 1,674. The numbers for the three years before that — 2010-2012 — were 757, less than half of what’s been issued since Jan. 1, 2014.
Translate all that into population numbers, using acknowledged, accepted formulas, it means the city's population is on a pace to grow by 24,079 during the current decade. Stunning!
Commercial growth reflects similar trends. Between 2010-1012, the city issued 103 commercial building permits. This year alone the city is on a pace to issue more than what was issued between 2010 and 2012, an all-time high of 108 (which could be a problematic figure because the numbers are somewhat skewed by the realization 40 such permits were issued just last month alone, very much a one-month aberration. The city would have to average issuing nine commercial permits each month for the rest of the year to reach 108 and the highest number for any one month this year before August was 8 in July. So I’m going to assume the final figure will hover closer to 90). But even that somewhat pessimistic assumption of 90 commercial permits issued this year means, during the last three years, the number of commercial permits issued would be 246, again appreciably more than twice the number from the three preceding years.
The numbers speak for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)