Mayor fears wastewater change could jeopardize Yarrington development

Mayor Todd Webster said last night he is concerned that a major change in the construction of a wastewater line extending to the southern border of Kyle "could put the entire Yarrington Road development in jeopardy," adding he was now anxious to meet with the developers to reassure them of the city’s commitment to provide the needed infrastructure to that area.

Under an original multi-jurisdictional agreement created to block the construction of a giant truck stop at the northwest corner of Yarrington and Interstate 35, the cities of Kyle and San Marcos agreed to share in an effort to provide wastewater infrastructure to that area, with the actual wastewater from that site going to San Marcos’s treatment plant. However, last night City Engineer Leon Barba broke the news to the City Council that, basically, the cities’ respective systems are not completely compatible and that Kyle, alone, would have to provide the needed wastewater services. Barba estimated those services could be operable by the end of 2018. Webster, however, said his conversations with the developers, PGI, indicated to him they expected the services to be ready a year earlier than that.

"If this raises questions with PGI about our commitment to provide wastewater services in a timely fashion, they are naturally going to wonder ‘What’s going on with this’," Mayor Webster said following last night’s council meeting. "From where I sit we should have had a conversation with them to prepare them and to affirm whatever our commitment is. Frankly, from where I sit, I didn’t have the opportunity to do that. Now I’m going to have to circle back with PGI and try to provide some reassurance to them that we’re not going to back away from our commitment to this."

According to a concept plan unveiled in mid-January, the development was expected to include a retail anchor store, restaurant pads, two hotels, a convenience store with an eight-pump gas station and several other retail sites.

The mayor stood by the statement he made during the council meeting that this decision to go it alone could actually jeopardize this development.

"The number one issue for PGI was us getting them sewer as fast as possible so that they could develop," he said. "I’m going to find out what we can do to provide some sort of temporary accommodations so that area can develop. We’ve done it before. It can be on-site septic. We could truck it out. I don’t care. But we promised them what we were going to do."

Webster said there was never any firm date established as a deadline for when the development would have wastewater services "but I thought it would certainly be earlier than the end of 2018. It’s just taken us a whole year to get where we are now — a year of working on it and suddenly we’re not going to go in that direction.

"I’m just frustrated right now," he said. "How you do things matters. It just feels wrong that we’ve gone in a completely different direction without telling them. It seems to me a year ago we were on a much faster time line than the end of 2018. We’ve spent a year negotiating with San Marcos about something that’s now never going to come to fruition. It should have been the end of 2017, not the end of 2018. We never seem to come out ahead on negotiations with our good neighbors to the south. In this particular instance, it didn’t work out in our favor again.

"You have no idea how many people are lining up to develop on that property and if we’re not careful they’re all going to go away."

Webster said his greatest fear is that these people might not understand what’s happening and might start "to question our commitment to following through on the promises we made. Given the history of that property owner and what has happened to them over the last couple of years, they could give up. It would be nice to have had those questions answered before we announced at City Council we weren’t going to be running the wastewater to San Marcos any longer.

The mayor said he personally was the intermediary between the city and the property owner.

"Those are my commitments that just got traded away," he said. "I made them on good faith based on what I was told. This is a developer that needs to be constantly shown we are following through on our commitments. We’re going to need some sort of answer on wastewater before the end of 2018. No question. That’s what I’m going to work on now."

Also during last night’s meeting:

• Special Programs Specialist Sarah Watson outlined a number of events the city expects to host this year including a music festival that will take place on the same dates as the second weekend of the Austin City Limits Festival which could either be a blessing (by coordinating with the ACL promoters, the Kyle festival could attract more prominent artists to appear than might have been otherwise possible) or a curse (ACL could suck all the air out of the room). She also talked about an "Art the Halls" program she said "provides an opportunity for artists in the area to submit and showcase their artwork at the Kyle Library and City Hall." The part of this I found most intriguing and satisfying was when she announced ‘This year we’re hoping to feature an installment through the Kyle correctional facility so the members that are in that facility will be able to feature their artwork." This art will be featured during August and September and will include, Watson said, a meet-the-artist session although she was not specific on where and how that meeting would take place.
• Council member Shane Arabie switched his vote from "no" to "yes’ on the second reading of an zoning ordinance to create a Public United Development on Creekside Trail, so this time it passed 5-2. I failed to get an explanation for his change of mind.
• The council decided not to change the name of Philomena Drive, the temporary name given to the extension of Goforth Road between Bunton and Kyle Parkway. Council member Becky Selbera recommended changing it to (I think) Alberta Lane. The reason I say "I think" that was her recommendation is because, for some reason known only to her, she refuses to use the personal microphone available to her when she speaks and, because she speaks in softer tones than all other council members, it is often extremely difficult to hear what she says, a frustration that is probably shared by those watching the council sessions from home. Whatever, her motion failed 4-3, with only council members Travis Mitchell and David Wilson joining her to vote in the affirmative.
• The council unanimously agreed to appoint Mitchell and Arabie to be the city’s representatives on the CAPCOG General Assembly.
• Capping a 42-minute discussion, most of which had absolutely nothing to do with the subject under consideration, the council unanimously adopted the policy I outlined Monday for the appointment of members to boards and commissions with one change. In fourth bullet item of that policy wrote about, instead of having "a second-round interview process conducted by city staff," that interview will now be conducted by the staff person with oversight jurisdiction of that committee, the chair of the relevant committee, the city manager and the mayor, or their respective designees. What was not stated specifically was whether those would be four separate interviews or whether an attempt would be made to juggle enough schedules to get all those individuals (or their designated replacements) in the same room at the same time for one interview. I’m guessing the council’s implication was that it would be the latter, but, again, it was not specified.

There ain’t no sanity clause

I understand there has been some talk amongst the local brethren concerning an item on tomorrow’s City Council meeting agenda designed "to adopt minimum requirements for board and commission membership." The misunderstandings that I’ve heard involve rumors that the city is about to form a vigilante morality police force to enforce some kind of morality clause in this proposed policy.

To paraphrase Chico Marx, "There ain’t no morality clause."

I do understand where that idea might stem from. A staff memo accompanying the proposed policy reads, in part, "New applicants for volunteer positions should demonstrate the morals and character traits expected of regular city employees." That, however, is a desire, not a policy, much like a character trait you desire in a spouse..

Let’s say you’re a guy who’s met a young lady in your local church group. You’re attracted to her and finally work up the courage to ask her out on a date. Eventually you begin to realize that this is the girl of your dreams, the woman you want to spend the rest of your life with, the perfect person to be the mother of the children you hope to raise together. She demonstrates the morals and character traits you want in a spouse. You decide to marry. A few years into your idyllic life together as man and wife you learn that this girl had a one-time dalliance with Billy Bob in the bed of his pickup truck one night in the woods some 10 years earlier. Does that change who this person is? Of course not. It may unfairly warp your perception of her, but it doesn’t change who she is in any way.

Here’s the deal here: Don’t confuse the memo with the policy. Here, in full, is the proposed policy the council is expected to consider tomorrow night:

• An official job description for the vacant position on the Board or Commission will be created and posted to the city’s website under the volunteer applications page. The city may take any additional measures it determines necessary to ensure there is sufficient awareness of an appointment opportunity.
• An application for the vacant position will be posted to the city’s website on the volunteer applications page. The application must be completed by any person wishing to be considered for the position prior to 5 p.m. on the date identified in the posting as the final day for application submission.
• City staff will evaluate applications from those citizens who meet the city charter’s basic criteria for membership in a first-round evaluation. Staff may determine that the size and/or qualifications of those in the applicant pool are insufficient and reopen the application or otherwise extend the deadline to allow time for more citizens to apply.
• Based on the first round of evaluation of the applications, applicants that are determined to best meet the requirements of the Board or Commission position will be selected to participate in a second-round interview process conducted by city staff, which will serve as an opportunity for both parties to familiarize themselves with the position(s) being filled, and the prospective candidate(s).
• The final candidate(s) will be selected from the interview process and will be presented to the Mayor and City Council for confirmation at a regular city council meeting. The final candidate must be present at the meeting and will have an opportunity to make a statement regarding their candidacy and to answer any questions that the city council may ask.

That’s it. Read it carefully. Nothing to get that worked up about. There’s nothing in there that could be interpreted as a morality requirement, a morality clause.

There’s not even a sanity clause.

Phinally Phinding Phantom Philomena

Philomena Drive looking towards Goforth or Bunton or whatever

As roads go, Goforth is a rather odd duck.

You can drive on Goforth from the northbound feeder road on I-35 until it dead ends at Bunton Road. But it doesn’t really end there. If you take a right on Bunton, you’re actually still on Goforth until you drive a little east of Lehman High School where it appears Goforth dead ends into itself once again. At that point, you can take a 90-degree left at the intersection of Goforth and Goforth and begin heading northeast there. At that juncture, Bunton re-emerges, as if it was hiding under Goforth during that one stretch. Goforth, meanwhile will dead end once again at Bebee Road,. But wait! If you turn right on Bebee, you’re still on Goforth heading southeast again, this time until Goforth becomes High Road. What happens to Goforth? Well, if you turn left to go north on Highway 157, you will discover you’re still on Goforth. Got all that?

But wait yet again! It’s about to get even more confusing! Go all the way back to that part of the beginning of the previous paragraph where I said Goforth "dead ends at Bunton Road." In a matter of just days, I’m guessing, it will no longer dead end there. When the barriers are ultimately removed, it will keep on going, all the way over to Kyle Parkway. But if Goforth is now the road that Bunton becomes at that juncture, what is the name of that road that keeps on going?

At present, dear friends, that’s the phantom Philomena Road I wrote about yesterday, that road I couldn’t locate on Google maps, that road I always called the "Goforth Extension," that road that city officials managed to shrewdly include as a freebie part of the 2013 road bond deal, that road the City Council might officially name something else, according to its agenda for Tuesday night’s meeting.

I have absolutely no statistical evidence to support this theory, but I’m willing to wager more crimes are solved, not by exhaustive detective work, but because the police received a tip from some citizen. And that, dear friends, is how I discovered where Philomena Road is located. A well-informed citizen, after reading what I wrote yesterday about Tuesday’s City Council meeting, called me last night and slipped me the information on Philomena Road’s location. This discovery did not come about because of relentless sleuthing on my part.

Now the question becomes what is going to be Philomena’s new name (as well as the supplementary question of where did the temporary name "Philomena" come from in the first place)? Keeping it Goforth Extension works for me. Or how about this: Renaming it Multiply so that corner where Goforth doglegs to the right can now be known as Goforth and … oh, never mind.

Looking for answers to questions raised by "routine" council agenda

A quick perusal of Tuesday’s City Council agenda suggests that, providing the four individuals scheduled to make the five scheduled presentations aren’t terribly long winded, providing not that many items are pulled from the consent agenda and providing it doesn’t take the city attorney all that long to explain to the individual council members’ satisfaction during executive session all the terms and conditions of a possible development agreement, the meeting might be one of the briefer ones this year.

Of course, that’s a lot of "providings."

And it doesn’t answer a pair of questions I had following my quick perusal of said agenda, namely:

1. If the council is to consider and possibly "adopt minimum requirements for board and commission membership," does that mean that for all these years the city has had no "minimum requirements" for membership?

And

2. Where in heaven’s name is Philomena Drive?

(And as a subset to No. 2 above: Why is there no "Bagel Street" intersecting "Lox Lane"?)

Seriously, the subset question will undoubtedly not be addressed during the city manager’s "update on the traffic signal at FM 150 and Lox Lane," right there at Tobias Elementary, but hopefully during his presentation he will answer the question of why the council won’t get another budget briefing after this meeting for another four and a half months. According to the calendar City Manager Scott Sellers will present to the council Tuesday, city departments must present their proposed budgets to him no later than May 5. Yet he doesn’t begin meeting with department heads to review those budgets until almost four weeks later, on May 30. That review process, according to his calendar presentation, ends June 9, yet it’s another six weeks after that before the city council receives a line item budget for review. That means in the almost 20 weeks between Tuesday, when Sellers presents his schedule, and July 21, when the council receives the line-item budget, there is no formal communications between staff and the council on the status of the single most important document that staff and the council must deal with each year.

I could argue that Sellers could shorten the interval between the time department heads submit their requests and when they are reviewed. I could also argue that, based upon those reviews, Sellers could brief the council on the status of the budget, what areas he plans to emphasize in terms of spending, and, in return, get some feedback from the council on the direction the members would like to take the budget. Overall, I just think there needs to be more council oversight in the entire budget preparation process based on additional qualitative communications between staff and the council.

One item I wouldn’t mind seeing pulled from the consent agenda is No. 11, the second reading of an ordinance changing the zoning on land at 602 Creekside Trail from agriculture to a Planned Unit Development that includes a neighborhood commercial element. The current owners of the property want to develop it as a senior living center and are asking for the neighborhood commercial zoning to accommodate a 10,000-square-foot community center and administrative building. In considering the zoning request, however, what the applicants "plan" to put on the land is irrelevant; what must be considered is whether the zoning fits with the surrounding area. On the surface it does. There appears to be some condominiums less than a mile south of the land on Creekside and there’s a "neighborhood commercial" Shell service station at the corner of Creekside and FM 150. But here’s my problem: In making the zoning decision the council must look at all possible uses in neighborhood commercial zoning and those uses include restaurants (without drive-throughs), art galleries, veterinarians, barber/beauty shops, dance studios, the ubiquitous "retail," plus a number of other uses. Again, there’s nothing wrong with any of that; in fact, all those additions and more could fit perfectly well in this location if it wasn’t for that dang road. That section of Creekside Trail between the aforementioned condos and this property is a narrow one-lane road and I, for one, can’t see that narrow a passageway being able to adequately serve the various uses allowed by neighborhood commercial zoning. According to documents presented with this proposal, the Kyle Transportation Master Plan 2045 argues that Creekside Trail needs to be widened to two lanes and extended across Plum Creek to the intersection of Goforth Road and Bunton Lane. However, this project is not a part of the city’s current five-year capital improvements plan. Now I’ve heard the developers pledge to widen the road should their zoning be approved, but the City can’t hold them to that agreement as part of the zoning change. By the same token, there’s been no assurances as to the standards to be used for the street improvements. Will it be something the City will soon have to find the funds needed to maintain and repair? Those questions can’t be answered now and for that reason — even though I have absolutely no reservations about a senior living/hospice care facility at that location — I would support denying the zoning request. It passed two weeks ago by the narrowest margins and it would take only one of those supporters — Mayor Todd Webster, Mayor Pro Tem Damon Fogley, David Wilson or Travis Mitchell (who called his decision one of the toughest he had to make recently) — to change their vote.

The agenda contains only three items for consideration and possible action.

The first is an ordinance to rename the successfully obscure Philomena Drive to something else. Exactly what else, I guess we’ll learn Tuesday evening (since its new name is not addressed in the agenda or the accompanying proposed ordinance) as well as where Philomena Drive is located. My attempts to locate it using Google Maps have been somewhat fruitless except for the hint that it might have something to do offices of homebuilder D.R. Horton, whose current address is listed as 123 Devonshire Lane, a block south of Beebee Lane, just east of the CommuiCare Health Centers. So the evidence suggests that this item is designed to give an unknown name to an unknown street.

A second item on this part of the agenda is the announcement that "the city now (emphasis mine) chooses to publish an official written policy for the process and procedures used to fill Board and Commission vacancies," which, to me at least, means the city had no "official written policy" on this subject before and that perhaps an unofficial policy that consisted of a coin flip or a whim or a game of one paper-scissors-rock decided who filled these vacancies. Under this new policy, "New applicants for volunteer positions should demonstrate the morals and character traits expected of regular city employees," which, it could be argued, is a higher standard than is required of those seeking election to the City Council. It also begs the question of exactly how many dastardly immoral persons lacking these character traits expected of regular city employees have already been named to various boards and commissions. As for the "process" itself? "Utilizing information provided by the applicant and cursory background checks by staff, potential board and commission members will be vetted for their ability to serve and appropriateness for the position solicited. A final in-person interview with staff will help affirm or refute the pre-selected candidate’s qualifications. Those individuals selected for service after the interview process still must be confirmed by the City Council prior to service." I have absolutely no problem with any of that. My question remains: If this is the process "the city now" wishes to employ, what is the process that is currently being used? It’s worth finding out because then that policy will continue to be in effect in the admittedly unlikely event this item fails to win approval.

It’s worth noting that the final item for consideration and possible action is the consideration of two City Council nominations to represent Kyle on the Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) General Assembly. According to CAPCOG’s website, the two current Kyle representatives are Lucy Johnson and Samantha Lemense, which provides somewhat of an idea of high replacing them ranks on the city’s priority scale.

No public hearings are scheduled for Tuesday’s meeting, so any citizens with something to say (preferably) about any of the items on the agenda or (much less preferably) anything else, they must do so during the Citizens Comments period at the beginning of the 7 p.m. session.

City attorney refutes Tenorio, says Mitchell innocent of ethics violations

Kyle City Attorney Frank Garza issued an opinion that says City Council member Travis Mitchell has committed no ethics violations in connection with this company’s financial transactions with the City, contradicting what appears to be a retaliatory claim lodged by his colleague on the council, Daphne Tenorio.

When Tenorio learned last month Mitchell, supported by a majority of the council, was prepared to file criminal charges against her based on allegations she profited from information she learned about during council closed executive sessions, her attorney, E. Chevo Pastrano Jr. filed a counter-complaint claiming that the city’s purchases of items from a company owned by Mitchell’s family as well as paying his company for equipment repairs constituted violation of criminal law by Mitchell.

Garza said not only were these claims groundless, but he also told the council member "Mitchell Motorsports may continue to do business with the City as long as you (Council Member Mitchell) have no involvement in any capacity with the City in such transactions."

"Mitchell Motorsports … is the only place in Kyle to have products needed by the City," Garza wrote. "Mitchell Motorsports is the only STIHL dealer and the only Ferris dealer in town. The City uses this type of equipment for their landscaping equipment."

To the non-legal layman, Tenorio’s attorney’s claim that Mitchell committed a criminal act seemed groundless because of the simple fact that "commit" is a transitive verb; i.e. it suggests some form of action on the part of the subject. If any entity took action, it was the City, which made the purchases or ordered the repairs, which, incidentally, averaged only $49.16 per transaction last year and $13.87 per transaction so far In 2017, the years Mitchell has been a member of the City Council.

Garza called these minor purchases, adding "City management has confirmed that because of the minimal cost of these purchases, they are not required to go through the city’s procurement process nor do the purchases require City Council approval."

Pastrano claimed Mitchell committed a criminal/ethics violation by voting to approve the City’s budget for the current fiscal year. Garza, however, seemed to refute that specific allegation as well, writing that Section 2-180 (f) of the City Charter "does not prohibit the contract or transaction from taking place as long as the official does not participate in any manner with the (specific) contract or transaction."

The only purchase from Mitchell Motorsports requiring City Council approval since October 2014 took place before Mitchell was elected to the council.

Finally, Garza wrote Chapter 171 of the Local Government Code "still allows for city officials to have contracts or conduct transactions with an official’s business as long as the official discloses, recuses and does not participate in the decision. The City’s ethics code was patterned after this state law."

Mitchell said tonight in an email that Garza’s opinion "is the written version of what I was told verbally as I prepared to take office."

Planning director blames himself for illegal zoning amendments, reveals two P&Z vacancies

There is debate over what constitutes "conditional zoning" and what’s "contract zoning."

In a paper presented last April to the 20^th annual Land Use Conference at the University of Texas, Terrence S. Welch, an attorney who represents and advises local governments on land use issues and other regulatory matters, wrote "Conditional zoning is the granting of a zoning change by a governing body which is subject to agreed upon specific conditions which limit permitted uses in a zoning district," while "Contract zoning is an unlawful activity whereby a property owner or developer agrees to develop or use property in a certain way in exchange for receiving a particular zoning classification from a city." According to the book Texas Municipal Zoning Law by James L. Dougherty and Brenda N. McDonald, contract zoning is illegal in Texas, but "Conditional zoning, on the other hand, is a lawful rezoning that unilaterally requires the owner to subject land to certain restrictions without a contractual commitment to do so."

I’ll leave it up to others to decide whether Planning & Zoning Commission’s attachment of an amendment two weeks ago to a proposed zoning change requiring less density than was specified in the city’s ordinances was an example of conditional or contract zoning. My interpretation of the law would be this: The developer said before his zoning change that he would agree to limit the number of houses he built on the property to 3.2 per acre (the zoning allows 5.5) Passing the zoning change based on that statement makes it a "conditional zoning," which, according to the above cited sources, is legal. However, what the Planning Commission did was attach an amendment to the zoning change recommendation requiring the 3.2 density. At that point, in my opinion, it crossed over to the Contract Zoning category, which these same sources say is illegal.

Be that as it may, after telling what’s left of the Planning & Zoning Commission during an education workshop last night that conditional zoning is illegal in Texas, Planning Director Howard J. Koontz said he should have blocked the conditional amendments attached to this zoning change request the commission forwarded to the City Council two weeks ago.

Koontz, however, may have actually been referring to contract zoning when he discussed conditional zoning because he specifically said a contract could not be entered into.

"Although philosophically I don’t like it and I don’t agree with it, there’s no such thing as conditional zoning here," Koontz told the five commissioners attending the workshop. "Where I came from, when somebody wanted to zone something, the very first paper they had to bring us was a site plan, which is what it was going to look like when they were done. In Texas, under no circumstances is there any way you can enter into that contract — and it’s considered a verbal and later on a written contract — between the municipality’s regulatory authority and the applicant.

"So when you consider zoning here, you don’t consider any use," he continued. "You consider every use because someone can come in and say "I am going to build a nice new shiny hotel that will be the greatest thing the city has ever seen" and after he gets his approval he walks across the street and sells the land to somebody whose going to put a coin laundry there, and there’s nothing you can do to prevent that because they’re both allowable uses."

Later in the meeting, Koontz, speaking more specifically about the zoning change with the controversial amendments passed two weeks ago, mused "Did the Planning Commission agree to that zoning because it was conditioned to 3.2 or would they have agreed to it conditionally or unconditionally. Because the condition in Texas wasn’t lawful.

"At the time, the first thing I thought to myself was ‘That’s OK. He (commissioner Timothy Kay, who added the amendment) can put that condition on there because it’s not going to be adhered to anyway.’ Later on I had regrets that I didn’t stand up and same something and say ‘no! You can't conditionally approve anything in Texas.’ We have to either approve it or not approve it. In retrospect I should have stood up and said ‘It needs to be either recommended for approval or recommended for denial unconditionally.’ It was after the fact that I thought of that."

Koontz also separated the term "conditional use" from "conditional zoning."

"The number one way you see conditional uses is usually in some form of overlay," he said. "It’s not generally a request for a use, per se, although we call it ‘conditional uses.’ It’s almost always aesthetic. It’s building materials, how far the building is from the street, how tall it is, how many square feet it has. It’s the number of parking spaces, It’s landscaping. It’s signage. You have a little more latitude to look at those applications with a critical eye. How much is spelled out in the code. If you want their parking to orient north and south instead of east and west, so be it. You can make that decision. You are the arbiter for conditional uses. They don’t go on to the mayor and council."

Incidentally, conditional use permits are issued for to allow for uses withing a zoning district that would otherwise not be allowed under the existing zoning ordinances.

Although it’s no surprise the city is seeking a replacement on the commission for Irene Melendez, whose term is expiring this year (although I hear she wants to leave even earlier than the Sept, 30 date her term expires), it came as somewhat of a surprise to learn last night that Mike Torres, one of the two most recent appointees to the board, has been forced to resign because, according to Koontz, he is relocating. Torres has been on the commission for only four months.

Truth in advertising and advance warning: Today I submitted an application to serve on the commission, although if one of the requirements of service would be to end The Kyle Report during that term of service, I would have to graciously decline such an appointment.

So there’s that.

Creekside Trail residents could have killed PUD

By planning ahead, the residents of Creekside Trail who showed up en masse at the Feb. 21 City Council meeting to protest a PUD planned for the terminus of that cul-de-sac could have possibly killed it.

All they had to do was gather the signatures of 20 percent of the property owners located within 200 feet of the affected property. I’m guessing there were only two property owners within 200 feet of the proposed PUD and those were the owners of the properties on either side of the proposed development. And both those owners made in-person protests during the Feb. 17 public hearing on the issue. A notarized written protest (in the form of a petition) would have worked a lot better and could have achieved what they wanted.

Here’s why: Section 211.006 (d) of the Texas Government Code states "If a proposed (zoning) change to a regulation or boundary is protested in accordance with this subsection, the proposed change must receive, in order to take effect, the affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of all members of the governing body."

A number of cities don’t even require a formal petition. By law, cities are required to notify property owners within 200 feet of a proposed zoning change. Many cities include a postage-paid returnable card with the notice asking the owners to signify on the card whether they are OK with the proposed change. If 20 percent of those cards say "no," a three-fourths vote is required.

In the case of the Kyle City Council that means five "yes" votes would be needed to enact such a change and this PUD passed with only simple majority. Of course, there’s always the possibility that, had the property owners submitted such a petition, that one of those nay voters — Becky Selbera, Shane Arabie or Daphne Tenorio — might have changed their vote. But then again they might not and the motion to approve the PUD would have failed.

Just sayin’.