The City Council will consider amendments to its traffic control device ordinance Tuesday that will allow the council to continue to spend taxpayers’ dollars on items that official studies and analyses prove are unwarranted and unnecessary.
With the last year, the council has approved the installation of unwarranted and unnecessary stop signs in three different subdivisions at the request of individual council members. In an attempt to prevent political pressure being applied to council members, an ordinance has been devised to establish a process to follow for traffic control device requests from a citizen or group of citizens. According to the ordinance, the prescribed process is:
"An individual or group desiring a traffic control device … may file a report with Director of Public Works to request the traffic analysis for the installation of the traffic control device. The individual or group shall pay a deposit fee upfront to complete a Signal Warrant Analysis as established in the City’s Fee Ordinance. After the City conducts the necessary review, a determination will be made if a traffic control device is warranted (authorized) or unwarranted (unauthorized). If such a device is warranted, the deposit will be refunded by the City. If signage is unwarranted, the fee will not be reimbursed, but the City Council may still vote to install the traffic control device."
It’s that last phase, "but the City Council may still vote to install the traffic control device," that’s bothersome. What it says is that council members may still bend to political pressure and spend taxpayers’ money on an item deemed unnecessary simply to satisfy the whims of a few isolated citizens and protect the council member’s political turf. The deposit that’s required doesn’t pay for the installation and maintenance of the device, only a portion of the cost for conducting the Signal Warrant Analysis.
On the other hand, one can argue that the ordinance, as written, gives council members the opportunity to display real leadership, demonstrate some backbone, to prove that they can withstand the political pressure that says the needs of the many must be sacrificed in favor of the whims of the politically connected few.
However, recent council approvals of unnecessary stops signs prove I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
In my mind, the way to make the ordinance work for the benefit of all citizens is simply to strike that last phrase, "but the City Council may still vote to install the traffic control device."
One good addition to the ordinance is the requirement that the report that must be filed with the Director of Public Works requesting the analysis "shall contain signatures of support of at least 2/3 of the residential or commercial inhabitants located within a distance not less than 1000 feet along all roadways in all directions to and from the desired signage." I would have preferred it read "3/4 of the residential or commercial inhabitants," but 2/3 is an acceptable compromise if the council also agrees to strike that "but the City Council may still vote to install the traffic control device" phrase.
The ordinance does not specify a dollar amount for the deposit, preferring to wait for that decision until the council agrees on the overall fee schedule that will be a part of the FY 2016-17 city budget. The same is true for the fees connected to another ordinance to be voted on Tuesday, one governing the regulation and operation of alarm systems, specifically those systems that, when triggered, notify the police.
This alarm ordinance will require that all such alarm systems be registered and then have that registration renewed on an annual basis. It also prescribes penalties for an excessive number of false alarms. I have heard from some council members that they might push for a one-time registration, with a corresponding higher registration fee, in place of the annual system.
No public hearing is scheduled in connection with either the traffic signal or the alarm ordinance which means any citizen wishing to voice an opinion on either must do so during the Citizens Comments period at the beginning of the 7 p.m. meeting. A tip: If you do wish to speak, it’s better to complete a Citizen’s Comment form that’s available on the table that also contains copies of the agenda on your left as you enter the doors of the council chambers. Simply hand that form to the city secretary who usually can be found sitting at a table perpendicular to the council dais on the far side of the chambers from the entrance.
A public hearing is attached to another proposed ordinance, however, one designed "to prevent light trespass, reduce light pollution (also known as ‘sky glow’), reduce excessive glare, promote energy conservation, and improve safety and security," even though some public safety advocates argue darker streets and alleyways encourage criminal activity and thus don’t "improve safety and security."
But, as I’ve said before, it all comes down to council priorities.
The complete agenda packet for Tuesday’s city council meeting can be found here.
The Kyle Report
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Council guarantees no property tax rate hike, but may consider higher-than-proposed stormwater fees; council also warns of major increases in water rates coming in next 10 years
The city council voted 5-0 (with two absences) today to guarantee the property tax will not increase any higher than the current $.5848 per $100 of taxable valuation while giving itself wiggle room to actually lower the rate by as much as a penny, a reduction proposed by the city manager, by the time they get around the passing the budget Sept. 6.
At the same time, no one on the council (during a discussion when all seven members were present) voiced any objection to the establishment of a stormwater utility and a few even suggested the city’s proposed fee $3-per-month fee to be paid by homeowners to fund the utility should be increased to as much as $5 a month.
And, the council warned, sometime during the next 10 years, the price of delivering water is going to drive up the water rates residents pay between $21 and $25 month.
Overall, however, council members seemed pleased with the city manager’s proposed budget suggesting, at least at today’s workshop, only minor alterations.
Mayor pro tem Damon Fogley and council member Daphne Tenorio had previously planned engagements and were forced to leave Saturday’s council workshop before the vote to set the maximum tax rate was taken.
City Manager Scott Sellers’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2016-17, which he made public a week ago yesterday and outlined to council members at today’s workshop, specifically called for a one cent decrease in the property tax rate. However, sometime within the last 24 hours, every council member received an e-mail from the Kyle Police Association asking the council to keep the tax rate at its current level and to use the $200,000 in revenue that rate would generate to align the department’s compensation package to a level that’s closer to what is offered to police officers in San Marcos. In effect, the council decided to delay an actual debate on that request until a later budget meeting but voted to set the maximum allowable tax rate at $.5848 simply to allow that later discussion to take place. Personally, my feeling is that when all is said and done, the actual tax rate for FY 2016-17 will be lower than the current rate by anywhere from one-half to one full cent.
In fact, council member Travis Mitchell initially wanted to set the maximum rate at a half-cent below the current rate today to send a signal to residents that tax rates would definitely be lowered and that the police association’s request could still be achieved by a combination of a half-cent increase over Sellers’s proposed rate combined with the elimination of certain positions. While some on the council, notably Shane Arabie, liked Mitchell’s idea, they also believed his aims could still be achieved by setting the maximum rate today at $.5848 with the option of then lowering it before the final budget is adopted.
Under Sellers’s proposed budget, residents would have $3 a month stormwater fee added to their utility bill (water, wastewater, trash pickup, etc) while commercial customers would pay an amount proportional to the amount of impervious surface their property contains. This would result in commercial customers being forced to pay almost two-thirds of the total stormwater fees, a proportion almost directly opposite to the commercial/residential ratio in property taxes.
For example, Stormwater Management Plan Administrator Kathy Roecker told the council today that while residents would pay $3 a month under Sellers’s proposal, Wal-Mart’s stormwater bill would be around $1,140 a month.
"The main reason why I think it’s important for us to do an adjustment factor for commercial is because something that is written into the stormwater plan is that we need to start trying to focus on incentivizing what they call lower-type development and green infrastructure," Roecker said. "If a developer is coming in and they actually can see if we implement some of these things it benefits the city because it reduces runoff. So if they put in a green roof, or a rain garden or use other emerging technologies, their rate is going to go down. So that is going to help us incentivize the developers to look at some of this. Right now, there is no incentive."
Roecker said the proposed fee structure would provide $1.08 million to the utility per year.
Tenorio questioned whether that was enough to really get the program up and running. "If you had your dream system," she asked Roecker. Then she paused and said "I want people to see what they are spending their money on and I want people to realize the money is being spent for their benefit. In order to make this a successful venture, I would like to see what you really need to get it done."
After noting San Marcos’s stormwater fee is $5.20, Sellers said "If we went to $5, we would generate $1.8 million. That is really a realistic number where we need to be."
Tenorio argued she would rather see the fee set at $5 now and "not have to come back next year and ask our citizens to pay $2 more. And I don’t want to reduce the tax rate one penny this year and then come back next year and say I need five more cents" to fund the stormwater utility.
Sellers admitted the number of employees on the stormwater staff will have to increase at some point "but we figured we would work ourselves into that over several years."
"I just think if we’re going to do something, I don’t want to do bare bones," Tenorio said. "You start with it ready to go. I don’t want to set you up to fail."
"I would say I would want to take a strong look at the $5 rate," Mitchell said. "But I don’t necessarily think the additional $2 should go to recurring labor costs. I would advocate for $5, keep the overhead where it is, allow those folks (new employees) to come in, so that over time we can make these big addressments and then hopefully reduce the amount of that fee down the road. Start with a high end, low overhead to make capital improvement expenditure and then see that rate come down over time."
Assistant City Manager James Earp told the council if the fee was increased to $5 "that would allow you to fully fund the mowing of the right-of-ways, the equipment purchases that are needed to get the work done the right way. If you only have two people mowing the entire city, it’s difficult to get a high level of service."
No one brought up the costs of NPDES permitting or whether the city as a whole or individual businesses (such as car washes) in Kyle are even required to obtain NPDES permits.
Sellers suggested some residents should be compensated for paying stormwater fees by having to pay lower Homeowner’s Association dues because the HOAs will no longer, under this plan, be financially obligated to maintain the stormwater facilities on their properties. He said he plans to have conversations with HOAs to address this subject.
City officials said that while water and wastewater rates will not be raised as part of this year’s budget, the city is going to be obligated to repay HCPUA for Kyle’s share of the debt HCPUA must assume to finance a 40-mile pipeline to transport groundwater from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in eastern Caldwell County to the more populous areas of eastern Hays County. Because of this expenditure, Kyle water customers should expect rates to rise, on the average, between $21 and $25 per month between now and 2026. The question the council admitted it must decide at some point in the near future is whether to phase that increase over the 10-year period or wait until 2026 and then dump the entire increase on homeowners at one time.
At the same time, no one on the council (during a discussion when all seven members were present) voiced any objection to the establishment of a stormwater utility and a few even suggested the city’s proposed fee $3-per-month fee to be paid by homeowners to fund the utility should be increased to as much as $5 a month.
And, the council warned, sometime during the next 10 years, the price of delivering water is going to drive up the water rates residents pay between $21 and $25 month.
Overall, however, council members seemed pleased with the city manager’s proposed budget suggesting, at least at today’s workshop, only minor alterations.
Mayor pro tem Damon Fogley and council member Daphne Tenorio had previously planned engagements and were forced to leave Saturday’s council workshop before the vote to set the maximum tax rate was taken.
City Manager Scott Sellers’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2016-17, which he made public a week ago yesterday and outlined to council members at today’s workshop, specifically called for a one cent decrease in the property tax rate. However, sometime within the last 24 hours, every council member received an e-mail from the Kyle Police Association asking the council to keep the tax rate at its current level and to use the $200,000 in revenue that rate would generate to align the department’s compensation package to a level that’s closer to what is offered to police officers in San Marcos. In effect, the council decided to delay an actual debate on that request until a later budget meeting but voted to set the maximum allowable tax rate at $.5848 simply to allow that later discussion to take place. Personally, my feeling is that when all is said and done, the actual tax rate for FY 2016-17 will be lower than the current rate by anywhere from one-half to one full cent.
In fact, council member Travis Mitchell initially wanted to set the maximum rate at a half-cent below the current rate today to send a signal to residents that tax rates would definitely be lowered and that the police association’s request could still be achieved by a combination of a half-cent increase over Sellers’s proposed rate combined with the elimination of certain positions. While some on the council, notably Shane Arabie, liked Mitchell’s idea, they also believed his aims could still be achieved by setting the maximum rate today at $.5848 with the option of then lowering it before the final budget is adopted.
Under Sellers’s proposed budget, residents would have $3 a month stormwater fee added to their utility bill (water, wastewater, trash pickup, etc) while commercial customers would pay an amount proportional to the amount of impervious surface their property contains. This would result in commercial customers being forced to pay almost two-thirds of the total stormwater fees, a proportion almost directly opposite to the commercial/residential ratio in property taxes.
For example, Stormwater Management Plan Administrator Kathy Roecker told the council today that while residents would pay $3 a month under Sellers’s proposal, Wal-Mart’s stormwater bill would be around $1,140 a month.
"The main reason why I think it’s important for us to do an adjustment factor for commercial is because something that is written into the stormwater plan is that we need to start trying to focus on incentivizing what they call lower-type development and green infrastructure," Roecker said. "If a developer is coming in and they actually can see if we implement some of these things it benefits the city because it reduces runoff. So if they put in a green roof, or a rain garden or use other emerging technologies, their rate is going to go down. So that is going to help us incentivize the developers to look at some of this. Right now, there is no incentive."
Roecker said the proposed fee structure would provide $1.08 million to the utility per year.
Tenorio questioned whether that was enough to really get the program up and running. "If you had your dream system," she asked Roecker. Then she paused and said "I want people to see what they are spending their money on and I want people to realize the money is being spent for their benefit. In order to make this a successful venture, I would like to see what you really need to get it done."
After noting San Marcos’s stormwater fee is $5.20, Sellers said "If we went to $5, we would generate $1.8 million. That is really a realistic number where we need to be."
Tenorio argued she would rather see the fee set at $5 now and "not have to come back next year and ask our citizens to pay $2 more. And I don’t want to reduce the tax rate one penny this year and then come back next year and say I need five more cents" to fund the stormwater utility.
Sellers admitted the number of employees on the stormwater staff will have to increase at some point "but we figured we would work ourselves into that over several years."
"I just think if we’re going to do something, I don’t want to do bare bones," Tenorio said. "You start with it ready to go. I don’t want to set you up to fail."
"I would say I would want to take a strong look at the $5 rate," Mitchell said. "But I don’t necessarily think the additional $2 should go to recurring labor costs. I would advocate for $5, keep the overhead where it is, allow those folks (new employees) to come in, so that over time we can make these big addressments and then hopefully reduce the amount of that fee down the road. Start with a high end, low overhead to make capital improvement expenditure and then see that rate come down over time."
Assistant City Manager James Earp told the council if the fee was increased to $5 "that would allow you to fully fund the mowing of the right-of-ways, the equipment purchases that are needed to get the work done the right way. If you only have two people mowing the entire city, it’s difficult to get a high level of service."
No one brought up the costs of NPDES permitting or whether the city as a whole or individual businesses (such as car washes) in Kyle are even required to obtain NPDES permits.
Sellers suggested some residents should be compensated for paying stormwater fees by having to pay lower Homeowner’s Association dues because the HOAs will no longer, under this plan, be financially obligated to maintain the stormwater facilities on their properties. He said he plans to have conversations with HOAs to address this subject.
City officials said that while water and wastewater rates will not be raised as part of this year’s budget, the city is going to be obligated to repay HCPUA for Kyle’s share of the debt HCPUA must assume to finance a 40-mile pipeline to transport groundwater from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in eastern Caldwell County to the more populous areas of eastern Hays County. Because of this expenditure, Kyle water customers should expect rates to rise, on the average, between $21 and $25 per month between now and 2026. The question the council admitted it must decide at some point in the near future is whether to phase that increase over the 10-year period or wait until 2026 and then dump the entire increase on homeowners at one time.
Friday, July 29, 2016
Transparency, Part 2: “Truth? You can’t handle the truth!”
For almost 20 years, beginning in the early 1980s, I joined with two journalists from the electronic media to form a media consulting firm whose primary responsibility to help prepare spokespersons for potentially grueling media interviews. For example, we prepared representatives who appeared on 49 different 60 Minutes programs as well as too-many-to-count appearances on such TV staples of the time as Nightline, Dateline, Meet the Press, etc. Our clients included executives from major and small corporations, political leaders (including soon-to-be U.S. presidents), sports figures, entertainers. I even made several trips to Montana to work with the leader of a religious cult.
A lot of our work involved traveling to wherever our clients wanted us to teach a one-day course on how to handle a media interview.
As luck would have it, a couple of years after the company was founded, we managed to convince the hierarchy of Texas Instruments, whose media policy at the time was a very simple and direct "We don’t talk to the press" to take our course. One of the TI vice presidents who took it was the head of sales for the company who shortly thereafter came to us and said "I have thousands of employees in our sales force who will never have to deal with a reporter, but they have to deal with even tougher questions from potential customers. Could you modify your program to help them?"
Of course we did and as a result I had the opportunity to travel to TI locations all over the globe to conduct a program we called "A Successful Strategy for Answering Questions."
One of the points I stressed in this program was a person is not required to answer a question in the way the questioner wants it answered. I called those types of queries the "When did you stop beating your spouse?" question. My favorite example was this: I’ve asked a question. You’ve answered it. And I reply: "That’s interesting, because just three days ago I was talking to your boss and he told me just the opposite. Which one of you is lying?"
I was thinking about that today because it made me realize that I forgot to mention one major category of accusers in my essay about those who accuse municipal officials of "lack of transparency." And that’s those who hear answers that don’t jive with their preconceived notions of what they believe the correct answers should be. In fact, these types even form groups, one of the most prominent being The Flat Earth Society.
These are the close-minded, the prejudiced, the ones not open to ideas other than their own, people not willing to accept the notion that what they fervently believe to be true may, in fact, not be true after all, that all their assumptions are based on false premises.
So here’s some friendly advice: Pay absolutely no attention to anyone who claims "lack of transparency." They are simply advertising their own inadequacies. If you are really interested in the topic being discussed, conduct your own independent research. Seek the truth of the matter for yourself with a completely open, unprejudiced mind and be willing to accept the findings, whatever they may be.
Incidentally, for those who haven’t already figured it out, the honest answer to the "Which one of you is lying?" question is simply "I didn’t hear my boss say that, but here’s what I know to be the facts of the matter."
A lot of our work involved traveling to wherever our clients wanted us to teach a one-day course on how to handle a media interview.
As luck would have it, a couple of years after the company was founded, we managed to convince the hierarchy of Texas Instruments, whose media policy at the time was a very simple and direct "We don’t talk to the press" to take our course. One of the TI vice presidents who took it was the head of sales for the company who shortly thereafter came to us and said "I have thousands of employees in our sales force who will never have to deal with a reporter, but they have to deal with even tougher questions from potential customers. Could you modify your program to help them?"
Of course we did and as a result I had the opportunity to travel to TI locations all over the globe to conduct a program we called "A Successful Strategy for Answering Questions."
One of the points I stressed in this program was a person is not required to answer a question in the way the questioner wants it answered. I called those types of queries the "When did you stop beating your spouse?" question. My favorite example was this: I’ve asked a question. You’ve answered it. And I reply: "That’s interesting, because just three days ago I was talking to your boss and he told me just the opposite. Which one of you is lying?"
I was thinking about that today because it made me realize that I forgot to mention one major category of accusers in my essay about those who accuse municipal officials of "lack of transparency." And that’s those who hear answers that don’t jive with their preconceived notions of what they believe the correct answers should be. In fact, these types even form groups, one of the most prominent being The Flat Earth Society.
These are the close-minded, the prejudiced, the ones not open to ideas other than their own, people not willing to accept the notion that what they fervently believe to be true may, in fact, not be true after all, that all their assumptions are based on false premises.
So here’s some friendly advice: Pay absolutely no attention to anyone who claims "lack of transparency." They are simply advertising their own inadequacies. If you are really interested in the topic being discussed, conduct your own independent research. Seek the truth of the matter for yourself with a completely open, unprejudiced mind and be willing to accept the findings, whatever they may be.
Incidentally, for those who haven’t already figured it out, the honest answer to the "Which one of you is lying?" question is simply "I didn’t hear my boss say that, but here’s what I know to be the facts of the matter."
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Transparency: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves”
I’ve been hearing a lot of cries of "lack of transparency" in connection with Kyle’s city government of late. Although faithful readers must admit I have been a severe critic of certain actions by our political leaders and municipal administrators, every time I hear "lack of transparency," I translate that as someone screaming "I’m not well informed, I don’t know enough about the facts of this situation, I’m stupid, but that’s not my fault so I’m going to blame someone else for that fact."
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Constitution or Kyle’s City Charter that requires someone to be well informed. Becoming knowledgeable is not a right, it’s a choice. And it’s a choice that requires a certain amount of effort. Don’t expect someone else to bless you with information and knowledge. You must seek them out for yourselves, understand them and digest them.
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if many of those individuals who have cried about "lack of transparency" even know what a CAFR is, let alone actually studied one. Simply put, it’s the most extreme example of complete transparency by any municipality. It’s available for anyone who wants to read it. In fact, I’ll make it easier for you, click right here to read Kyle’s CAFR. But you still must make the effort to read and understand it. And, if you choose not to make that effort, don't blame that on "lack of transparency."
When City Manager Scott Sellers e-mailed his proposed FY 2016-17 budget to city council members, that proposed budget was also posted on the city’s web site, available for anyone who wanted to become more informed, to read, study and learn from it. But anyone who wanted to become more informed about what was proposed for the City of Kyle for the next fiscal year had to make the effort to go to the web site. Just because the city’s doesn’t want to waste taxpayers’s money but printing and mailing a copy of that document to every citizen’s place of residence and business is not a sign of lack of transparency. It’s a recognition that the city is making wiser decisions about how to spend available resources. But, wait! I’ll make that easier for you as well, I have already provided links to the manager’s proposed budget in other posts, but here is another one. Read it. Take the effort to become more informed. (For those without access to a computer, a printed copy of the proposed budget is available during regular business hours at City Hall and the Kyle Public Library.)
Council member Travis Mitchell is apparently making the effort to share with the public the reasons why he votes on specific council agenda items. But citizens must make the effort to seek his positions out and read them. Here, I'll try to make that easier for you as well. But you will still need to click on the aforementioned link and then read Mitchell's comments for yourself. No one can compel or force you to do it.
Earlier this week Sellers gave what was billed as a "State of the City" speech to the Kyle Chamber of Commerce. In an effort to become more informed about what was happening in the community I’m proud to call home, I went on-line to the chamber’s website which provided an incredibly easy way for me to purchase a ticket to this luncheon and learn for myself what the city manager had to say. I chose to make that effort.
Now I’m hearing that this address by the city manager was another example of the city’s lack of transparency. No, it isn’t. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Don’t blame someone else because you chose not to pursue this information.
But, so the argument goes, if the city was really transparent, a citizen wouldn’t have to pay to attend this meeting. That argument is so patently ridiculous on so many levels it’s difficult to decide just where to begin. But let me start with the fact that the Chamber is a private entity, which relies for its income on dues-paying members and functions such as this luncheon. And having been a president of a Chamber of Commerce myself, I can assure you that, if lucky, these chamber luncheons are break-even affairs at best. Admittedly, this chamber does receive city funds, but those are for the chamber's economic development efforts, not for its citizen educational programs.
It should also be recognized that Sellers's address was not the revelations of encyclopedic knowledge, but one person's vision (albeit an well-informed vision) of Kyle, both today and for the future.
But more important than that, there is no law, no regulation, no charter provision, no ordinance that states the pursuit of knowledge is free. It isn’t and it never will be. That’s why more than 50 percent of your total tax bill goes to the local school district, whether or not you have someone residing with you who attends a local school. That’s why colleges charge tuition. That’s why you pay for books to learn from.
Any citizen who wishes to become more informed about what’s going on in their community must make the effort. That’s the reason for the expression "the pursuit of knowledge." No one, however, is going to force you to pursue knowledge, to make yourself more informed. We don’t live in some Orwellian, Kubrickian society where we strap our citizens to chairs, attach wires to their brains and force-feed them information. But if a citizen chooses not to pursue information, decides not to seek knowledge and, as a result, is uninformed and ignorant about what is happening around them, don’t blame someone else. Don’t cry "lack of transparency" because you chose not to learn.
This nation's protections of freedom of speech allow anyone to scream "Lack of transparency," but the fact is such screams are more of an admission than an accusation.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Constitution or Kyle’s City Charter that requires someone to be well informed. Becoming knowledgeable is not a right, it’s a choice. And it’s a choice that requires a certain amount of effort. Don’t expect someone else to bless you with information and knowledge. You must seek them out for yourselves, understand them and digest them.
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if many of those individuals who have cried about "lack of transparency" even know what a CAFR is, let alone actually studied one. Simply put, it’s the most extreme example of complete transparency by any municipality. It’s available for anyone who wants to read it. In fact, I’ll make it easier for you, click right here to read Kyle’s CAFR. But you still must make the effort to read and understand it. And, if you choose not to make that effort, don't blame that on "lack of transparency."
When City Manager Scott Sellers e-mailed his proposed FY 2016-17 budget to city council members, that proposed budget was also posted on the city’s web site, available for anyone who wanted to become more informed, to read, study and learn from it. But anyone who wanted to become more informed about what was proposed for the City of Kyle for the next fiscal year had to make the effort to go to the web site. Just because the city’s doesn’t want to waste taxpayers’s money but printing and mailing a copy of that document to every citizen’s place of residence and business is not a sign of lack of transparency. It’s a recognition that the city is making wiser decisions about how to spend available resources. But, wait! I’ll make that easier for you as well, I have already provided links to the manager’s proposed budget in other posts, but here is another one. Read it. Take the effort to become more informed. (For those without access to a computer, a printed copy of the proposed budget is available during regular business hours at City Hall and the Kyle Public Library.)
Council member Travis Mitchell is apparently making the effort to share with the public the reasons why he votes on specific council agenda items. But citizens must make the effort to seek his positions out and read them. Here, I'll try to make that easier for you as well. But you will still need to click on the aforementioned link and then read Mitchell's comments for yourself. No one can compel or force you to do it.
Earlier this week Sellers gave what was billed as a "State of the City" speech to the Kyle Chamber of Commerce. In an effort to become more informed about what was happening in the community I’m proud to call home, I went on-line to the chamber’s website which provided an incredibly easy way for me to purchase a ticket to this luncheon and learn for myself what the city manager had to say. I chose to make that effort.
Now I’m hearing that this address by the city manager was another example of the city’s lack of transparency. No, it isn’t. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Don’t blame someone else because you chose not to pursue this information.
But, so the argument goes, if the city was really transparent, a citizen wouldn’t have to pay to attend this meeting. That argument is so patently ridiculous on so many levels it’s difficult to decide just where to begin. But let me start with the fact that the Chamber is a private entity, which relies for its income on dues-paying members and functions such as this luncheon. And having been a president of a Chamber of Commerce myself, I can assure you that, if lucky, these chamber luncheons are break-even affairs at best. Admittedly, this chamber does receive city funds, but those are for the chamber's economic development efforts, not for its citizen educational programs.
It should also be recognized that Sellers's address was not the revelations of encyclopedic knowledge, but one person's vision (albeit an well-informed vision) of Kyle, both today and for the future.
But more important than that, there is no law, no regulation, no charter provision, no ordinance that states the pursuit of knowledge is free. It isn’t and it never will be. That’s why more than 50 percent of your total tax bill goes to the local school district, whether or not you have someone residing with you who attends a local school. That’s why colleges charge tuition. That’s why you pay for books to learn from.
Any citizen who wishes to become more informed about what’s going on in their community must make the effort. That’s the reason for the expression "the pursuit of knowledge." No one, however, is going to force you to pursue knowledge, to make yourself more informed. We don’t live in some Orwellian, Kubrickian society where we strap our citizens to chairs, attach wires to their brains and force-feed them information. But if a citizen chooses not to pursue information, decides not to seek knowledge and, as a result, is uninformed and ignorant about what is happening around them, don’t blame someone else. Don’t cry "lack of transparency" because you chose not to learn.
This nation's protections of freedom of speech allow anyone to scream "Lack of transparency," but the fact is such screams are more of an admission than an accusation.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
P&Z OKs strip center, lighting ordinance
After stumbling over a consent agenda on which they approved items they didn’t mean to approve (and will undoubtedly appear on the final record as not being approved), the five commissioners who attended tonight’s Planning & Zoning Commission granted a conditional use permit for a strip center adjacent to downtown and recommended the City Council adopt a lighting ordinance modified to reduce restrictions on non-existent parks and residential street lights.
For the third meeting in a row, the commissioners also decided not enough members were present to elect a vice-chair so that decision was put off until its Aug. 9 meeting when, presumably, it is hoped that at least one more commissioner will attend. Commissioners Lori Huey and Irene Melendez missed tonight’s meeting.
The consent agenda contained five items, one of which was pulled so that a response could be made to a citizen who had commented on it and P&Z operates under the same mistaken interpretation of meeting rules as the city council believing, incorrectly, commissioners can’t legally respond to comments made by citizens during Citizens Comments period.
Of the remaining items on the consent agenda, the city’s staff recommended the disapproval of two of them and the approval of the remaining two. Instead of making the motion to follow staff’s recommendations in regards to the items on the consent agenda, commissioner Timothy Kay moved to approve all four of the items. That motion, mysteriously enough, was seconded and approved unanimously. So, legally speaking, the commissioners approved the final plat for the Brookside Subdivision Phase 3 and the Dacy Village Subdivision Lot 5, Block B, although something tells me when the final script is writ, it will be recorded those two items were statutorily disapproved, because that’s what staff really wanted to the commissioners to do. Funny how those things work out.
The strip center that received the conditional use permit is the same 17,300-square-foot structure located between the southbound I-35 service road and old Highway 81, a block north of Center Street, that the commissioners ordered sent back to the drawing boards back on June 14 because the rear of the building looked too much like the rear of a building.
This time around Jaime Hernandez, the building’s architect and its project manager, offered an alternative that looked like a more decorative and additionally landscaped rear of a building. The commissioners thanked Hernandez for adhering to their whimsy and granted the permit.
"In an effort to provide more of an aesthetic feel on the rear of the building, we added some awnings to the rear," Hernandez told the commissioners. "We added sidewalk as well, all the way around to make that pedestrian connection, to make it friendlier. We also made the adjustment to have landscaping on all four sides of the building."
"I think that looks a whole lot better than it did the first time," chairman Michael Rubsam told Hernandez
The rest of the commissioners agreed, voting 5-0 to approve the permit.
Rubsam was the only commissioner ro raise concerns about the lighting ordinance, although the rest of the commissioners easily deferred to those concerns. The ordinance recognized five distinct lighting "zones," ranging from what was tabbed an LZ-0 zone that permitted no ambient lighting whatsoever to LZ-4, in which "high ambient lighting" was permitted.
It was that first zone that bugged Rubsam. It said this zone applied to "wilderness and protected wildlife areas, parks and preserves and undeveloped rural areas." Rubsam did not like in the inclusion of parks inside the cit limits because he felt completely darkened parks pose a risk to law enforcement types who must investigate all those shenanigans everyone knows takes place in these parks after the sun goes down. The problem is, however, Kyle doesn’t have any of these parks. As Planning Director Howard J. Koontz tried to explain, there will not be a single spot in Kyle that will be designated as an LZ-0 zone so the rule doesn’t apply. He said the only reason the LZ-0 zone is even mentioned is because "some day we might have a development agreement with someone where the city and the developer choose together to utilize that standard for a portion of or all of their site."
The other part of the ordinance Rubsam had a problem with was a section that read "Street lighting, other than at the intersection of roadways, shall utilize half-night photo cells or timers to turn off lights halfway between dusk and dawn." Rubsam didn’t like the notion of turning these lights off completely. He was OK with them being reduced by 70 percent, but not completely off.
Rubsam maintained that bad guys "love the dark. Anytime you start turning off streetlights, you invite crime. Another thing is some of our more elderly residents don’t see all that well at night, When they pull into a residential neighborhood, the streetlights are very helpful for navigation for these people."
Rubsam said 50 percent lighting would be perfectly acceptable for him. "When you’re talking about crime deterrent, any light is helpful in deterring crime." That’s why he could go as low as 30 percent, but "I’m not crazy about turning them off."
As a result, the commissioners voted unanimously to go along with Rubsam’s motion to recommend the city council pass a lighting ordinance as presented with the exception of "Page 9 where we would remove the word ‘parks’ from the LZ-0 no ambient lighting section and also on the street lighting section on Page 18 where we change the sentence to read ‘street lighting other than at the intersection of roadways, shall utilize half-night photo cells or timers to reduce light output by up to 70 percent halfway between dusk and dawn’."
Koontz seemed to have some specific "targets" in mind when he presented the proposed ordinance.
"This makes an expectation of lowering the required light when you have spaces that are not being used after dark," Koontz told the commissioners. "So you’ll notice there’s recommendations in there for light to be cut by 50 percent output after a certain time in the evening. There’s really no reason that the Target sign needs to be putting out 1,500 lumens at 2:38 on a Tuesday morning. There’s nobody shopping at Target at 2:38 on a Tuesday morning. You can dim that down a little bit until such time as you get more traffic which is right around daybreak."
Later he said he was really OK with the lighting at the Target center. In fact, he appeared to cite it as an example of the right way to handle municipal lighting.
"In centers like that where they already have a package consisting of plans, site work, materials suppliers and vendors, that’s probably to make sure that’s compliant with wherever they go," Koontz said. "They replicate the same sites everywhere. If you’re interested in seeing what it looks like, set your alarm for about 3 or 3:20 and then drive up to Target and see what it looks like up there."
At one point Koontz also maintained that "single family residential is exempted from this ordinance entirely so you can do just about what you choose as long as it doesn’t become an issue for neighbors." That statement, however, seems at odds with the fact that the ordinance says the default zone for the LZ-1 zone requiring "low ambient lighting" is "rural and low density residential areas, including residential single or two family." And later in that same description is says the areas for low ambient lighting "typically include single and two family residential communities." The one caveat is that it applies to those areas "that desire low ambient lighting areas," but it does not describe how to ascertain whether an area really does have such a desire. In addition, Koontz interpreted this section to apply to churches and such that might be found in areas zoned R-1, but not the individual residences themselves. Of course, the way it is worded, a successor to Koontz could have a completely different interpretation.
For the third meeting in a row, the commissioners also decided not enough members were present to elect a vice-chair so that decision was put off until its Aug. 9 meeting when, presumably, it is hoped that at least one more commissioner will attend. Commissioners Lori Huey and Irene Melendez missed tonight’s meeting.
The consent agenda contained five items, one of which was pulled so that a response could be made to a citizen who had commented on it and P&Z operates under the same mistaken interpretation of meeting rules as the city council believing, incorrectly, commissioners can’t legally respond to comments made by citizens during Citizens Comments period.
Of the remaining items on the consent agenda, the city’s staff recommended the disapproval of two of them and the approval of the remaining two. Instead of making the motion to follow staff’s recommendations in regards to the items on the consent agenda, commissioner Timothy Kay moved to approve all four of the items. That motion, mysteriously enough, was seconded and approved unanimously. So, legally speaking, the commissioners approved the final plat for the Brookside Subdivision Phase 3 and the Dacy Village Subdivision Lot 5, Block B, although something tells me when the final script is writ, it will be recorded those two items were statutorily disapproved, because that’s what staff really wanted to the commissioners to do. Funny how those things work out.
The strip center that received the conditional use permit is the same 17,300-square-foot structure located between the southbound I-35 service road and old Highway 81, a block north of Center Street, that the commissioners ordered sent back to the drawing boards back on June 14 because the rear of the building looked too much like the rear of a building.
This time around Jaime Hernandez, the building’s architect and its project manager, offered an alternative that looked like a more decorative and additionally landscaped rear of a building. The commissioners thanked Hernandez for adhering to their whimsy and granted the permit.
"In an effort to provide more of an aesthetic feel on the rear of the building, we added some awnings to the rear," Hernandez told the commissioners. "We added sidewalk as well, all the way around to make that pedestrian connection, to make it friendlier. We also made the adjustment to have landscaping on all four sides of the building."
"I think that looks a whole lot better than it did the first time," chairman Michael Rubsam told Hernandez
The rest of the commissioners agreed, voting 5-0 to approve the permit.
Rubsam was the only commissioner ro raise concerns about the lighting ordinance, although the rest of the commissioners easily deferred to those concerns. The ordinance recognized five distinct lighting "zones," ranging from what was tabbed an LZ-0 zone that permitted no ambient lighting whatsoever to LZ-4, in which "high ambient lighting" was permitted.
It was that first zone that bugged Rubsam. It said this zone applied to "wilderness and protected wildlife areas, parks and preserves and undeveloped rural areas." Rubsam did not like in the inclusion of parks inside the cit limits because he felt completely darkened parks pose a risk to law enforcement types who must investigate all those shenanigans everyone knows takes place in these parks after the sun goes down. The problem is, however, Kyle doesn’t have any of these parks. As Planning Director Howard J. Koontz tried to explain, there will not be a single spot in Kyle that will be designated as an LZ-0 zone so the rule doesn’t apply. He said the only reason the LZ-0 zone is even mentioned is because "some day we might have a development agreement with someone where the city and the developer choose together to utilize that standard for a portion of or all of their site."
The other part of the ordinance Rubsam had a problem with was a section that read "Street lighting, other than at the intersection of roadways, shall utilize half-night photo cells or timers to turn off lights halfway between dusk and dawn." Rubsam didn’t like the notion of turning these lights off completely. He was OK with them being reduced by 70 percent, but not completely off.
Rubsam maintained that bad guys "love the dark. Anytime you start turning off streetlights, you invite crime. Another thing is some of our more elderly residents don’t see all that well at night, When they pull into a residential neighborhood, the streetlights are very helpful for navigation for these people."
Rubsam said 50 percent lighting would be perfectly acceptable for him. "When you’re talking about crime deterrent, any light is helpful in deterring crime." That’s why he could go as low as 30 percent, but "I’m not crazy about turning them off."
As a result, the commissioners voted unanimously to go along with Rubsam’s motion to recommend the city council pass a lighting ordinance as presented with the exception of "Page 9 where we would remove the word ‘parks’ from the LZ-0 no ambient lighting section and also on the street lighting section on Page 18 where we change the sentence to read ‘street lighting other than at the intersection of roadways, shall utilize half-night photo cells or timers to reduce light output by up to 70 percent halfway between dusk and dawn’."
Koontz seemed to have some specific "targets" in mind when he presented the proposed ordinance.
"This makes an expectation of lowering the required light when you have spaces that are not being used after dark," Koontz told the commissioners. "So you’ll notice there’s recommendations in there for light to be cut by 50 percent output after a certain time in the evening. There’s really no reason that the Target sign needs to be putting out 1,500 lumens at 2:38 on a Tuesday morning. There’s nobody shopping at Target at 2:38 on a Tuesday morning. You can dim that down a little bit until such time as you get more traffic which is right around daybreak."
Later he said he was really OK with the lighting at the Target center. In fact, he appeared to cite it as an example of the right way to handle municipal lighting.
"In centers like that where they already have a package consisting of plans, site work, materials suppliers and vendors, that’s probably to make sure that’s compliant with wherever they go," Koontz said. "They replicate the same sites everywhere. If you’re interested in seeing what it looks like, set your alarm for about 3 or 3:20 and then drive up to Target and see what it looks like up there."
At one point Koontz also maintained that "single family residential is exempted from this ordinance entirely so you can do just about what you choose as long as it doesn’t become an issue for neighbors." That statement, however, seems at odds with the fact that the ordinance says the default zone for the LZ-1 zone requiring "low ambient lighting" is "rural and low density residential areas, including residential single or two family." And later in that same description is says the areas for low ambient lighting "typically include single and two family residential communities." The one caveat is that it applies to those areas "that desire low ambient lighting areas," but it does not describe how to ascertain whether an area really does have such a desire. In addition, Koontz interpreted this section to apply to churches and such that might be found in areas zoned R-1, but not the individual residences themselves. Of course, the way it is worded, a successor to Koontz could have a completely different interpretation.
City Manager predicts methodical population growth of almost 150,000 within 40 years
In what accurately could be described as an objective look at the present as well as an optimistic peak into the future of Kyle, City Manager Scott Sellers painted a picture today of a steadily growing regional community whose population growth will fuel many of the amenities residents are longing for, most particularly dining-in restaurants instead of just drive throughs.
Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the Kyle Chamber of Commerce, Sellers’s message to assembled business leaders essentially was "more customers are coming your way."
Sellers also provided a brief overview of the city’s budget he is proposing for FY 2016-17 and clearly laid out the rationale for seeking a storm water utility and a fee to pay for that utility.
Sellers said his proposed budget reflected the excitement he felt about what was happening in Kyle "and how privileged we are to be a member of this community. The prospects looking ahead continue to be very bright for our city. Together we continue to move Kyle forward in really unprecedented ways.
"It’s really an exciting time to be working on all these projects," Sellers told the luncheon audience. "And we continue to look forward to you growing with us."
Earlier, after saying statistics estimate 3.5 persons per residence in Kyle and that the city has approximately 14,000 such residences today, "all signs point to stable, steady population influx," that will lead to growth in population of 77,000 within the next 15 years.
"All things considered," he went on, "right now, on paper, there are about 42,000, give or take developable residential units in the total area." Using Sellers’s formula of 3.5 persons per unit, that comes to a population growth of 147,000 during what he said will be "the next 30 to 40 years."
In outlining his budget, Sellers stressed that half of it is dedicated to capital improvement projects: "road projects, water, sewer, drainage. So half of the budget will be visible, tangible ways the city is progressing."
Sellers said his budget calls for a one-cent reduction in the property tax. "Now the city council may want to increase that three or four cents," he said, half jokingly. "That’s their prerogative," But he also said he didn’t think any council member — five of whom attended the luncheon — would seriously consider such a move.
"Over the last year and a half, if you’ve lived anywhere in Central Texas — especially Kyle, or San Marcos or Wimberley — you have experienced the devastating effects of some sort of rain event," Sellers said, launching into his reasoning behind the creation of a storm water utility. "Some were effected in severe ways with hundreds of homes being damaged or destroyed.
"We have many miles of storm drainage infrastructure through the city of Kyle," he continued. "Right now, the onus of the maintenance of that storm drainage is on the individual underlying property owners." He said it is the responsibility of the owner of any property that backs up to a storm drainage culvert to maintain that culvert. That, he argued, is a somewhat myopic approach to storm water management so, instead, he wants Kyle to follow the lead of most of other cities in creating "a storm drainage and flood mitigation utility" with a fee "smaller than that in our neighboring communities that will be used for cleaning out these drains.
"In return, (the city) takes over this responsibility so it’s no longer the responsibility of the underlying property owners."
He said the utility will also assume control of the drainage basins currently maintained by Homeowners Associations.
"This is what we believe is required to mitigate the risks of flooding to our homeowners," Sellers told the luncheon audience.
Sellers referenced the recent annexations undertaken by the city that increased its footprint by 50 percent, from 20 to 30 square miles, but even with these additions "the population density of the city of Kyle is not large enough yet to justify" the type of restaurants and other retail establishments found in Austin and San Marcos. He said the city has sought to determine "what that magic number looks like to get you to consider us."
"The number they tell us is a city population of 50,000," Sellers said (Kyle’s most recent population count was 31,760.) "When you get to 50,000 your city takes on the next tier of development like more sit-down restaurants.
"For the destination retailer or for the destination dining that needs a destination retailer, it’s around 250,000 population" (for the region being served) Sellers said. "We are not there. As a region, we are not there, but we are getting very close" when you combine the populations of Kyle with Buda and San Marcos.
Because of that, Sellers said, "We are asking our housing developers to put in the densities, to put in the standards and the long-term maintenance requirements for having a top-tier home development in the city of Kyle,"
He said the reason for the various MUDs (Municipal Utility Districts) and PIDs (Public Improvement Districts) attached to these developments is to guarantee "the development is the highest and best use."
Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the Kyle Chamber of Commerce, Sellers’s message to assembled business leaders essentially was "more customers are coming your way."
Sellers also provided a brief overview of the city’s budget he is proposing for FY 2016-17 and clearly laid out the rationale for seeking a storm water utility and a fee to pay for that utility.
Sellers said his proposed budget reflected the excitement he felt about what was happening in Kyle "and how privileged we are to be a member of this community. The prospects looking ahead continue to be very bright for our city. Together we continue to move Kyle forward in really unprecedented ways.
"It’s really an exciting time to be working on all these projects," Sellers told the luncheon audience. "And we continue to look forward to you growing with us."
Earlier, after saying statistics estimate 3.5 persons per residence in Kyle and that the city has approximately 14,000 such residences today, "all signs point to stable, steady population influx," that will lead to growth in population of 77,000 within the next 15 years.
"All things considered," he went on, "right now, on paper, there are about 42,000, give or take developable residential units in the total area." Using Sellers’s formula of 3.5 persons per unit, that comes to a population growth of 147,000 during what he said will be "the next 30 to 40 years."
In outlining his budget, Sellers stressed that half of it is dedicated to capital improvement projects: "road projects, water, sewer, drainage. So half of the budget will be visible, tangible ways the city is progressing."
Sellers said his budget calls for a one-cent reduction in the property tax. "Now the city council may want to increase that three or four cents," he said, half jokingly. "That’s their prerogative," But he also said he didn’t think any council member — five of whom attended the luncheon — would seriously consider such a move.
"Over the last year and a half, if you’ve lived anywhere in Central Texas — especially Kyle, or San Marcos or Wimberley — you have experienced the devastating effects of some sort of rain event," Sellers said, launching into his reasoning behind the creation of a storm water utility. "Some were effected in severe ways with hundreds of homes being damaged or destroyed.
"We have many miles of storm drainage infrastructure through the city of Kyle," he continued. "Right now, the onus of the maintenance of that storm drainage is on the individual underlying property owners." He said it is the responsibility of the owner of any property that backs up to a storm drainage culvert to maintain that culvert. That, he argued, is a somewhat myopic approach to storm water management so, instead, he wants Kyle to follow the lead of most of other cities in creating "a storm drainage and flood mitigation utility" with a fee "smaller than that in our neighboring communities that will be used for cleaning out these drains.
"In return, (the city) takes over this responsibility so it’s no longer the responsibility of the underlying property owners."
He said the utility will also assume control of the drainage basins currently maintained by Homeowners Associations.
"This is what we believe is required to mitigate the risks of flooding to our homeowners," Sellers told the luncheon audience.
Sellers referenced the recent annexations undertaken by the city that increased its footprint by 50 percent, from 20 to 30 square miles, but even with these additions "the population density of the city of Kyle is not large enough yet to justify" the type of restaurants and other retail establishments found in Austin and San Marcos. He said the city has sought to determine "what that magic number looks like to get you to consider us."
"The number they tell us is a city population of 50,000," Sellers said (Kyle’s most recent population count was 31,760.) "When you get to 50,000 your city takes on the next tier of development like more sit-down restaurants.
"For the destination retailer or for the destination dining that needs a destination retailer, it’s around 250,000 population" (for the region being served) Sellers said. "We are not there. As a region, we are not there, but we are getting very close" when you combine the populations of Kyle with Buda and San Marcos.
Because of that, Sellers said, "We are asking our housing developers to put in the densities, to put in the standards and the long-term maintenance requirements for having a top-tier home development in the city of Kyle,"
He said the reason for the various MUDs (Municipal Utility Districts) and PIDs (Public Improvement Districts) attached to these developments is to guarantee "the development is the highest and best use."
Sunday, July 24, 2016
“One man’s meat …”
Until two years ago, I lived for more than a dozen years in a subdivision with a very active (I could even use the word "domineering," even "dictatorial") homeowners association. It had its rules and anyone who disobeyed them not only faced the prospect of steep fines but even legal action.
Some of its rules were patently illegal (for instance a prohibition against installing Direct-TV-type mini-satellite dishes), and some I found excessive (a requirement to install, at the homeowners expense, expensive lighting fixtures in alleyways when I believed a less costly alternative would have accomplished the same result).
This latter lighting requirement was designed to promote public safety, according to the homeowners association and, indeed, the requirement was supported by the city’s police department, the theory being prowlers are less likely to prey on well-lit areas than on darkened ones.
In addition, the homeowners association had its own citizens’ patrol outfit that cruised the subdivision after sundown specifically looking for suspicious types wandering around, especially in the alleys that provided the entrances to our garages and from where our garbage and recycling were picked up. The better lit the alleyways after dark, the easier it was to spot potential trouble.
I find it interesting that the precise light that my former homeowners association required all residents to install in the fixture right above their garage entrances is exactly the same one pictured on page 13 of a proposed :dark skies ordinance to be considered the Kyle Planning & Zoning Commission at its meeting Tuesday that’s labeled a "prohibited fixture."
So I guess it comes down to what is the local priority: "curtail light pollution, reduce sky glow and improve nighttime environment for astronomy," which is listed as one of the goals of this ordinance, or public safety, specifically crime prevention.
As the saying goes, "One man’s meat is another man’s poison."
Here is the complete agenda for Tuesday’s meeting.
Some of its rules were patently illegal (for instance a prohibition against installing Direct-TV-type mini-satellite dishes), and some I found excessive (a requirement to install, at the homeowners expense, expensive lighting fixtures in alleyways when I believed a less costly alternative would have accomplished the same result).
This latter lighting requirement was designed to promote public safety, according to the homeowners association and, indeed, the requirement was supported by the city’s police department, the theory being prowlers are less likely to prey on well-lit areas than on darkened ones.
In addition, the homeowners association had its own citizens’ patrol outfit that cruised the subdivision after sundown specifically looking for suspicious types wandering around, especially in the alleys that provided the entrances to our garages and from where our garbage and recycling were picked up. The better lit the alleyways after dark, the easier it was to spot potential trouble.
I find it interesting that the precise light that my former homeowners association required all residents to install in the fixture right above their garage entrances is exactly the same one pictured on page 13 of a proposed :dark skies ordinance to be considered the Kyle Planning & Zoning Commission at its meeting Tuesday that’s labeled a "prohibited fixture."
So I guess it comes down to what is the local priority: "curtail light pollution, reduce sky glow and improve nighttime environment for astronomy," which is listed as one of the goals of this ordinance, or public safety, specifically crime prevention.
As the saying goes, "One man’s meat is another man’s poison."
Here is the complete agenda for Tuesday’s meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)