Kyle bond package will focus on Bunton Creek Road improvements | The Hays Free Press

Kyle bond package will focus on Bunton Creek Road improvements

Posted by on Aug 8th, 2012 and filed under For Front Page Use, Kyle, Top Stories.


by ANDY SEVILLA 

A raucous audience was asked to leave the council chambers Tuesday night after loud discontent echoed in the room because of the city council’s decision to include only Bunton Creek Rd. improvements in a general bond election in November.

The city council effectively did away with four of the five street improvement projects that were to be put before Kyle voters in a November ballot. The decision came about after a council majority failed to gain approval to lump all five street projects into one package calling for the sale of $34.7 million in general obligation bonds.

Council Member Ray Bryant motioned to move forward with a November bond election calling for improvements only to Bunton Creek Rd., after a motion by Mayor Lucy Johnson which called for the Lehman, Burleson, Bunton, Marketplace, and Goforth street improvement projects to be bundled into a one package deal failed.

The original ordinance before council members on Tuesday called for a bond election issuing $34.7 million in general obligation bonds for five roads. Voters  then would have had the opportunity to vote in favor of or against each road project based on its own merit.

The estimated cost of all five street improvement projects combined totaled $34.7 million, while improvements to Bunton Creek Rd. are estimated at $4.4 million.

“I’m very careful with how I spend my personal money,” Bryant said. “And I also have to be careful with how I spend the citizens’ money as well. I just have a problem, I can’t support having (all the roads) rolled into one (bond election package).”

Council member Samantha Bellows-LeMense and Mayor Pro Tem Diane Hervol also voiced concern with the “burden” property tax increases needed to pay for the street improvement projects would put on Kyle homeowners.

Johnson, however, argued that all five projects should be put before the voters as a one-package deal.

“I feel like it cannot be a good solution just to put forward one road,” Johnson said. “It cannot be a good plan for us to ignore our city street structure, our infrastructure as a whole and move forward with one road. At a certain point you have to trust the voters to tell us whether or not they are okay with the (tax increase) it would take to do all these roads.”

Council Member David Wilson also felt a one-package deal behooved the city as a whole.

“The reason you do a package like this is if one or two (roads) get cherry-picked, you don’t have a transportation system; it will have broken,” Wilson said. “If government doesn’t do roads and safety, I don’t care at what level, they have failed.”

Wilson said that although he dislikes tax increases, “we have to stand up and pay for things we need,” which includes putting together a package that will supply transportation needs into the future, and putting that package in front of the voters.

Wilson and Council Member Becky Selbera voted in favor of Johnson’s motion to present voters in November with a one-package bond election calling for street improvements on all five roads, but it failed to gain a majority after Bryant, LeMense, and Hervol dissented. Council Member Bradley Pickett was absent due to an illness.

LeMense said her concern with lumping all roads into a one-package deal was that “too much” was being put on the backs of citizens and she feared they would ask, “Oh my God, what did you do?”

She went on to say that addressing one road at a time made it a “manageable bite” for Kyle residents, and it afforded them time to get accustomed to the tax increases.

“The idea that we’re being financially responsible by waiting longer to build these roads, assumes that the roads will stay in the same condition that they’re in now for the next five or 10 years, which is not true,” Johnson said. “These roads are getting worse … and they will continue to get worse.”

Ultimately Johnson joined Bryant, Hervol, and LeMense, and voted in favor of moving forward with improvements to Bunton Creek Rd.

Johnson said she had to “go with what you can get,” because of how bad the road needs improvements.

“Even if it’s not a good way to go,” she added.

After council decided to move forward with only one street improvement project, the council chambers filled with loud dissatisfaction which prompted Johnson to ask the unhappy audience to take their conversations outside so council members could continue with city business.

Council members will take up the matter on second reading tonight.

Related stories:

  • Cindy Lawton

    So much for citizen input.  My husband and I attended both workshops and it appears that the suggestions of the people in attendance were completely ignored.  Workshop attendees painstakingly prioritized which roads in Kyle needed the most attention.  They also voted in favor of bundling the road package as the consensus was that the “all in one” approach would have a better chance at passing with voters than culling one road from the herd.  After all, wouldn’t you vote for repairs to the one road that gives you the most grief?  All of these roads are in serious need of attention and until the workshops, I honestly didn’t realize how much as I don’t drive them all on a regular basis.  (I live in Old Town and drive to HEB via 150, Rebel Road, and 1626 to avoid the long traffic lines, lights, and perils of a head-on collision.)  Folks that live off of Lehman Road are all but stranded in a good rain.  Also mentioned was what a tough sell it must be to attract new businesses to Kyle via a tour that would ostensibly include one or more of these roads.  No road tour of Kyle should have to begin with “Please put on your helmet before entering the SUV.”  I hate taxes as much as the next guy but this is a safety issue as much as it is economic.  I’m not sure where the disconnect is here.  Citizens made their intentions clear at the workshops and again made their feelings to council clear prior to the meeting.  Isn’t the council supposed to represent its constituents? 

  • Lilaknight

    At the meeting, the Council was presented with results of the community survey posted online and published in the newspaper (over 200 responses thus far). The vast majority (60% plus) responded they would want to spend 0 dollars per month on new roads.

    I believe the Council was probably responding to what the majority of people expressed. If all 5 roads passed, it would raise the tax rate by 20 cents. It looks like the tax rate for this year will rise to 52 cents. If you add all the roads in, we ultimately would be at 72 cents. 

    I want roads too. But I’m not sure a .72 tax rate would be a good thing. 

  • Mike Fulton

     If the council was just going to ignore the recommendations of those of us who came out for the forum, they should not have wasted our time.   They listened to 200 anonymous votes on the internet instead… 

  • Lilaknight

    I guess for my vote to count in Nov. I need to sign my ballot. LOL

    I’m betting the Council got emails and phone calls as well. There are almost 30,000 people in Kyle. And everyone’s opinion should count. I can’t agree with you that some individual’s opinions matter more than others.

    But thank you for showing up. Missed you at the council meetings lately. And the budget workshops.

  • Gayle Meister

    In regards to the survery that was on posted on line.  I took the survery but, no where did it ask me if I was a home owner or if I lived in Kyle or what my name and address was.   They survery could have been taken by anyone who wanted to take it, it did not matter.  I could have taken the survery several times by just going to a different computer.  So I do not think the survery is a true account of the home owners of Kyle.  The home owners of  Kyle wanted the full package to go for the vote and the home owners would have cast their vote either yes or no regarding the bond package.   What ever the outcome of the vote, you would have given the home owners the choice to say yes or no.

  • willmcmanus

    Lila – I know you are big proponent of citizen participation but it seems in this case that it carried little weight. In general, an anonymous on-line survey should be given little weight especially when stacked against a citizen committee that recommended an opposite viewpoint. I am not saying whether or not the council was right in their decision but it doesn’t appear that they were serious about what the locals actually think/want.

    On the flip side… we vote these folks in to a pretty darn thankless job and may, at times, have to trust what they are doing. ALWAYS verify what they are up to and if you end up not liking one vote them out at the next election.

  • Lilaknight

    I recall it did ask what subdivision you lived in. And, of course, anyone could have lied about that. 

    I’m not certain where you come up with the statement that “the homeowners of Kyle wanted the full package.” I’m pretty sure more than 50 homeowners live in the city. You must know something I don’t. LOL  Gayle, aren’t you on the Mobility Committee?

  • Lilaknight

    I bet the council also got emails and phone calls about it. But the reasons given by individual council members for not going for all the roads at one time was the steep increase in the tax rate (20 cents added to existing). If you go over to the article on the budget, everyone is screaming against a 4 cent increase. LOL

    Maybe we’re just confusing the Council. People are fine with a 20 cent increase for roads, but don’t want to spend an additional 4 cents for operations of the City? I’m confused too….

  • JohnA

     exactly Gayle  seems our work on the mobility  committee was in vain.  

  • JohnA

      Lila we can only  go by those who showed up at the  meetings .
    ,thats why we need to have a * election * to truly know if the citizens of kyle are prepared  to pay for ALL or ANY of the  road improvments *guessing * the answer by some members of the  council doesnt cut it  on a project  as important as  this .  

     

  • mpchristie

     I’ve gone to the budget meetings I was able to attend and attend city council when I can.  I attended the forums.  No one asked me if I was a city resident when I went to the forums.  There were not 200 people at the forums (as opposed to the survey # of participants) and some of them were not city residents as may be the case with the survey.  There were more participants in the survey than the two forums.  The Council put a survey on the internet for input…they had the survey in the paper…they had notices for the forums in the paper…on their website..you can lead a horse to water…well you know the rest.  Nothing is fool proof. 

    The bottom line is get your body into the budget meetings and speak up. Bring your neighbor.   This is your city and you need to be involved..if you cannot get to the meeting, each council members’ email and phone is on the city website.  If you don’t like what your council representative is doing…get your body to the voting booth and vote them out!   If you don’t think Bunton Creek Road should be the road to get the improvements first, vote against it in the election…simple enough.  If you don’t want to give the city employees a raise, go to the next meeting, call your council rep, let them know.  If they only hear from three people, it is not their fault..it is the residents fault for not taking an active role.  One thing you can be sure of…if the city tax rates go to .72 there will be no influx of residents to Kyle…and the list of those leaving will go up dramatically.   It is what it is…the Council must keep in mind the pocketbooks of the residents are just so deep…those who can’t afford to live her will leave and those considering a move in will cross Kyle off the list.     

  • JohnA

      LILA  if the council takes action based  on a *community survey * that anybody could take as many times  as they choose regardless  of citizenship of kyle or not

     then why  bother to form a mobility  committee to canvas the views and opinions expressed by the public on the issue ?

     seems like  a waste of our (the committees)  time .

  • Aly M

    We need better roads in Kyle, I don’t think anyone would argue the opposite. Counci should have put all 5 roads the visioning process identified on a bond election for all of us (taxpayers) to decide if the investment is worth the cost. In this case, I think it  is.
    I was one of those who complained about the 4 cent increase to our property tax rate on the other article. I simply was complaining that city employees could have done without a 3.5% pay increase, and that could have potentially only required a 2% increase in property taxes. I’m not against paying city employees, but until we have good financial ground to stand on in Kyle, we could forgo pay increases, for this year at least. That would have lessenmed the burden of paying for roads, if we the voters would have had the opportunity to vote for them.

  • Lilaknight

    Only 2 people spoke at the public hearing on the road bond that the Mobility Committee held. There were other people in the audience, but they didn’t speak.

  • Lilaknight

    All the members of the Council are “guessing.” The motion that failed would have bundled all 5 roads into one proposition to vote up or down. Citizens wouldn’t have had a choice on which roads. It was ALL or nothing. Frankly, I’m not certain which would be the best approach on this: roads listed separately for voters or bundled into one proposition.

    I’m assuming you are the John that is the chairman of the city’s Mobility Committee from your other comments. Lots of criticism on this thread about not taking “anonymous” people’s opinions seriously. LOL

  • Ken_Christie

    The following may seem to be off-topic, but, if thought
    about, you may find that it drills to the core of the perceived problem at
    hand.  If one was to perform a true root
    cause analysis of this “problem” I’m confident that the real problem would be
    identified as the apathy of the citizenry of Kyle.

     

    What is being debated here are just symptoms.  If a town of 30 thousand can’t turn out 300
    total voters for the election of a mayor, can’t turn out more than 200 actual
    citizens for the type of forums that were held to discuss the future of Kyle,
    can’t get more than 200 legitimate responses to an ONLINE survey to obtain
    input concerning a major bond issue….well, you get the picture.  It would appear that Kyle adequately fits the
    description of a true bedroom community. 
    The result is a lack of interest in the local government and its
    doings.  Nobody cares about the direction
    the city takes until it costs them money. 
    If the tax rate goes up appreciably look for many to seek out another
    “bedroom”…..doesn’t matter where as long as it’s reasonably close to the
    workplace and is cheaper to sleep in than Kyle.

     

    So what’s my suggestion? 
    Short term it’s not much help.  The
    Council has to decide the issue at hand (that’s why we elected them), those
    citizens who are truly interested have to vote on it, and we all have to live
    with the result.  In the long run Kyle
    has to change direction.  We need
    rateables that will contribute to the tax coffers, not drain them.  For the time being, we need to curtail
    subdivision and apartment growth and concentrate on manufacturing and
    commercial development.  The former use
    more resources than they pay for.  The
    latter do the opposite.  We need an
    anchor economy.  Sure, we can still be a
    “bedroom” for Austin,
    but we need to build a viable economy here that will help to reverse the
    bedroom syndrome.  Barring such a change
    in course I think we may just want to unincorporate and volunteer to Austin for annexation (although I don’t believe that’s legal) because it’s beginning to look like we’re heading for an expensive alternative
    that won’t have a desireable outcome.

  • Donn Brooks

    Memo to Ken Christie:  It must be nice to be so confident.  This apathy is not new in Kyle nor is it something that is not a problem in most cities.  Generally when citizens get all riled up othing is improved upon but all sorts of hard feelings materialize.  Your infinite wisdom regarding de-annexation is intrguing.  Can you tell us something of your background? 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7FOH2MO7PGOGO4QTKO2BJFWMVU Brian

    Pay Now……. Pay Later…… Either way,,, we will have to pay and with costs always on the rise, paying now may as well be the better solution!!

  • Donn Brooks

    The issue ought to revolve around this proposition:  Is the taxation an investment that will pay off with increased property values?  We cannot be prophets, but that ought to be the calculus by which we approach taxation.  We are normally not sorry when we build roads, if we build them right.  We should study hard before we hire policemen because that is a recurring expense.  Well-built roads last a long while.  

  • Lilaknight

    I think that is exactly the attitude that got us where we are as a city today. Into a tremendous amount of debt. There is a way to more wisely solve our problems – and our needs and wants – with respect to what our budget will bear. We need a plan… Yours, apparently, is just to charge up the credit card. LOL

    Yes, we need roads. That is not the issue. It’s how we can best pay for them.Best of luck to you.

Advertisement HTML Help>

Recent Comments

Latest Headlines

The Hays Free Press on Facebook

Photo Gallery

120x600 ad code [Inner pages]
Log in

Our weather forecast is from Wunderground for WordPress

| Congratulations, you read all the way to the bottom.