By Moses Leos III

Tempers occasionally flared Monday as Mountain City residents voiced their thoughts on an interlocal agreement that could allow Kyle to annex the Anthem subdivision into it’s extra territorial jurisdiction. 

Some residents believe the proposed ILA between Kyle, Mountain City and Hays County may not be in Mountain City’s best interest. 

“This is a sale of ETJ from Mountain City to the City of Kyle. My view is that if we’re selling the ETJ, we need to negotiate the best deal,” Mountain City resident John Wilson said. “The way it is now, I wouldn’t want anyone to sign it. It’s a terrible agreement.” 

The parties came together at the Plum Creek Country Club for the first open meeting among officials from Kyle, Hays County and Mountain City. 

It was meant to bridge the ongoing discord between Mountain City residents and city and county officials over the ILA. The agreement would allow Kyle to annex Anthem from Mountain City’s ETJ. In turn, Kyle has proposed to provide water and wastewater services to the subdivision. Hays County would provide the materials to give Mountain City new roads.

The ILA, according to city and county officials, offers alternative options for the Anthem subdivision and developer Clark Wilson for water and wastewater service. 

The subdivision is one of three customers of Electro Purification (EP). 

Kyle Mayor Todd Webster said his city is pursuing the ILA to “do what’s best for the region.” He said avoiding a wastewater treatment plant over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone was also important. He also informed the crowd the city isn’t forcing Mountain City to any agreement. 

“We don’t want to force Mountain City to anything they don’t want to do,” Webster said. “Whatever choice you as a community make, we’ll support that.” 

But he also told residents the city plans to annex the property “as soon as possible.” The reasoning went toward collecting revenue from the subdivision to pay for infrastructure costs for the development, if the ILA is agreed upon.  

Hays County Precinct 3 Commissioner Will Conley said the agreement offered a solution, as Kyle has a surplus of water for Anthem. He said the agreement had to be a “win, win all around or it wasn’t going to work.” 

Conley also addressed Mountain City’s development agreement with Clark Wilson for Anthem. He called it the “lowest possible standard” and that it had to improve. The idea, according to officials, was to build upon the development agreement.

He also informed the crowd that growth is approaching the area. 

“Where you sit today is the fastest growing county in Texas,” Conley said. “You may not like it, you may do everything to fight it. But that is your reality.” 

But most residents were unwilling to agree. That led to several tense moments, culminating with a spat between residents and Conley over his input on the ILA.  

Resident John Wilson, who called the ILA “trash,” focused on a 60-day termination of the ILA for any of the three parties. He feared it could allow Kyle or Hays County to back out of the deal. 

“At that point, the only person that has given up something and gotten nothing is Mountain City,” Wilson said. “The way it’s drafted is awful in perspective of Mountain City residents.” 

He also had concerns that the ILA would dissolve the original development agreement with Clark Wilson, going against officials’ claims it’s meant to improve it.  

Another resident questioned the county’s improvement of roads, saying Mountain City had received road improvements in the past. 

“We are giving up our ETJ for a lifetime for one street repair? I don’t get it,” he said.  

Much of the concern centered around Mountain City’s ETJ. Conley questioned residents on the use of the ETJ as a buffer, asking what value it holds for residents.

Resident Pauline Tom said the ETJ was worth too much to give up. In addition, she argued that an agreement with Kyle in 2001 allowed for Mountain City to receive infrastructure, and that the current ILA would be bargaining for something the city already has. 

“To have Kyle come in and touch us at the boundaries, it’s infringing,” Tom said. “That leaves us with no protection and no buffer.” 

One resident said Mountain City and its citizens must work with Kyle and Clark Wilson to get a mutually beneficial deal. 

“What you initially gave to us isn’t a deal,” he said. 

Conley said further discussion of the ILA could alleviate the issues of a “bad first impression” to residents on the agreement. He believes it could be mutually beneficial to central and western Hays County. 

A resident asked Hays County to be a good neighbor, primarily when Mountain City residents fought for Will Conley’s constituents and the Save our Wells initiative. 

“I would like to ask that you do that back for us,” she said. 

Hays County Pct. 2 Commissioner Mark Jones said after the meeting that the current ILA was a “rough draft” and Hays County will now “tighten” up its end of the agreement.