Multi-million Dollar Parking Problem

In today’s Boerne Star regarding the shortage of parking spaces already creating problems at the brand new, multi-million dollar high school:

“Kelly acknowledged that BISD officials were surprised by the parking problems that have plagued Champion High School since opening day because the new school has 79 more parking spaces than Boerne High School did last year and the number of students is virtually unchanged.Kelly said he now realizes that Boerne High School has better pedestrian access than Champion High School and that the streets around BHS provide alternatives to on-campus parking. Because Champion High School is relatively isolated, Kelly said students have fewer off-campus parking alternatives, thus there is more demand for on-campus parking at Champion this year than there was at BHS last year.“I feel that I should have anticipated this different setting as we planned parking for Champion High School; thus I feel it is necessary to correct our problem now,” Kelly said.”

Are you kidding me? BISD selects a site on a major highway, outside of any residential neighborhood, continues to resist building the required sidewalks (causing students to walk on the highway shoulder) and Kelly says he was surprised that the different setting created problems?!!

In addition to this expense, a BISD newsletter reported a while back that the school district
had to purchase additional buses (more drivers and fuel) for students close in to the school who would normally have walked to the old high school but can’t walk to the new one, due to its location on a major highway.

The average Kendall County resident looked at Kelly’s choice of a location when it was announced and saw problems. Why so close to the existing high school? Why put it on a major highway that is already expected to have congestion problems, with essentially one entrance in and out?
Mr. Haberstroh, who is both the Construction Bond Manager for BISD and sits on City Council, wears two hats on theses issues, which currently include failure to build a sidewalk, addressing proper road drainage so the City can take over Charger Boulevard and enforcement of the no parking agreement. How does he avoid potential conflicts of interest?

But the really astounding thing in this ‘problem,’ is the amount of tax dollars (by far our biggest county tax hit and growing every year!) we fork over and that those who are managing it did not ‘anticipate’ such an obvious problem in their choice of location.

Remember the public outrage at the per acre cost for the BISD land and being told that it was a ‘deal’? Was part of that deal related to the fact that at the same time this school location was being considered, two nearby properties were being planned for future development- The Trails of Herff Ranch and the Hagee property (now Esperanza)? Engineer, Mike Coyle, was hired by both The Trails of Herff Ranch and Esperanza. He was also sitting on City Planning and Zoning.
Didn’t this school location become a financial enhancement for these developments and their associates?

Before dismissing this idea, remember that Dr. Kelly wrote a letter, on BISD stationary, to the State Natural Resources Committee, supporting the approval for Esperanza’s water district. Dr. Kelly later attempted to downplay this letter of support as having been written by someone else and that he simply signed it. He has apparently stated he was not representing BISD. Dr. Kelly’s letter, in which he identified himself as the BISD Superintendent and was written on stationary with the district’s letterhead, was presented and read at the State Committee hearing by Mike Coyle.
A Boerne Star column, written by Dr. Kelly in support of Esperanza, is currently being used on Marlin Atlantis’ website as a glowing endorsement for their development corporation from a school district superintendent.

Is this simply sour grapes about development or no growth rhetoric? Not hardly - this is about cold hard cash- ours! Residential development, unlike commercial or even undeveloped land, costs taxpayers more in services than it brings in. Add to that cost poor location planning and you have to ask if taxpayers are underwriting private interests. There’s a lot of that going around these days!

Dr. Kelly says it is necessary to ‘correct our problem now.’ The ‘correction’ he is going to make is to spend more of our money- we will pay for his ‘failure to anticipate’. Taxpayers should ask if the school district- who works for us- has demonstrated common sense in future planning, school placements and whose best interests have been served.

Anonymous

Water, Water Everywhere?

We have been told Kendall County is in the middle of the worst drought in many years. Well levels are at historic lows, Boerne Lake is rapidly becoming a mud puddle and Canyon Lake (the source of GBRA water) is at a historically depleted level.

Yet last week the City Council voted reduced watering restrictions, and the Cow Creek Groundwater District Board voted to disregard its own rules and permit using millions of gallons of groundwater for a golf course.

What are our elected officials telling us? We're in a serious drought, but now its OK for some to begin using massive amounts of water?

Is the drought a serious issue or not? Our elected officials should be giving us clear guidance and making fair and consistent decisions that make sense.


Jack Wilson

ANOTHER BREAK FOR DEVELOPERS TO THE DETRIMENT OF KENDALL COUNTY TAXPAYERS

By now, Kendall County residents have received their new property tax assessments and bills from the Kendall Appraisal District. There is something all taxpayers should be aware of:

Kendall County assessment rolls have literally hundreds of lots owned by developers assessed at a fraction of their true market value .

Gary Eldridge (the chief appraiser) has stated the Texas Legislature allows him to value the property less because it is "inventory" held for sale. The method of valuing "inventory" is left up to the chief appraiser, therefore it varies from one appraisal district to another. Eldridge uses a formula of 30 to 40 per cent of market value.

The question needs to be asked if people here in Kendall County realize what a huge tax break is being given to developers; and to their detriment.

We were told that once the houses are sold, the assessed value will increase and be in line with the homes held by individuals. Let us just say, the inventory homes are on the market for one year (and many have been on the market for several years) . This is lost revenue to the city, County and school districts and by all means, unfair to those individuals who own homes; lost revenue that can pay for schools, roads and bridges, fire and law enforcement protection, etc, without having to raise taxes.

I think it is time individual taxpayers make their voices heard by contacting the chief appraiser and your state representatives. Not only should the residents of Kendall County get involved, but our local elected officials have a duty and obligation to help pass new legislation to prevent developers from getting special deals at the cost of taxpayers’ detriment and loss of tax revenues to the taxing entities (BISD, City, and County). Special attention should be focused on this issue by the BISD as they are the largest taxing entity.

In a San Antonio Express News article, "Senator Jeff Wentworth plans to look into local complaints that homeowners and taxing entities are being hurt by a state law that lets developers with unsold subdivision lots seek discounted appraisals." He also stated that he was unaware of the tax code provision.

Wentworth apparently plans to review the Property Code, which gives chief appraisers wide latitude; but said, "It's too early to say whether he would seek changes."

Considering Wentworth's comment that it is "too early to say whether he would seek changes," it is imperative that the residents of Kendall County contact him and/or our representative (to be determined in November) in support of changing the aforementioned Property Code.

Karen M. Wetzel

How Much Groundwater Do We Have?

The Tapatio Springs Golf Resort's request for 412.21 acre-feet is 134,319,040.71 gallons.134 million gallons seems like a lot of water.

Does anyone know the current capacity of the Cow Creek, its current consumption rate, its recharge source, or its recharge rate?

How have the recent few years of relative drought impacted historical rates?

Sandy Fitzpatrick

Get involved in Kendall County's Budget process

Normally Kendall County has three, sometimes four rounds of workshops in the annual budget approval process. At these workshops each department's budget request is discussed.

It is up to the Judge and Commissioners as to how many rounds there will be. But, that is determined when they reach that point. There will be a 3rd round the week of July 14th. (It will be posted on the web with the date and time).

If you are interested in your County Government services, and are concerned about your property taxes, you should plan to attend this workshop.

A Day Late

If you’ve heard a scurrying sound lately, you aren’t the only one. There’s a political scrambling to run for cover after the ‘democratic’ fiasco orchestrated by some of our City leaders. It brings to mind that old saying about being ‘a day late and a dollar short.’

Most Water Control Districts such as Esperanza go through an Ordinance process. Instead, the City did it through resolution, which didn’t allow for public hearings. Even with this, Mayor Heckler could have held Town Hall meetings so citizens could ask questions of Council about the development.

Instead, at the first Special Meeting to vote on Esperanza, Mayor Heckler tried to limit the citizen comment portion to 45 minutes and said he was going to ‘randomly’ decide who should speak. Only after objections by Councilman Zeigler, did that change.

Councilwoman Edmondson seemed concerned that advocating for broader participation and information would indicate a distrust of City staff and their lawyer, paid for by Esperanza. While she may have been satisfied with their conclusions, she should have allowed more time to address her constituents’ dissatisfaction.

Councilman Warden (who received over half of his donations from Esperanza related donors), expressed impatience during a January Council meeting, interrupting Councilman Zeigler’s questions and urging to get on with a vote. Now we’ve seen Warden telling the press that he agrees the process could have been more open, and that he has emailed the City Manager and Mayor with suggestions on how to do it better next time.

What of Councilman Dubose? Not only did he vote against a 30-day extension for more public input but he also opposed a miserly 6 more days for citizen review of what the city attorney has called the most complicated agreement in the state.

Last June, a year after his election, and just days after Governor Perry signed the bill for Esperanza’s water district, Dubose received his largest reported contribution- $2000. This was from a member of the family who sold the land for Esperanza.
Whoever fills a politician’s coffers is the best indication of whom they will represent.

At his Open House this week, Mayor Heckler actually claimed that he did not speak in favor of Esperanza at any time. One might argue that the trip he made to Austin with employees of Esperanza to lobby Representative Macias for the development, spoke volumes.
So, if you find some of these folks are suddenly talking about ‘public misperceptions,’ their wanting Boerne to stay small, ‘not being pro-Esperanza’ and the need for more public participation and transparency, caution; it is simply the sound of politicians running for cover. Which reminds me of another old saying: ‘Actions speak louder than words.’

How Safe is YOUR Neighborhood?

On February 12, the night of the historic vote on Esperanza, The City Council had a hearing at 7pm to listen to arguments both for and against the change in zoning use at 507 Frey Street, which is an R-1 residential neighborhood. The request was made by the Hill Country Christian Action Council, dba: The Hill Country Pregnancy Care Center . The Pregnancy Care Center is a good organization and provides needed services for our community . It is not what they do , but how they want to do it.

 

An ordinance was past last year by the Boerne City Council to allow 501 © (3), non profit corporations to be located in an R-1 residential neighborhood by using the existing housing stock so that the neighborhood would not be negatively impacted. Just as important, it is clear in the ordinance that when the building is vacated it must revert back to it’s original use, R-1 residential.

 

The Pregnancy Center bought the property at 507 Frey with a 900 square foot home on it. They knew this house would not meet their needs and they plan to demolish it and build a 6000 square foot medical facility , a paved parking lot and erect a 15 square foot sign.

 

In an article in the Boerne Star , they claimed that “they have been given a favorable reception by the Frey Street residents”. This gave the erroneous impression that the neighbors had been consulted and were supportive. I can honestly say there was not a favorable reception . We submitted 81 signatures from 65 residences in the Frey street neighborhood who were against the ordinance.

 

Additionally, Councilman Jacque Dubose, sits on the board of the Directors of the Hill Country Pregnancy Care Center.

The City Attorney said that Jacque Dubose legally did not have a conflict of interest in this matter.  Jacque Dubose said he could vote objectively for the interests of the citizens of Boerne. Yet as a director of the HCCPC he is charged with the responsibility to do everything  to further the mission of the organization. He has taken a personal interest in the pregnancy care center and he cannot act with   independence and impartiality, legally or not. The citizens of Boerne are entitled to have a fair, ethical and accountable local government.

 

In closing, it is not over yet. This item was taken off the Agenda until further notice.

The way ordinance was written, a 501 © (3) can go into any neighborhood in Boerne , next door or across the street from your house with City Council approval.

Ted and Janis Maxymof

 

 

Power to the People

The Initiative, Referendum and Recall.

In political terminology, these tools enable citizens to bypass their government by creating new laws, nullifying existing laws, and removing elected officials. The first state to adopt these tools was South Dakota in 1898. Since then, 23 other states have included them in their constitutions, the most recent being Mississippi in 1992. Unfortunately, Texas is not one of those states, however the City of Boerne’s Home Rule Charter does provide these powerful tools for its voting citizens.

The Initiative allows the voters the power to propose ordinances to the Council. If the Council fails to adopt an ordinance the voters have the power to adopt or reject it in a City election

The Referendum allows the voters the power to require reconsideration by the Council of any adopted ordinance. If the Council fails to repeal the ordinance, the voters have the power to approve or reject it at a City election.

The Recall allows voters to petition for recall of the Mayor or any member of the City Council, and thereby remove him from office.

When it is clear the Boerne City Council is not representing the desires of the majority of its citizens, these powerful tools should be seriously considered.

Andy

Constituents What Constituents!

In the February 12th City Council meeting, it was very clear that some Council members had absolutely no intention of listening to their constituents. Their minds were made up; they were simply going through the motions; ignoring any new facts or alternate analysis on the issue. The development agreement was going to be approved, no matter what anyone had to say … and that was that.
Well ..... two of the council persons who voted for this development agreement will be up for election very soon. There's no getting around this fact ...... they will be forced to listen to their constituents on Election Day!

Dear Mayor and City Council

Dear Mayor and City Council.

This is an open letter with some observations following the Wednesday
Council Meeting to discuss the Esperanza Development Agreement ("DA").

1) I must say I felt a little sorry for some of the "Boerne Forward"
supporter wearing the "Yesperanza" cards. I spoke with several who
were under the impression this is a vote "for" or "against" the
Esperanza development. I sat next to a young couple and asked why they
were in favor of the "Development Agreement" and they told me how the
town needed more low cost housing so their friends who used to live
here could move back. They had no idea why they were supporting the DA
over annexation. Several speakers talked about how it will bring more
services to our area. This is about the smartest way to move forward
(annexation or Development Agreement), not about whether to move at all.

3) The City manager when asked if he used the same sales projections
for the Annexation as for the DA, said, "no" that he used a 15 year
build out instead of 10 years used on the "cost negative" model. I was
appalled. This deliberately makes the annexation look less favorable
as the payoff is slower than the numbers used in his "cost negative"
model he prefers.

4) The top reasons the City Manager presented that he and his staff
favored the DA over annexation was because it 1) avoided litigation,
and 2) it put "less pressure" on he and his staff during the years
before the annexation paid for itself (which he unfairly pushed out in
the future). Those reasons are based on fear. Fear is not from God.
Making a decision based on fear is not God's will for Boerne.

Jefferson Morgenthaler's open letter to you on February 4, 2008 points
out several issues deficiencies in the DA which need to be addressed
to protect Boerne. Having been made aware of these issues, approving
and executing this document would be negligent.

I would encourage you to annex the property so the city can realize
the tax and utility benefits immediately. The initial cost for
annexation can be financed using bonds just like other growing cities
do. It is a fraction (~10M) of the recent school bond (~98M) we passed
a few years ago. Besides, if the development does not grow as fast as
projected (which many believe it will not) the expenses are far lower.

Thank you.

Thom Dunaway

Open Letter to the Boerne City Council

It is my intent to try and lay out in a sequential way, the reasons why I believe this (Esperanza) agreement should be laid aside.

To begin with, let me put this into context, as a taxpayer and citizen.
Having advocated for, and participated in, the development of the new Master Plan, the proposal of a WCID within the ETJ raised red flags for residents. The Master Plan advises against one. Given this, annexation has always been an option that was encouraged and a study of the pros and cons of it has been advocated. Knowing this, citizens were given assurances from the outset, that the City’s ‘lack of opposition’ in Marlin Atlantis’ application for the WCID, would allow the City to turn it down, if it was determined to not be in the best interest of its residents.
I would like to remind you of the following comments:

“In an interview with the Star…Macias stressed that his decision to support a bill creating the WCID #2 hinged primarily on the fact that the City of Boerne would ultimately control the district’s fate…..In neither SB 1245, nor in Macias’ substitute bill, can the WCID#2 take effect without the consent of the Boerne City Council…”My overarching reason for supporting this is that the legislation will give local control to the City of Boerne,” Macias said.” Boerne Star, May 18, 2007

“Wentworth also pointed out that, even if the WCID bill does pass the Legislature, the city of Boerne must still pass a resolution consenting to the creation of the district for it to become operational.” Boerne Star, March 13, 2007

“Kugel (of Marlin Atlantis) claimed… WCID will require city consent before confirmation election can be held to create the district.” Senate Hearings in Austin

“…Baker said, Marlin Atlantis does not want to be annexed by the city, although he said there is nothing to prevent the city from annexing all or part of the development at any time.” Boerne Star

And perhaps most importantly, we witnessed the following:

“The council vote in favor of the resolution expressing no opposition to the introduction of legislation creating WCID #2 was sought by Marlin Atlantis and it will facilitate moving the project forward. But there is no assurance that the city will allow it to be activated.
In fact, the city has more control over Esperanza’s future if the Legislature created the WCID than if it does not. A WCID created by the Legislature requires an affirmative action by the city to be activated…….

Councilman Bob Manning called City Attorney Mick McKamie to the podium Tuesday night to drive home this very point.”

Given this context, presented to citizens, it was with great dismay that I saw that the City’s ‘analysis’ of an annexation scenario, begins with the assumption that Marlin Atlantis will turn this into a litigious issue. From a citizen standpoint, this feels as if either the City or Marlin Atlantis has broken faith with its residents by misleading them at the outset, or, at the very least- the City Attorney failed to give adequate legal advice as to this liability from the beginning.
Having attended the hearings in Austin for the WCID, I can assure you that the transcript for those hearings contains the assertion, repeated over and over again by Senator Wentworth, attorneys for Marlin Atlantis, Marlin Atlantis owners, Mr. Jolley, Mr. Coyle and other supporters- that the City could deny this agreement at anytime. The Senate Committee members stated that this was the basis for their approval- that the City could choose ‘not to approve.’

In evaluating the annexation scenario, one can find the following failings:

1.) A unilateral assumption that litigation will occur. This begs the question of integrity, given the numerous comments (such as those above) on record. If this is an indication of who we would be contracting with, then what cause is there to trust other assurances made? Based on the record, I believe that they would not win and furthermore, it would be a PR nightmare to bring suit against the City, given the sound reasons and obvious advantage to residents in annexation. This is a Staff opinion that biases the outcome considerably. Conversely, it assumes that there will not be any future legal problems with whoever ‘owns’ Esperanza in enforcing the Development Agreement.

2.) Based on a litigation scenario, another unfounded opinion assumes that build out will be delayed for 3 years.

3.) A build out delay skews every other category- all collectible taxes, fees, sales tax, etc.
This is a substantial amount, particularly where it concerns ad valorem taxes.

4.) An unfounded assumption that the City will not require any trails, green space or amenities (as has been standard in other developments). This also assumes that the developer has no desire to include these to improve the marketability and price of the homes. These basic amenities are standard requests, and are supported by the Master Plan. But, instead of the possibility of it being potential income, a deduction is made in the expense column.

5.) An assumption that homes would be priced 15% less. This is unsupportable conjecture. Even if there were merit to this assumption, Mr. Thompson states that he calculated the average home price with a 15% reduction would be $250,000.
This price affected the anticipated ad valorem taxes collected. Although it is not clear what figure was used in the current packet, or the Agreement analysis, Esperanza has said its average home price will be $312,500. Using this figure, a 15% deduction yields a home price of $266,250. This is $16,250 more than Mr. Thompson’s analysis. This discrepancy also affects the ad valorem taxes collected.

6.) In an explanation of the Cost Neutral Graph, they use a figure of 2222 homes for annexation vs. 2480 homes with the development agreement. The 260 home difference will affect several categories of income, including sales tax, fees, ad valorem tax, etc.

7.) One of the most egregious omissions to the calculations is the failure to add in road impact fees. Ord. No. 2007-63 states that a developer can be required to contribute the fair share of road impact costs, as determined by the criteria set forth in the ordinance.
Without even having to revisit the scope of the traffic impact ordinance (the anticipated impact of the development determines the level of study and the distance and scope of the impacts, which in this case, would meet the maximum amount allowable), it is readily apparent that a minimum of $2.8 million would be required since their “fair share” of impact has already been agreed upon.
Not only does the analysis fail to include this amount in its income column for annexation, it actually includes it in the expense column for annexation.

This omission is glaring. I cannot determine what other impact fees may not have been included as income for the annexation scenario.
All of the above combined, can only point to an obvious bias in the determinations. I can find no other logical explanations.

In spite of these unfounded, overlooked or miscalculated figures, the annexation scenario still comes out ahead as a good financial choice for taxpaying citizens.
One must consider then, how different the bottom line would have looked with the proper approach to the analysis.

In addition, the pros and cons list is equally tilted. There is no mention of the many liabilities such as a downturn in home prices due to the economy and its impact on the various income categories or failure to perform and the legal costs associated with that scenario.

This leads to the second consideration, that of the advisability of this agreement from a legal perspective. The general feedback from those who are familiar with such things, supports the concerns that I and others have expressed from the beginning- government by developer is a shaky proposition.
Since this agreement can be altered at any time that the Council so approves, it paves the way for future PACs of disgruntled Esperanza citizens to fund candidates for City Council. The complications inherent in this arrangement are numerous.
Annexation, with its accompanying City governance, places future development on an equal playing field and assures us the freedom to govern as future circumstance and needs dictate is best. The liabilities in this agreement appear to warrant further legal study, and one must assume that concerned citizens will hold it up to that level of scrutiny.

The fact that records request for studies has been denied, the agreement was available for only 5 days and the lack of a true Public Hearing, limits citizen involvement and government transparency. One example of issues of transparency is the lack of information, within the packet or in Council meetings, regarding the future road plans within Esperanza. The map itself does not clearly identify the amount of proposed ROW for TxDOT or identify the Adler extension plan as a by-pass for SH 46. If this ROW is adopted in this agreement, it will have circumvented public input on roads that will require imminent domain on adjoining properties.

In his denial to my Open Records Request, Mr. McKamie told the Texas Attorney General’s Office:
‘The development agreement is the largest and most complex in the history of Kendall County, and likely the entire state.”

Given the issues raised here and by other concerned citizens, this declaration by Mr. McKamie should create more than reasonable doubt as to the advisability of approving this agreement under these circumstances.

In summary, the promise given to citizens was that the City would have the freedom to choose the best option for its residents. The annexation scenario produced by the City is seriously flawed and correction of those deficits would yield even greater margins favorable to the City. Even with these flaws, the financial outcome is favorable over the Agreement.
Upholding the expressed wishes of the citizens contained in the Master Plan, the prospect of the legal failings of this agreement and the precedent it sets for the future, are sound reasons to not approve this agreement.

Thank you so much for your time and effort in this matter. I wish only the best for you our community.

Sincerely,

Paula Cairns

The End of Boerne as We Know It

The End of Boerne as We Know It- a Report on Last Night's City Council Meeting.

The influence of Marlin Atlantis of Dallas, the developer for Esperanza, was in full evidence last night. We've come to expect this from those who have been hired by MA, that's understandable. It is the City staff, who are tasked with looking out for the welfare and safety of it's residents, that were center stage last night. MA could not have hired better representation than they had from the City employees- from the City Manager on down.

Since the development agreement has been kept out of the public eye (requests for copies have been denied), citizens are left to listen to the discussions and presentations as they unfold in Council.

While two Council members have repeatedly asked for staff to run different scenarios to determine what might be the best long term outcome for this property from the taxpayer's standpoint, the lack of due diligence by the City staff in this area was glaring. The City has the option of not approving Esperanza's water control district and annexing the property or allowing a MUD. No one knows what the pros and cons of these scenarios are, especially from a financial standpoint, because the City has failed to do a thorough study of them.

Even the most basic due diligence, such as determining road impacts, was not done. When asked by a concerned council member how the staff could state that MA's $2.3 million road contribution would even begin to address the impact on roads from this development that will double the size of Boerne, the Assistant City Manager made a most remarkable statement. He claimed that the impacts couldn't be quantified. The City Manager then added that it had already been determined by the County Citizen's Transportation Committee that expanding Herff Rd. and it's proposed extension to Main St., was needed with or without Esperanza. This was incorrect.The facts are that the Citizen Committee spent the better part of their year trying to find solutions to the traffic generated by Esperanza, and even with all their multi-million dollar proposals, still came to the conclusion that River Rd. and Herff would remain at unacceptable levels of service.

As to not being able to quantify the impacts or costs, doing an accurate and in depth traffic impact analysis is such a standard procedure, it would be considered irresponsible by any City to not conduct such a thorough study for a development that will double the amount of traffic on it's streets. The staff knows full well that this is what TxDOT and numerous other engineering companies do, not to mention many city engineers.

As to the costs, generic construction costs show that two additional lanes added to an urban arterial runs around $4.8 million a mile and a new two lane arterial is around $5.6 million per mile- not including the right of way costs of condemnation proceedings and buy-out. Bridges, such as the one at the intersection of Herff and River Roads, are quite expensive, as complex environmental mitigation measures are required during construction. The duplicity evident by the staff over this issue was nothing short of irresponsible.

Due to issues such as traffic and the sheer size of the development, the request for a more in depth look at the alternatives had been made by Councilmen Rob Zeigler and Bob Manning. The City Developer's 10 minute response was that he had done a rough estimate of the maximum number of houses that could be built in the MUD or annexation scenarios. That was it. No cost analysis to determine what the tax revenues might be, no profit and loss analysis, no comparisons of how lower density would impact our roads, the advantages of controlling zoning to allow for adequate commercial development to serve that area (and capturing the full sales tax from it), lowered costs for services and school bonds if the density were lower, etc.

Even the lawyer hired by the City commented in an earlier workshop that he had been tasked with 'getting to yes' for the development.

City staff, and some Council members continue to raise the specter of what will happen if an agreement isn't met. It is worthwhile to consider the consequences they fear:

Loss of $2.8 million for roads- This doesn't come close to covering the actual cost of doubling the cars on our roads. How much would we save on road bonds if the number of cars were lower due to less density from proper zoning and commercial services within the development?

Loss of 'amenities' - The City, like other responsible municipalities, has routinely asked for certain amenities within new developments, required impact fees and would do so with Esperanza. Again, how would a reduction in 7,000 residents also reduce the need and costs for fire station, library, park space and other 'amenities' ? They have not studied this.

Land donated - While land for new schools is helpful, the population of Esperanza will require new and higher school bonds much sooner than if it were less dense- it is the reason why the schools are having to be built in the first place. The cost of land is a very small percentage of the total cost of building, staffing and educating students. This continues to be glossed over.

The City will lose control over how it is developed - This won't happen if it is annexed. This is also most consistent with the Master Plan, which states that a water district like this should be avoided within the ETJ and proactive annexation should be used.

We will end up paying for the infrastructure - The utility services are already in the area. The estimated cost to connect is about $5 million. The developer will be responsible for internal infrastructure, and the City will gain the revenue from the utilities. This has been standard procedure. Can commercial tax revenue and lower road costs make up for this $5 million outlay? What if you add in taxpayer's cost for larger school bonds? No one has studied this.

Aside from the figures and the unresolved traffic congestion problems, there is still the issue of what such rapid and dramatic change to Boerne and our quality of life means.

Surely a change of this magnitude requires a sincere and legitimate study to determine the true long term impacts. With everything to gain from doing a thorough analysis-not to mention taking the time to determine the desires of City residents- it is more than reasonable to not rush to a vote on January 22.

However, the two Council members who attempted to raise these questions last night, were jeered and laughed at by members of the audience affiliated with this development, who showed up in force at City Council.

The saddest observation of all is that City residents are failing to show up and participate in a decision that will bring about the demise of Boerne as we've known it. They have relinquished their future to outside developers.

Remember this 10 years from now when we are in a crisis of congestion on River Road and Main Street, school bonds and taxes are skyrocketing and developer funded candidates sit on City Council.

Anonymous