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