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

Getting Sued for Speaking Out!!

The corporate technique of suing individuals into silence and submission has become so popular that it even carries its own cute nickname in legal circles. Such lawsuits are known in lawyer lingo as "SLAPP suits," an acronym for "strategic lawsuits against public participation." SLAPP suits achieve their objectives by forcing defendants to spend huge amounts of time and money defending themselves in court. Corporations who file SLAPPs rarely win in court yet often 'win' in the real world, achieving their political agendas by silencing public discourse and dissent. SLAPP targets who fight back seldom lose in court yet are frequently devastated and depoliticized, which in effect discourages others from speaking out--'chilled' in the parlance of First Amendment commentary.
Several residents of Kendall County have experienced (and are experiencing) this disgusting abuse of our legal system. However, residents of this county should be encouraged by a recent ruling in the Kendall County Court at Law. In a Summary Judgment, Judge Palmer ruled in favor of Kendall County residents who had be subjected to this unjust practice. This ruling should serve as an shining example to all Kendall County residents that their first amendment rights are protected, and these intimidation lawsuits will NOT prevail here.
Citizens of Kendall County, do not let anyone intimidate you, execercize you rights to free speech!

Why is Wastewater Reuse Important to Kendall County?

for a pdf copy of this article click on the following link:

http://www.boernetogether.org/Wastewater_Reuse.pdf

Water Conservation and Reuse, The Value of Wastewater

Executive Summary
The key to water conservation is reuse. Reusing water already paid for reduces overall cost. Reuse would aid in lowering peak demands and therefore would reduce the cost of providing a basic water supply.

In Boerne it would lower the demand on groundwater used for peaking, effectively increasing both quality and quantity of groundwater throughout Kendall County.

In a typical development, if 407,313,750 gallons (1,250 acre feet) of water were used, then 372,000,000 (1,141 acre feet) would be estimated as wastewater return flow. The cost of treated water from GBRA is about $750.00 an acre foot. In this case, the value of available reuse water from return flow each year would more than $850,000.

A report produced for the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) exploring the concept of a building two regional wastewater facilities to serve eastern Hays County, identified significant reduction in water demand through treated effluent reuse. Most notable is the recognition that it is most beneficial where both need and source are close.

The study made a direct comparison to the State recommended strategy of using large regional plants to one that featured smaller multiple plants. Analysis showed the Multiple Plants Model provided the lowest cost per housing unit and the highest reuse.

The Boerne Master Plan notes Physical Growth/Expansion Trends. In all directions, health and safety issues dictate the need reliable and affordable wastewater service for residents within the City limits.

In 2004, an initial needs assessment was conducted for the City by HDR Engineering, Inc. The wastewater capacity required was based on the population estimates at full build out within the city limits over a 20 year planning period and was limited to the population served by the water supply of the City. The estimated capacity required was 2.5 MGD.

However, a new demand from Esperanza appears to have had significant influence in the preferred site selection for a new facility that could be expanded to 3.9 MGD. This factor must be considered when deciding who pays for this extra capacity and where to put it.

Finally, the City should take the lesson of others in the area and move away from considering the use of large, regional plants. Though they may work well in densely populated urban areas, they are not suitable for the Hill Country.

Instead, support the continued use of the Multiple Plant Model to increase both quality and quantity of both surface and groundwater throughout Kendall County.

Water Conservation and Reuse in Kendall County

The State Water Plan factors conservation into future water availability for all Texans.
Water conservation offers significant advantages to we who live in Kendall County as well. The key to water conservation is reuse.

Reusing water already paid for reduces overall cost. Reuse would aid in lowering peak demands and therefore would reduce the cost of providing a basic water supply.

In Boerne it would lower the demand on groundwater used for peaking, effectively increasing both quality and quantity of groundwater throughout Kendall County.

You Can’t Manage What Can’t Count
Usually it’s water availability that drives the news when it comes to growth. Lately, the topic has shifted to the equally important task of processing the water after it’s been used.

The basic factors used to determine the size of a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) are prescribed by the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ). It’s a simple worksheet called a Developers Bond Application Report Format (BARF).

These step-by-step instructions are provided to water districts as they prepare their bond application for submittal to the TCEQ. The BARF explains basic water requirements.

The common denominator is the Equivalent Single-Family Connection or ESFC. One ESFC is equal to a typical detached single-family house. Furthermore, “Unless otherwise justified by usage data or required by applicable rule, law or regulatory requirement, an ESFC is equivalent to a single-family residence with 3.0 persons.”

To get an idea of what this means to a development’s wastewater, as well as water needs, consider this TCEQ guidance: “Unless a local governmental authority requires otherwise, or unless otherwise established, an ESFC is defined as 360 Gallons Per Day (GPD) for average water usage and 300 GPD for average wastewater return flow.”

In order to account for all non-residential (commercial) connections and all multi-family residential (apartments) connections must be expressed in ESFCs using actual metered average water usage. If not yet available, projected water usages would be considered. To get this number, you could simply use the ESFC GPD factor described above.

In this case, the average return flow would be about 10,000 gallons per month of wastewater for a single-family residence. A commercial building using an average of 100,000 gallons per month of wastewater would be rated at 10 ESFCs.

As a practical example, Esperanza promises to provide all the water it will need through a Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) contract of 1,250 acre feet of surface water from Canyon Lake.

In simple math, this could yield 3100 ESFCs. This would seem reasonable to meet the basic needs (minus peaking) of the advertised 2,480 single family homes and leaves additional capacity for multi-family residential and commercial connections.

It also means of the 407,313,750 gallons (1,250 acre feet) used, 372,000,000 (1,141 acre feet) would be estimated as wastewater return flow. The cost of treated water from GBRA is about $750.00 an acre foot. In this case, the value of available reuse water from return flow each year would more than $850,000.

Maximizing a Re-use System
By United States Geologic Survey (USGS) definition, return flow is water that is returned to surface or ground water, after use or wastewater treatment, and thus becomes available for reuse. Return flow can go directly to surface water, directly to ground water through an injection well or infiltration bed, or indirectly to ground water through septic systems.

A key feature of the Esperanza development is the intent to save water through reuse. A report produced for the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) exploring the concept of a building two regional wastewater facilities to serve eastern Hays County, identified significant reduction in water demand through treated effluent reuse. Most notable is the recognition that it is most beneficial where both need and source are close.

Perhaps more importantly, the study made a direct comparison to the State recommended strategy of using large regional plants to one that featured smaller multiple plants. In the final analysis, the Smaller Multiple Plants provided the lowest cost per housing unit, as well as highest amount of reuse.

Additionally, the potential for reuse with the Multiple Plant Model would also aid in lowering peak demands and therefore would reduce the cost of providing a basic water supply. In a conjunctive water system like that of Boerne, it would lower the demand on groundwater used for peaking, effectively increasing both quality and quantity of groundwater throughout Kendall County.

Finding a Site for a Wastewater Treatment Plant
When designing a WWTP an engineer’s best friend is gravity. More gravity means less the cost. Seen from above, creek beds are logical indicators of the gravity flow. In this case, page 2-15 of the Boerne Master Plan gives a quick view of these creek systems.

Stormwater
The rolling terrain in and around Boerne allows for quick and sudden drainage of storm water. The fallen water, pulled by gravity, runs down elevation until it reaches the extensive creek system that is located throughout Boerne. Figure 2-19 shows the extensive creek system in Boerne. All of the creeks eventually converge into Cibolo Creek.

Viewing this page presents many options for placement of a WWTP. The confluence of Brown’s Creek and Cibolo Creek is one. The drainage anywhere upstream of this confluence gives an indication of other possible locations.

Less desirable locations can be accommodated through engineering solutions such as lift stations currently used around Boerne, but this increases costs.

Meeting the Wastewater Needs of Kendall County
Throughout Kendall County, several examples of the Multiple Plant Model application already exist. Tapatio Springs Resort is one. Another is Cordillera Ranch. This WWTP is built to GBRA specifications. When complete, it will be operated by GBRA. Both make good use of treated wastewater for irrigation onsite.

Another example is Kendall County Water Control and Improvement District (WCID) No. 1. This water district provides potable water to customers in the Comfort area and recycled water for irrigation of the adjacent golf course.

Clearly, several smaller facilities are more efficient than one large facility. In part this reflects economy of scale. Though economy of scale is a recognized cost factor for water supply systems, the same cannot be said for wastewater systems.

Meeting the Wastewater Needs of Boerne
The City of Boerne’s WWTP on Esser Road currently serves areas only the within City limits. The last expansion was completed just over 10 years ago. The following chronology is useful.

In 1996, it was expanded to the current permitted capacity of 1.2 Million Gallons per Day (MGD). It was designed to be expanded to a capacity of 2.4 MGD based on the current effluent discharge permits.

In 2001, City Staff became aware the WWTP was nearing its maximum capacity. By 2004, population increases and the corresponding residential and commercial customers, as well as increased infiltration and inflow from rainfall, the plant reached 75% of capacity. This triggered State requirements for a redesign.

In 2004, an initial needs assessment was conducted for the City by HDR Engineering, Inc. The wastewater capacity required was based on the population estimates at full build out within the city limits over a 20 year planning period and was limited to the population served by the water supply of the City.

From these projections it was determined the ultimate capacity needed was 3.9 MGD. Note: A recent two part story in the Boerne Star acknowledged the ultimate capacity could as high as 5.4 MGD.

In 2005, based on a 3.9 MGD capacity, the City Council authorized City Staff to explore an expansion of the existing site to 2.4 MGD and proceed with the acquisition of a second site for a WWTP.

In July 2007, the Preliminary Wastewater Process and Site Evaluation Report by HDR Engineering, Inc. notes six sites were actually evaluated by City Staff and HDR. But this was after the "City" decided to evaluate locations to support a new (or replacement) wastewater treatment plant that could be expanded beyond 2.4 MGD instead of operating two facilities perpetually.

Ultimately, an upgrade to the existing facility was deemed too expensive. However, this was based in part on questionable water test data collected during drought conditions. Funding for a new test was approved by City Council in October. The results will not be known for at least a year.

This explains how a single WWTP, ultimately capable of processing 3.9 GPD, expandable to 5.4 MGD, came to be. It also serves to explain the location because a facility this large would now also be subject to a small number of possible sites.

Given these basic facts, it is legitimate to ask if all options for a waste water treatment are on the table when meeting the current and future wastewater needs of Boerne.

Future testing could show a 2.4 MGD is feasible at the existing location. Infrastructure improvements could lessen the impact of seasonal rains. In both cases, a smaller facility, consistent with the Small Plant Model, could be best suited for future customers beyond the City limits.

Other Wastewater Needs of Boerne
The Boerne Master Plan notes Physical Growth/Expansion Trends on page 2-12. In all directions, health and safety issues dictate the need reliable and affordable wastewater service for residents within the City limits.

“The City of Boerne is currently expanding in all directions. Although major growth and expansion is occurring along I-10 in a southern direction, significant growth and expansion is occurring north, east, and west along the major roadway corridors. Figure 2-18 illustrates the current growth trends. It is anticipated that future development will continue to occur in these general outward directions.”

To the north is the Adler extension and Main Street to I-10 where commercial and industrial development is increasing.

West of I-10 at Cascade Caverns is the newly annexed Isbell Ranch as well as the Miller tract.

Also west of I-10 toward Boerne Lake are developments along Ranger Creek Road. These existing developments have experienced significant health and safety issues related to wastewater and water. New services could replace degraded septic systems and failing wells.

Moving east on State Highway 46 is Esperanza where a high residential demand for City wastewater may be created in the near future.

Each of these growth corridors is well suited to be served by the Smaller Multiple Plan wastewater concept. Additionally, this strategy could reduce water costs and lessen demand.

Meeting the Wastewater Needs of Esperanza
It is this new demand from Esperanza that appears to have had significant influence in the preferred site selection for a new facility that could be expanded to 3.9 MGD.

This resulted in the logical, but incompatible placement of a new WWTP at the confluence of the Cibolo and Menger Creeks, in the heart of the Cibolo Nature Center.

Because the site selection was justified as the lowest cost option for City of Boerne rate payers, it is also proper to consider the financial capability available to Kendall County WCID No. 2 and the developer of Esperanza.

Typically, these water districts take on the responsibility to finance, maintain and operate the water and sewer plants, the water distribution, as well as wastewater collection and drainage systems, for their customers within their boundaries.

For a developer, the most important aspect is their ability to issue tax-free municipal bonds to partially finance the construction of water, sewer and drainage utilities. These bonds are approved by the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ) with tax and debt limitations much more attractive than those offered to cities.

Recommendation: Marlin Atlantis and partners should consider constructing a wastewater collection, processing and re-use distribution system using Kendall County WCID No. 2, on site at Esperanza.

This would reduce the demand, and cost, to the City for wastewater. It would reduce peak demand and save groundwater permitted for the City of Boerne. Finally, it could eliminate the need for a new site on Cibolo Creek.

Compromise on both sides could lay the foundation for the success of Esperanza and allow Boerne to prosper without sacrificing those institutions and natural resources that contribute so greatly to our quality of life and make this community so unique.

Negotiations for a Development Agreement between the City and Esperanza are underway. Should the City opt to take on this additional demand, it is imperative wastewater reuse be not just considered, but become a mandatory feature.

The Bottom Line
The City should do all possible to preserve the capital investment previously made in the current WWTP. This includes the potential cost savings by modernizing the entire network of the existing infrastructure to reduce inflow and infiltration. The money saved through the integration of reuse water must be an integral part of any financial analysis.

The wastewater treatment management strategy of even ten years ago has changed dramatically. Keeping unit cost to the rate payer low is a top priority, but also be aware current available water resources are finite. Conservation is the name of game today.

In anticipation of major future growth, the City of Boerne has acted proactively to secure more water. The same proactive approach could easily be applied to wastewater treatment. The ultimate goal would be to adopt a Land Use Master Plan that incorporates reuse as a standard development tool.

The City should take the lesson of others in the local area and move away from considering the use of large, regional plants. Though they may work well in densely populated urban areas, they are not suitable for the Hill Country. Instead, support the continued use of the Multiple Plant Model. This is the best way to maximize the potential for reuse.

In future applications, this use of a small plant systems and reuse would aid in lowering peak demands and therefore would reduce the cost of providing a basic water supply to all customers.
In a conjunctive water system like that of Boerne, it would lower the demand on groundwater used for peaking, effectively increasing both quality and quantity of groundwater throughout Kendall County.

Milan J. Michalec
11 Nov 07

Are we ready for growth?

It seems that all discussion by elected local government officials regarding growth in Kendall County lead to one conclusion: “Growth is coming and nothing can stop it.” Special interest groups publicly vilify anyone for even questioning this foregone conclusion.

It’s hard to believe this is what the majority of the citizens in Kendall County want. If they did they, wouldn’t be living here. Certainly long time residents do not want growth to affect their property and their way of life. Clearly, new residents don’t want it to change that much either; otherwise they wouldn’t have moved here in the first place. Local residents enjoy the small town atmosphere, away from the hustle and bustle of dense urban living.

There has been a lot of hoopla regarding the financial benefits to the local residents through reduced taxes and lower utility rates. It’s highly questionable that the residents will benefit at all, and just as likely that the taxes and utility rates will go up. However, if rapid dense development is in fact a forgone conclusion, the residents of this county should expect their elected local government officials to be mindful of their health and safety before concentrating on filling the developers pockets with profits, and their coffers with property taxes.

Health and Safety and Quality of Life are tremendously important issues for the public, but for some reason they are not even being discussed. Quality of Life is easy to define by a few simple questions: Do you enjoy feeling safe in your home? Do you enjoy feeling safe walking downtown in the evening? Do you enjoy driving to and from work free of traffic jams? Do you like being able to find parking place downtown and enjoy the beautiful little shops? Do you enjoy the quiet country atmosphere and the wildlife? Do your children enjoy our excellent school system? Do you enjoy the beautiful pristine Hill Country Rivers, streams and scenery? Do you want all of this to change? These are just a few Quality of Life Issues; I’m sure you can think of a few more.

Health and Safety is arguably the most critical issue. Mass development dramatically changes our environment, and can threaten the health and safety of the general public if not properly controlled. State agencies like the TCEQ have proven to be completely ineffective and disinterested, so it is up to our local government to protect us. The current City Ordinances and County rules are designed for rural low populated areas. If we are destined to live in a densely developed urban community, then our County rules and City Ordinances must be modified now to regulate this inevitability. These ordinances and rules must be in place before the development onslaught is in full stride.

Issues like impervious cover, flood control, water resources, water quality, and wastewater discharge are gravely important when faced with massive development. If huge wastewater treatment plants are to be constructed as proposed, the discharge from these plants need to be carefully analyzed for the environmental impact. Our County and City leaders should look to the highly urban areas in the state for guidance. They have had to deal with massive development and know first hand what problems lurk.
Highly urban cities like the City of Austin and counties like Travis have had to address these issues head on. Our City and county leaders must be proactive, they cannot simply just “let it happen” and be sorry later for the problems that result.

Is Limiting Growth Bad?

Political cartoon used with permission of John Branch SA-Express News.


One community in California has no regrets. See following article. Published in The New York Times October 9, 2005

BLESSED with a quaint downtown and some of the most impressive scenery on the Pacific coast, this town is largely unknown even in San Francisco, just 20 miles south. To keep that from changing, residents have a habit of tearing down highway signs that so much as mention Bolinas.The same urge to remain pristine has led to one of the most extreme anti-growth policies in the nation.

For more than 30 years, Bolinas has refused to authorize a single new water meter, needed for hooking up to the town water supply. There are now 580 meters - the same as in November 1971, when the moratorium began. That has made water meters the most valuable currency in town. And so late last month, a water meter was auctioned for $310,000. For that, the buyer didn't get a house, or even land on which to build a house - just the right to hook up to the municipal water supply, which comes from the Arroyo Honda, a spring-fed creek about five miles north of town. "It's unbelievable that someone would have to pay that kind of money just to get water - in America," said Lorenzo Martinez, who runs a construction business in Bolinas, but said he can't afford to own a house there.Then he added: "But if I had the money, I would have bought the meter myself. This is the place I'd like my daughter to grow up."The auction might seem to be an example of profiteering, except that it was conducted by the nonprofit Bolinas Community Land Trust, which received the meter when the county condemned a house in town. The group has promised to use the money to finish turning an old service station in the center of town into affordable housing.

The water meter's new owner is Steve Hodge, a stonemason with a 4-year-old daughter who owns a plot of land in town and hopes to build a house there. Mr. Hodge was the high bidder, but Don Deane, a member of the land trust board, said that the board might have picked him over "some big fat high-roller, with plans to build a 20,000-square-foot house." The irony of the sale by a nonprofit group is not lost on residents in this community of 1,600. "The water meter money is being used for affordable housing, but the reason there's so little affordable housing in the first place is the water meters," said Dieter Tremp, an artist who lives in Bolinas.

Mr. Tremp was one of a dozen locals having dinner on a recent Thursday at the Coast Café, opposite Smiley's saloon and down the block from the Bolinas People's Store, an organic food market where customers arrive with their own paper bags. The look in town is pure 1960's. Children are barefoot and dreadlocked; grown-ups wear tie-dyes and hemp. Peace signs are everywhere, including the estate of Susie Tompkins Buell, the fabulously wealthy founder of the Esprit clothing company. Her peace sign, which is about five feet high and hangs on a barn on her property, lights up at night.

But if Bolinas is a place where in many ways time has stood still, real estate prices have not. According to B. G. Bates, a real estate broker, the seven houses on the market right now range in price from $920,000 to $8 million. The $920,000 property is a 1,200-square-foot cottage on less than one-fifth of an acre.Even the likelihood that a house will fall into the ocean doesn't deter buyers. A house on an escarpment that geologists say is likely to collapse within the next 10 years just sold for $650,000, according to Ms. Bates. The buyer bought a separate plot of land, in another part of town. That way, if the house becomes uninhabitable, he'll have a place to connect his water meter.

As in many upscale American communities, workers - including teachers, firefighters and police officers - say they can't afford to live among the people they serve. Mr. Tremp said the price established by the water meter auction is a stark reminder of the affordability gap. "There aren't too many jobs in Bolinas that will let you buy a half a million dollar water meter," he said. "It's very unfortunate."On the other hand, "if there weren't growth controls, this would be just another huge suburb," said his wife, Lauren Pollak, a local elementary school teacher. She added: "It's a huge dilemma."The dilemma caused controversy among the seven members of the land trust board. Mr. Deane, publisher of the liberal-leaning Coastal Post (a front page headline for September's issue was, "Bring the Troops Home") and the owner of Smiley's, is one of the few board members who will talk to the news media. (Others say that any publicity can only bring more people to Bolinas.) According to Mr. Deane, the water meter auction was "divisive." "Some people said, 'If you're for affordable housing, how can you sell a water meter for that much money?' " he said "We're happy to have this behind us."Still, the board had hoped to get more than $500,000 for the meter. Now it will have to raise more money to finish the garage project. The building, already partly occupied, contains two apartments for families, three live-work spaces, and three single-room occupancy units. The moratorium on new water meters was the direct result of an oil spill off Bolinas in January 1971. Thousands of people poured into Bolinas to help scrub cormorants, murres, scoters, grebes and loons that had been coated in oil. According to the Bolinas Community Public Utility District Web site, some of the new arrivals "liked what they saw and they stayed." "Educated, activist, oriented toward the countercultural, they understood the political process," the history said. In late 1971, their candidates gained a majority on the district's board and almost immediately imposed the moratorium.

In 1982, the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento brought suit to overturn the moratorium, which it claimed violated the rights of property owners. The town, claiming water was scarce, prevailed in the suit, but only after spending nearly $2 million on legal fees. Since then, Mr. Deane said, the moratorium has never been in danger. And that means Bolinas is likely to remain a place where anyone with a water meter is wealthy. Ms. Bates, who moved here from Syracuse in 1974, said she recently received an unsolicited offer for her house "that would have allowed me to never work again." When she turned it down, Ms. Bates recalled, "The broker who brought me the offer kept saying, 'Do you know what you're doing?' " But, Ms. Bates said, "Bolinas is home. I thank my lucky stars every morning that I live here.

"Mr. Deane said: "Thirty-four years ago, I was opposed to the moratorium. But it preserved this community. Maybe it's a case where the ends justify the means."

Hold the EDC Accountable!

Letter to Commisioner Lux

In being allowed only a brief time to address the Court’s October 22, 2007 session regarding agenda items 34 and 35, I was unable to discuss all of the relevant matters pertaining to the Kendall County Economic Corporation (EDC). Thus, I am submitting this letter which includes all of the issues for your review and consideration.

This discussion is about responsibility and holding an agency that receives county funding, in this case the EDC, accountable for adhering to its own representations and discrepancies. In this context, any discussion regarding the EDC is not about being “pro-growth” or “anti-growth”. But unfortunately, there will always be those that will attempt to paint it as such.

I attended several of the original presentation programs illustrating the purpose, objectives and benefits of the EDC including those for the Commissioners Court, Boerne City Council as well as the program for soliciting funding from private investors. In each program the themes regarding the benefits of such an organization to this community were consistent:

A. A focus on commercial development that would have the effect of increasing tax revenues from commercial sources and thereby relieve the tax burden that exists, then and now, on residential property owners.

B. Assurance that residential development would not be pursued.

C. Development that would allow for greater conservation and control of our limited and precious resources.

D. A recruitment process for new business that would not include tax abatements or other incentives. It was stated that incentives would not be necessary because this community would sell itself based on the quality of life, schools, location and environment.

Now we come to find that, after only two years of existence, the EDC has conducted itself in a manner that not only contradicts it original representations, but is also unaligned with, as well as detrimental to, the county’s development and resource conservation objectives. Some examples include:

1. Pursuing residential development. This pursuit has included lobbying state officials on behalf of the Esperanza development. Neither the city nor the county has given any indication of support to the Esperanza development. Thus, no mandate and no charter exist to justify the actions of the EDC board members to lobby our state representatives on behalf of a residential developer.

2. Using EDC funds for impact studies to support residential development. These impact studies are so subjective in nature that they can be made to illustrate whatever the producer wants it to.

3. Regarding conservation of water resources, representatives of the Esperanza developer and the EDC have testified at court hearings that this development would not use any of the groundwater that it has rights to by ownership of the property, thus implying a conservation of that groundwater. Yet they fail to disclose that those water rights will be assigned to another entity that will have the ability to allocate it however they like. And most likely, that allocated water would be used for other additional residential development.

4. Requesting tax abatements for new commercial development. From the beginning, utilizing tax incentives was addressed as a specific issue of concern. Due to the complexity of development agreements, appraisal issues and other specifics, future benefits to taxpayers are never guaranteed by additional development. Allowing tax incentives, at the least, lessens the chance of achieving any possible future benefits. At the worst, in the near term, it increases the existing tax burden on property owners. And at the best, presuming that there actually would be any future benefits, those benefits are prolonged to a future point in time that can not be determined now.

Concerning current and future funding by the county to the EDC, we are now witnessing the manifestation of the incorrect and misleading statements previously made by the leadership of the chamber and EDC. At numerous presentations for the EDC, Ron Warden, the then Chairman of the Boerne Chamber and now past Chairman of the EDC, stated that the city and county had committed to funding the EDC for three years. I sent him a letter, copied to the entire chamber board, pointing out that his statements were not only totally incorrect, but that those entities do not have the statutory authority to make that commitment even if they wanted to.

For someone in his position, and having a securities background, to make such a gross misrepresentation to potential investors was not only unethical, but has now put the county in a position of having a “perceived” commitment to funding. This was most recently illustrated last week y in commissioner’s court when one speaker referred to a “gentleman’s agreement” and the current chairman of the EDC referenced a “3 year commitment“ for EDC funding by the county.

The EDC, in its original format, could be a good thing for Kendall County. But that format has clearly changed. It could never be effective in its defined role when it is acting in a manner that is contrary to its own stated policies as well as acting in a manner that is detrimental to the county and which is not aligned with the objectives of the county.

Every resident in our community funds the EDC through the taxes they pay to the county, the city or both. In your capacity as an elected official, charged with determining the best course to take for insuring the best interest of the community, I encourage you to look at this matter of continued county funding of the EDC in the light of who is paying and who is actually benefiting from the actions of an agency behaving in a manner that the EDC currently finds itself.

If your decision is to continue funding, it is imperative that steps are taken to reiterate the county’s objectives as it relates to what the county’s expectations and interests are as well as entering into a written agreement with the EDC that any current and future funding by the county to the EDC is contingent upon the EDC acting in a manner that specifically reflects the objectives and interests of the county.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

James W. McCormick III

County Treasurers Being Stripped

A pattern seems to be developing in several counties in the area whereby the Cof a portion of their authority.(Express News article entitled “Guadalupe trims treasurer’s duties”, dated, 10/17/07.)

Over a year or two ago, Kerr County did the same thing. Last year, Kendall County did the same thing, and now Guadalupe County. The manner in which the changes were accomplished was also similar: the duties and responsibilities for human resources were removed quickly, the treasurer’s office was physically removed from the main courthouse traffic, a new appointed position was created for the Human Resource activity, and budget transfers were made to accommodate the new activity.

It seems apparent that the reason this is being done is for more power to the commissioner’s court! The Treasurer is an elected official and the only power the Commissioner’s Court has over another elected official is the power of the purse, the budget. The person to head the new department is appointed by the Commissioner’s Court and reports to them, so the court has complete control of the new activity; more expense for the taxpayer; more control to Commissioner’s Court. The similarity in which these changes have been made leaves the perception that something suspicious is going on in county politics! What other elected officers with duel responsibilities are next?

Frank Wetzel

A Bit of History - Water

In Remembrance of Garland Perry
"Land and Water" by Garland Perry, 1982



“In 1835 the Texas Hill Country was said to have been one of the most beautiful natural areas on earth. It had tall grass, beautiful trees, and fresh, clear running water throughout the area. What the early settlers were unaware of was that immediately beneath that rich, lush, organic topsoil-saturated with moisture – was nothing but hard limestone rock.

“The first settlers to reach the Hill Country always camped near a spring of good water, or near a stream, where they built their temporary homes. Then they started clearing land, fencing and planting crops. As they plowed more land and began to overgraze grasslands with domestic animals, the rains soon washed the topsoil away, leaving limestone rock that only cedar trees could grow on.

“Without the organic matter to hold moisture in the soil, springs soon went dry and it was necessary for the settlers to move near larger streams of water or to dig shallow wells. Between 1860 and 1880, good well water could be reached at 30 to 35 feet. By 1900, windmills were a very popular and necessary means of extracting water from 100 to 125 feet. By 1950, most of the water wells were 200 to250 feet in depth and were operated by electric pumps. However, during the great drought of 1950-1957, many of these 200 foot wells went dry.

“Now, a great many of the private water wells are getting water at 500 to 550 feet below the surface. Obviously, this trend can’t go on forever. Water will be a limiting factor in the future growth and development of Kendall County.”

- Excerpt from Historic Images of Boerne, Texas 1982, First National Bank of Boerne

The Kendall County EDC-Esperanza Connection

The Kendall EDC paid Texas Perspective Inc. to do a study on Esperanza. Texas Perspective’s website says that it “is dedicated to helping its clients strengthen their cases to achieve particular goals.” The Esperanza report they produced for the EDC states that: “much of the underlying data used in this analysis was provided by the developer Marlin Atlantis.” This report did not take into account any of the costs that will be related to this development, therefore presenting an incomplete and one-sided picture.

This year, the Alamo Area Council of Governments convened a Committee for Economic Development Strategies. Eleven of the members were area economic development representatives, including Mr. Rogers. The goal of this committee was to identify key projects that are considered important to the economic vitality of the 12 county region. The short list chosen by ACCOG includes such major economic projects as base closures and realignments, the new Texas A&M campus coming to San Antonio, the establishment of a foundation to bring university courses to Fredericksburg, public transportation needs and the development of an industrial airpark in Hondo County. In contrast to these major business endeavors, the Esperanza development was also adopted as a regional economic goal. AACOG has verified that they based this decision solely on the Texas Perspective Report paid for by the Kendall County EDC, so the same accounting principles were used- relying on the developer’s input and projecting income without factoring in the costs in services, roads, schools and infrastructure.

With major residential development taking place throughout the 12 county region, how was Esperanza chosen as a regional economic goal? Why would AACOG unquestioningly accept figures provided by a local economic development group whose paying members include Esperanza’s developer and several others with current or potential financial connections to him? The support of AACOG, a regional quasi-governmental body, has been thrown behind a residential development that is still very much in the discussion and approval stages with our own local officials. No approval, costs, traffic impacts and infrastructure evaluations or development agreements have been made. Did this Council sanction this action prior to these important benchmarks? Was the EDC acting on behalf of the City? It seems reasonable to ask whether the interests of some members of the KCEDC are being promoted ahead of the interests of the majority of tax-paying citizens, and whether citizens’ elected representatives are being undermined. I believe the EDC can do a great service by building our commercial tax base, but I would like to see more accountability to tax payers. I have expressed these concerns to my commissioner as well.

Paula Cairns