City Council Votes: Disc Golf – Yes! New Tax – No!
(Sorry, this is a long report on a long meeting, but it is very informative. So, get a snack or a cup of coffee and enjoy!)
There was a Public Hearing held at the beginning of the Helotes City Council meeting held on Thursday, August 13, 2009. The subject of the hearing was the proposed Municipal Surface Water Drainage Utility System, which would result in an additional property tax, or, according to the City Attorney, a user fee (whatever you call it, it’s more money out of our pockets). Citizens who spoke at the hearing were:
Kirkland Jones, Helotes Ranch Acres Unit #6 (HRA#6), stated that when he first read the notice of the ordinance in the Echo, there was no mention of the tax applying to improved property in the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), and now there is. (The City Administrator, Rick Schroder, stated that the possibility of including the ETJ in this ordinance was there from the beginning.) Mr. Jones’ subdivision, HRA#6, is not in the Helotes City limits, and even though it is probably legal for Helotes to place an additional tax on their property, it is not the “American way.” It would constitute taxation without representation, because they have no standing; they cannot vote in Helotes elections. Drainage improvements in their subdivision are paid for out of their Homeowners Association funds, and, therefore, they will not benefit from this additional tax. He is not opposed to the taxing of Helotes citizens. He just doesn’t think it would be right to tax residents of the ETJ.
Norris Henley, Bar X Trail, said that he thinks this tax/fee is a good idea, because those who pay it are the ones who will benefit from the improvements. He also thinks that additional revenue for drainage improvements should come from sales tax. He doesn’t know all the answers, but he is not against this tax/fee.
Blair Weaver, Cedar Springs, is neutral on this subject. $60 a year doesn’t seem like a lot to him. He thinks some of the money should go to clear drainage easements in gated subdivisions like Cedar Springs and Helotes Crossing. The City should sue the City of San Antonio, Bexar County, and surrounding developments that all contribute to our flooding problems.
Lorraine Castillo, Iron Horse Canyon, thinks that homeowners in the City’s ETJ should not be included in the taxation. Imposing a tax for drainage improvements during a drought and bad economic times is a bad idea. She and many others in the City already pay homeowners association dues. She suggested that Council stop allowing builders to pay a fee in lieu of drainage detention. That’s one of the reasons we’re having these problems in the first place.
Bill Jennings, Los Reyes Canyons, was opposed to the ordinance. He did not think this was a good time to impose another tax. People are losing their jobs and their homes and struggling with finances. He encouraged Council to look for other funding plans. The taxes collected would not be enough to really do anything with. There is money to install a disc golf course. That money could be reallocated to drainage projects.
Maureen Connelly, Cedar Springs, opposes the proposed tax. There is potential for mismanagement. She feels that it is a double taxation, because she already pays property taxes. She urged Council to take the tax revenue they already get and do what they can with it. People will be patient until the City can make the necessary improvements. In Cedar Springs, the drainage easements are actually owned by individual homeowners. Council member Johnson asked Mrs. Connelly if she would prefer to see an increase in the property tax rate. She said no; she’d like to see them just live within their budget.
Mayor Schoolcraft closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. saying that this Drainage Utility System “tax” or “user fee” was just an idea they were bringing before the citizens.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD -
Maureen Connelly, Cedar Springs, complimented the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) for trudging through the proposed amendments to the Schedule of Uses for the B-3 Overlay District. She feels like their recommendations maintain the original intentions of the Overlay District, and she encouraged Council to follow those recommendations.
Lorraine Castillo, Iron Horse Canyon, stated that Cedar Springs was originally in the county, and they petitioned to come into the City in 1998. At that time, the City decided to zone the area B-3, even though everyone living in Cedar Springs petitioned the Council not to zone it B-3. In 2001, the B-3 Overlay District was set up as a compromise. She feels that the Council gets tied up in commercial property owners rights, but they should also be concerned about residential property owners rights. She urged the Council to approve the P&Z recommendations.
She also commented on the proposal for the Helotes Natural Area. This Mayor and Council has said that this area is not appropriate for a playground (originally, during the Allan administration, a playground was planned for this area). Is a disc golf course really the best use for this land?
She also questioned an item on the consent agenda – establishing a fueling station on municipal grounds. Is the City fleet of vehicles really large enough to justify this? Why is this on the consent agenda (meaning that it will not even be discussed by Council unless one of the Council members pulls it) when it has never been discussed in open session before?
Linda Montemayor, Helotes Park Estates, stated that she had previously had objections to building a disc golf course in the Helotes Natural Area, but she went to the disc golf demonstration held by the City, and she “had a ball.” All her concerns were washed away. She now knows that there is no danger of a disc going out in the direction of the road (Parrigin Road or FM 1560). She been concerned about discs hitting the house next door to the natural area, but the owner of that house showed up at the demonstration and also “had a ball.” He has no problems with the course. She now thinks the parking will be adequate. It will be great for the community; it’s a great idea.
Bob Kerestes,Cedar Springs, said he sat through the P&Z meeting where they had gone through the proposed changes line by line. He supports their recommendations to Council. It is a very nice drive into Helotes at this time. What would it be like if the road was lined with taverns, pawn shops, and liquor stores? He asked Council to support P&Z’s recommendations.
MAYOR’S REPORT- Flood gates have been installed in several places in the City, i.e., on Scenic Loop Road at Old Scenic Loop Road and on Antonio Road near Old Bandera Road. Police officers will no longer have to carry barricades to set up on the road. They will just close the gates until the danger has passed, and there will be no need to station officers on the closed road.
He also reported on the disc golf demonstration. Last year, he was approached by the San Antonio Disc Golf Association about putting a disc golf course on the municipal grounds. The idea was to get people down there, and it is a good family and physical fitness activity. Since that time, City officials decided that the Helotes Natural Area would be a better place to put it. The sport has a low impact on the land and is inexpensive compared to the benefit that would be realized. Mostly City Council and City staff attended the demonstration, and everyone had a lot of fun.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Discussion of and action on the creation of a disc golf course – Council member Whitehead said he had been apprehensive about spending the money, but the money is already in the budget; so he is in favor of it.
Council member Massey had fun at the demonstration. It can only be good for the community; it is a low impact sport and can help people lose weight. It won’t take much money. The area is not good for a playground because it is in a flood zone. (I just think I should mention here that a lot of parks/playgrounds in this and the San Antonio area are in flood zones. It’s a good use of that land. I’m guessing that not too many people go to the park during a flood.) Also, a playground would have required a restroom (I guess golfers can hold it longer?).
Council member Legendre said that originally he didn’t care one way or the other, but he had fun and the money has already been budgeted. Disc golf will bring more people to Helotes and there would be less vandalism (?).
Council unanimously approved the installation of a disc golf course in the Helotes Natural Area (which, I’m guessing, will no longer be a natural area), and authorized Mayor Schoolcraft to administer and oversee the design and construction.
Council also unanimously approved P&Z’s recommended amendments to the B-3 Overlay District.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Council unanimously approved the minutes from the last meeting, the bi-weekly revenue/expenditure report, and a total of $96,430 in interdepartmental budget adjustments (for details on these budget adjustments see the article on this website entitled “Agenda for Helotes City Council Meeting on August 13, 2009).
Three items were pulled from the consent agenda for discussion by the Council:
Approval of a $1,000 donation to the Helotes Fire Department from Bob and Judy Buck in appreciation of services rendered during a fire at their residence (which is in the ETJ). Legendre pulled this item because he wanted to thank them publicly.
Whitehead pulled the item regarding the issuance of a bid request for the development, licensing, permitting, financing, design, construction, maintenance, and refueling of a 24-hour municipal-access fueling station on the municipal grounds. He is concerned about a fueling station being at the back of the municipal property which is over the aquifer recharge zone. He is also concerned about Council’s fiscal responsibility.
The Mayor stated that this is just a request for a proposal. They can’t answer all questions now. They already have one proposal to set up a fueling station at no cost to the City, and they need more proposals/bids.
Rick Schroder, the City Administrator, said that the intent is for the City to have no expense in building or maintaining the station. Each vehicle will have a card allowing the City to track the use and expense of each. The company building, maintaining, and supplying the station would be responsible for dealing with state regulations. The cost of the fuel would fluctuate daily, but the City would probably save from 1 to 5% on the fuel. It would be more cost effective for the City. They will have to determine what the rules are in putting a fueling station in a developed area, since also on the municipal grounds there will be a park/playground and the police and fire stations, and it would be directly next to a high school. The fuel tanks would be above-ground and double-walled. Council unanimously approved getting more bids.
Whitehead pulled the item approving an EMS agreement between the City of Helotes and the City of San Antonio (COSA), because he works for the COSA as a firefighter, and he felt that he should abstain from voting on this item. When Council approved this contract last year, they said that for FY 2010 they would get more bids, and that did not happen. He said there are several options out there to be considered, and there is a vast difference in prices.
At this point, Cynthia Massey called for a point of order, saying that if Whitehead is going to abstain from voting, he should not be taking part in the discussion of the item. Whitehead then stated that his point was that he is not addressing just this particular contract, but the City should get more than one bid on any contract, especially one as large as this one ($259,704.12).
The Mayor agreed with Massey and told Whitehead to recuse himself and leave the room. Whitehead got up and left.
While he was gone the discussion went like this: Schoolcraft said that the main concern was the stability of the different companies. Some of them are here today and gone tomorrow, but not COSA.
Gary Johnson said that he agreed with Whitehead’s point. Why not get another bid? He would like to know what else is out there, and he thinks they should also ask for the Fire Chief’s opinion.
Cynthia Massey said that last year the Fire Chief had wanted to stay with COSA EMS services.
Ed Villanueva said that the price charged by COSA was based on utility connections in Helotes, and he thinks the 5 percent increase over last year’s contract is minimal.
The contract was approved by a vote of four in favor and one abstention.
Whitehead then returned and stated that his abstention was not necessary because there was no conflict of interest. He does not derive any benefit from Helotes’ contract with the COSA. He abstained to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
(And during all of this, completely overlooked was the question of whether or not Council should have gotten and considered any other bids for this service.)
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION:
The next item was the discussion and approval of a variance to sidewalk requirements requested by the owners of the Helotes Professional Building at 12760 E. Bandera Road (new dentist office across the driveway from the Pizza Hut).
Because of utility conflicts, their sidewalk, which is required by Helotes ordinance, would have to be in TXDoT easement. The City engineer had submitted a letter to Council recommending that the variance not be approved.
The builder’s engineer told Council that there were no plans to construct a sidewalk. Rick Schroder said that it was made clear to the owner that a sidewalk was required. If they overlooked that requirement, that is their problem. That doesn’t change the requirement of the ordinance.
David Legendre said that it would be another sidewalk to nowhere. He doesn’t agree with the ordinance; it doesn’t make sense. They need to address this ordinance at a future meeting. Schroder then stated that Council had made others put in a sidewalk in compliance with the ordinance.
Gary Johnson noted that there are no other sidewalks in the area. Massey stated that the ordinance does not specify what material the sidewalk is to be made of.
Schoolcraft said that the point is that from the beginning, the owner and builder were aware of the ordinance requirement, and the sidewalk could be built around the utility pole in the easement.
After all these comments, they voted to approve the variance by a vote of four ‘for’ and one ‘against’ (Legendre voted to deny the variance request).
(OK. I don’t understand that either, but even the City’s official minutes report it the same as I did: “Motion to approve the variance carried: 4 Ayes; 1 Nay – Mayor Pro Tem Legendre; 0 Abstentions.” Everyone except Legendre was pretty much saying they thought the owner should comply with the ordinance and build the sidewalk, and Legendre was saying he didn’t agree with the ordinance and wasn’t in favor of another sidewalk to nowhere. Then when they voted, they approved the variance, meaning that the owner does not have to build the sidewalk afterall, and Legendre, who was opposed to the ordinance, voted “Nay,” which meant that he wanted to require the owner to build the sidewalk. ?????)
(This discussion has gone on for years, from the time the ordinance was approved. Those opposed to the ordinance always say that no one ever walks down Bandera Road, and requiring sidewalks in front of businesses is a waste of time and money. I personally think Council members should spend a little time observing the foot traffic down Bandera Road. I’m always seeing people walking along the road. Just yesterday, I watched a group of six teenagers, probably from O’Connor High School, walking along the road. Since there are no sidewalks, they were having to walk in the ditches and when they couldn’t do that, they were walking on the side of the road. Not safe if you ask me.)
The next item was reconsideration of a previously approved encroachment license between the City of Helotes and the owner of the property at 14405 Old Bandera Road (in Old Town) for an existing railroad tie planter encroaching onto City right-of-way. As I stated, this encroachment license had been approved. The owner had been told by the City that her planter bed, containing four or five large crape myrtles, could stay where it was. She would not have to move them. Now, Council has been informed that instead of having four parallel-parking spaces in front of this property, they can have approximately 10 head-in parking spaces, so they want to revoke the license they had previously granted.
Massey said the owner was not keeping up the bed, and it had been put in after the Old Town improvement project had been approved. Johnson was concerned about the trees. He said they are fairly large, and he hated to see them removed. Rick Schroder then told him that the trees would not have to be removed. The curbing would be right next to the trees. There would be the trees, then a sidewalk, then the parking spaces.
Legendre said that he had not been in favor of granting the license in the first place. Council then unanimously approved the revocation of the encroachment license agreement.
The next item was a vote on directing the removal of the above railroad tie planter bed. Council voted unanimously, with no further discussion, to direct the owner to remove the bed at her own expense.
(I have a copyof the letter dated August 14, 2009, that was sent to the owner by the City. It informs her that Council had revoked the license agreement, and that the existing railroad tie planter must be removed. It further states that EZ-Bel Construction, who is doing the improvements in Old Town, will begin construction adjacent to the railroad tie planter no later than Monday, August 24, 2009. There is no mention in the letter of not being required to remove the trees. It simply states that the railroad tie planter bed (which contains the large crape myrtle trees) is to be removed, which is not what the City Administrator, Rick Schroder, had told Council member Gary Johnson. Why would the City Administrator have told a Council member something if it wasn’t true?)
(In my opinion, if the City wants to revoke an agreement it currently has with a citizen/business/property owner and that revocation is going to cost that citizen/business/property owner some money to comply with, the City should pick up that expense. But, hey, once again, that’s only my opinion.)
The next item on the agenda was the presentation and discussion on the City’s proposed budget for FY 2010. Rick Schroder first reviewed a slide presentation providing an overview of the City’s accomplishments.
(I will provide a summary of these in a separate article. The lists were very long and comprehensive. The only accomplishment I didn’t see was: “With the ingredients found in an everyday kitchen, we created life.” I’m kidding, of course, but the lists did go on and on and were a little larger than life.)
Schroder then presented the proposed budget to Council. He told them he had changed the budget process this year from starting from “the top down” to starting from “the bottom up,” meaning, of course, that he started at the departmental levels and went up to the Mayor and Council.
He said they were $750,000 to $800,000 in the hole when they started. He included the parks and the fire department funding as part of the City’s revenue and moved $56,000 from parks to the general fund. He also stated that in FY 2009, the Fire Department had received $300,000 from the County for providing services to ESD#7, and in FY 2010 only $125,000 to $150,000 will be received. Also, to increase revenue in FY 2010, the City will be adding a third Municipal Court session each month. He told Council that the revenue shown in the proposed budget was under- estimated.
Schoolcraft instructed the Council members to take the proposed budget with them, study it, and contact him, Rick, or Grace (City Secretary) if they have any questions.
The next item on the agenda was adopting a property tax rate for FY 2010. Council decided to leave the rate the same as for FY 2009. There will be no tax rate increase for FY 2010. It will remain at $0.363651 per $100 valuation.
The last item on the agenda was discussion and action on the proposed Municipal Surface Water Drainage Utility System which would create an additional tax or user fee for Helotes homeowners and businesses.
Cynthia Massey said she had initially been hesitant about this issue, and she was not for it. She had talked to 12 citizens about it, and they were all against it. She doesn’t think this is a good time to do this.
Rich Whitehead said that the drainage issue had been a long-standing problem in Helotes. Drainage problems are not evenly distributed across the City. He also felt that there could be unintended consequences, such as a future Council borrowing money based on this user fee and creating debt for the City. He has talked to over a hundred people about this issue, and, except for the two at the meeting tonight who spoke in favor of it, everyone was against it. He said that most, if not all, of the people on Council had campaigned opposing new taxes. In his opinion, Council could take the surplus money at the end of each year and put in an account dedicated to drainage improvement projects, and over time that money could be used for that purpose. He feels that if this drainage utility system is approved there will be no going back, and he urged the other Council members to vote against it. They can always do it later if they find it necessary.
David Legendre thinks that if they approved it they could always stop it at some point in the future. He would be against taxing churches and homeowners and businesses in our ETJ. He could go either way, but he would be in favor of lower fees (lower than $5 a month). People he had talked to understood that they have to pay for City services.
Gary Johnson said that he shares some of Whitehead’s concerns. He likes the requirement to put the money in a dedicated drainage fund. He doesn’t want to approve the ordinance without including the amount that would be charged each homeowner and each business (this is not in the ordinance as it stands now). He thinks they need to establish limits on how much the fee could be raised each year. Lots of other Texas cities are doing this.
Ed Villanueva thinks this ordinance is a good idea. We need to continue funding our Public Works Department. He doesn’t think the money will be abused or misused. It would be in the good hands of the City Administrator.
Mayor Schoolcraft said that this was intended as a way to generate revenue. It was never intended to fund the huge projects. City Engineers have identified 16 projects ranging in cost from $100,000 to $400,000, totalling approximately $3 million. We’ve always set aside money for maintenance, but we can’t, for instance, afford to replace the undersized culverts.
The City Attorney stated that there is no limit to how much the fee can be raised each time. However, the larger the increase is, the more it will have to be justified. Homeowners and businesses in the ETJ can always appeal the rate structure and rationale to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (and I’m sure that would be easy and inexpensive, not to mention successful!!).
Finally, the vote was taken and the ordinance was defeated with Legendre and Villanueva voting for it and Whitehead, Johnson, and Massey voting against.
No new tax or ‘user fee,’ at least for now!
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Apparently some business approached the City with a proposal to build and maintain a fueling station on municipal grounds. We don’t know if Schoolcraft or one of the Council members initially brought this up or not; however, it has never been brought up at a public meeting. Legendre did say that it was his idea, but I don’t really know what that means.
What I do know is that this issue has never been discussed in public by City Council, so no one knows if Council is even interested in putting a fueling station on municipal grounds. None of the ramifications have been reviewed. None of the pros and cons have been discussed.
It doesn’t seem professional for the City to issue a request for proposals from other companies when none of these things have been done. I believe Council members in the past have called that doing their “due diligence.” Why waste the time of these companies when we don’t even know if we want a fueling station or not?
Another part of the Council’s “due diligence” would be determining how having a fueling station on City property would increase the City’s liability and affect the City’s insurance premiums.
Is it a good idea to have a fueling station that close to the aquifer and a City park and a high school?