By Andy Sevilla.
Kyle council members will deliberate expanding the city’s borders for a second time next week, after their first attempt at annexation failed on technicalities earlier this year.
Two emergency service districts that provide fire protection to areas being considered for annexation not notified of the city’s annexation plans as called for by state rules. After the Hays Free Press sought the written notifications the city is required to send out to all government and private entities affected by the annexation, city staff determined that Hays County Emergency Services Districts 8 and 5 were omitted from their notice lists.
Due to that finding, council members decided in October to cease annexation then and begin a whole new effort.
“We had an issue with the first round of annexation – giving notice to all of the entities – and I would like assurance that has happened within the timeframe required; and that our city attorney has reviewed that and reviewed this whole process to make sure that we don’t have any other issues related to annexation that would cause us a problem,” Council Member David Wilson said on Nov. 21 during the first public hearing for the council’s latest attempt at annexation.
Under pointed pressure by Wilson, Assistant City Attorney Cody Faulk said, “I’ve reviewed the list [of entities to notify] in detail and, I assure you, I added notice to several parties that I don’t even think would necessarily be required under the statute.”
Council members are now considering annexing about 374 acres of land sprinkled throughout Kyle’s extra-territorial jurisdiction, noticeably less than the more than 2,500 acres they sought in October.
Kyle Planning Director Sofia Nelson said the difference this time, is that all areas previously identified as agriculture properties are no longer shown on the annexation map as recently approved development agreements between the city and property owners are now in place.
Secondly, the 2,166.43 acres of state land managed by the General Land Office (GLO) located in the western stretches of Kyle was dropped from this round of annexation. Council members approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the GLO on Nov. 6, setting in motion a plan for annexation, sales tax revenues, water and wastewater utility matters and a development agreement for that property.
GLO officials complained that Kyle’s attempt for annexation of that property jeopardized development plans for that land. The GLO, in collaboration with Forestar – the same firm working with Hays County on a water plan for the western portion of the county – and the Blake Magee Co., is looking to develop a master-planned community on the property. The project would primarily consist of residences with limited commercial development.
The GLO manages that land for the use and benefit of the state’s Permanent School Fund.
Council members will take up the new annexation efforts on first reading on Dec. 17 and finalize their vote on the matter on Dec. 18.
“I would appreciate (city staff) working together carefully on this and spending whatever time is necessary, please city manager, allowing the attorney to spend the time necessary to get this right,” Wilson said at the public hearing. “Because it’s been an embarrassment to us, to this point. I don’t want any other slip ups.”
