Dripping Springs, Dense Development and Unintended Consequences

Opinion

By Charles O'Dell, Phd

An ill advised power grab attempt twenty five years ago by City of Austin officials created unintended consequences that are menacing our communities today. This is a story of what might have been.

Twenty five years ago Dripping Springs didn’t have a subdivision ordinance to regulate development within its city limits and in its small extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Rural Hays County was subject to weak state regulations, so Austin officials strip-annexed along several county roads leading to Dripping Springs and claimed five miles either side of those annexed strips. Austin officials saw the future of development in Northern Hays County and wanted to control that development. Land owners had other ideas and petitioned to be in the Dripping Springs ETJ. A Hays County court approved the new alignment.

Dripping Springs, with a population of only 1,600, now controls an extraordinarily large ETJ that stretches nearly to Buda with an estimated population of 25,000, and has acquired unique annexing authority that even the City of Austin doesn’t possess, island annexation.

It can be reasonably argued that without the extra large area of jurisdiction precipitated by the action of those long forgotten Austin officials, and subsequent special annexation authority gained by this small general law municipality through its political connections, there would be no high density Belterra or the other high density subdivisions Dripping Springs approved.

These subdivisions would have followed existing county regulations, producing low density Sunset Canyon like development, and making an LCRA water line to Dripping Springs economically infeasible. Without the massive ETJ to sell off, city insiders would not have had opportunities to engage in flipping large tracts of land and entering into illegal development agreements like Belterra with over a hundred variances

Because there would be no California developer high density Belterra, our communities would not be fighting the first permit for direct discharge of effluent into Bear Creek.

The unusually large ETJ provides Dripping Springs officials opportunity to obtain substantial development fees, and incentive to approve high density development agreements with variances. ETJ residents have no representative voice in these development decisions that benefit only the City at the expense of ETJ residents.

If Dripping Springs only had its normal ETJ (extending 1/2 mile from its city limit) the Mayor would not have borrowed $9.5 million for a central sewer system that will serve only a portion of its 1,600 city residents, and virtually no resident living in the ETJ. Without expanded ETJ development fees the city of 1,600 does not have the tax revenue base to support its high operating budget.

City officials argue that development in the ETJ, especially along the Hwy 290 corridor, would be worse without the City’s authority. When I recently asked Mayor Purcell what the City's strategy was for annexing along Hwy 290 and what do he hoped to achieve, he responded:

“When considering whether to annex property (abutting 290 and elsewhere), I consider foremost what the advantages are to the City (the community, its voters, taxpayers, businesses and property owners). If I can identify an opportunity to expand application of our rules, improve traffic safety, increase tax revenues, and/or mitigate property disputes, I am generally supportive of annexation.”

By expanding application of City rules the Mayor means increasing density beyond what is allowed in the ETJ. Increasing tax revenues is quite clear and an expanded tax base, especially business sales tax, is a necessary strategy for the City to support its high operating budget. One time development fees from the ETJ are just too unpredictable.

The City’s spending problem is addressed by annexing businesses along Hwy 290. The property owner is allowed greater density and the City increases its sales tax (and ad valorem tax) revenues…without any cost to the City. However, greater density along Hwy 290 doesn’t satisfy one of the Mayor’s considerations, improving "traffic safety.”

Dripping Springs has no utility to offer these “island” Dripping Springs. The Mayor has long expressed a desire to increase the City’s population to 5,000 so they can vote to become a home rule municipality. I don’t believe that. Dripping Springs now is able to negotiate (with leverage) annexation agreements with businesses along Hwy 290, expand City tax revenues and do so without any cost to the City or lip from new voters. What a deal.

The Mayor leveraged HEB and Home Depot into the city limits by manipulating the City’s subdivision ordinances. After extensive public hearings and citizen input the City’s new subdivision ordinances were dutifully passed by the city council. The maximum size commercial building allowed was 125,000 square feet. When Mayor Purcell learned HEB and Home Depot were looking at sites along Hwy 290 in the ETJ, he had his city council dutifully amend the ordinances to allow a maximum size of only 65,000 square feet. This is not an economical size for either of these big box stores and the city council agreed to a size variance, but only if they located inside the City.

We have come full circle on the ill advised power grab by the City of Austin twenty five years ago. Its fateful action created a Frankenstein that has a life of its own now and gave us Belterra. Now Belterra is seeking the Hill Country’s first permit to discharge treated wastewater directly into Bear Creek. Six governmental agencies, including the City of Austin, have opposed the permit. Ironically, the same folks who laid the groundwork for Belterra twenty five years ago voted Wednesday to approve a settlement agreement allowing direct discharge for Belterra. Mayor Purcell has made it clear that ETJ residents are on their own.

Perhaps our elected county officials will do better by us.

As co-founder of Hays Community Action Network (HaysCAN) in 2003, Mr. O’Dell strives to carry out the mission of ensuring open, accessible and accountable government. He is a long time and close observer of the workings of the Hays County Commissioners Court. He earned a degree in Agricultural Education and a Masters in Ag Economics at Texas Tech, and, later, a Ph.D. at The University of Maryland while employed as a Research Economist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in Washington, D.C. Texas born and raised on a family farm, O’Dell is a Hays County Master Naturalist and a board member of the Ethical Society of Austin.