"To even decide how much should be spent on "conservation/preservation" versus "recreation" and pre-allocate before all projects have been adequately reviewed and then to cap new projects prior to that review was not in the original language of the bond issue."
Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@gmail.com, to Hays County Judge Sumter lizsumter@co.hays.tx.us or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story. Email addresses to your county commissioners can be found at this link on the Hays County web site: http://www.co.hays.tx.us/CommissionersCourt/tabid/54/Default.aspx
See the court's weekly agenda and budget overview information here: http://www.co.hays.tx.us/CommissionersCourt/WeeklyAgendaArchive/tabid/127/Default.aspx
Two citizens, in letters recently sent to county commissioners and County Judge Liz Sumter, are calling on commissioners to stop all funding of park projects until a thorough review is made of planned new allocations, along with the entire parks and open space approval process.
In one letter, Carl Owens of Wimberley appeals to Pct. 2 County Commissioner Jeff Barton to "Do what is fair and right, not politically biased and expedient . . . I'm sending this to not only you, but also Judge Sumter, Commissioners Conley, Ingalsbe and Ford as it applies to all of you and your votes on these items. The public is watching and expecting you to do what is fair and honest."Barton is serving as Pct. 2 commissioner while also campaigning as the Democrat candidate for Hays County Judge. His Republican opponent in the November election is San Marcos doctor Bert Cobb. Barton can win political points if he can successfully maneuver the county's parks bond money the way he wants to and if he doesn't attract too much public attention and scrutiny. He also risks a backlash from voters for pulling a "fast one" with millions in taxpayers' money and for not abiding by the rules.
County commissioners are meeting Tuesday Aug. 17. They are expected to have further discussion on the projects mentioned in the letters. We echo the calls by these citizens for fair play and adhering to the original intent of the county's $30 million parks and open space bond program approved by voters in 2007. At least $22 million of the bond funds have already been spoken for.
Here are the letters in their entirety (edited for spelling/bold emphasis by the RoundUp) . . .
Commissioner Barton -
I have to tell you that I am extremely disappointed in what I have seen from the Court the last several weeks regarding the Parks Bond Funds. After all we (Swimberley) went through the last several years in watching little if any fair process and then the recent "talk" about correcting that process to be done properly - appears from the items on this week's Court agenda to have been empty talk if you vote for either of them, including your own agenda item to re-allocate funds from the Kyle Vista Park project to other, previously not presented nor approved/awarded projects.
The funds that you and Kyle so "generously" have offered to return to the County for other projects are not yours nor Kyle's to offer for such. Those funds were expressly recommended by the CPAT for the Kyle Vista Park project which the Court voted to award for such. If those funds are not to be used for that project they should NOT be allowed to be re-allocated for projects that were not recommended by the CPAT for that award. The fact that you arranged for the Mayor of Kyle to go with you before the current advisory board for their approval in July - outside the process and while the rest of us continue to wait - was totally inappropriate, and whatever recommendations they may have made should hold no weight as they were not to have been looking at "New" projects - which the ones being substituted all are - since there is a moratorium in place that the rest of us are having to observe.
We all know that there is nothing "generous" about the "offer" made by Kyle to return part of the money. If the Vista Park project was on track to be started anytime soon, within the time frame allowed for use of the funds, they would NOT be generously offering to return them. We are not stupid. They stand to lose any of those funds unless they/you come up with some 'creative' way to circumvent the system by which the rest of us are waiting to make a presentation, so that they won't have to go back through the process again with the rest of us as they should be doing. And you know it. That would be the proper and fair thing to do.
Pct. 2 Commissioner Barton and
Pct. 4 Commissioner Ford
Pct. 4 Commissioner Ford
And for what it's worth, I happened to hear part of the conversation you had with Karen Ford last week out in the hall during one of the breaks. If what I heard didn't support the perception that votes are being bartered, I don't know what does.The money allocated to the Vista project should be part of the overall funds available to new presentations and award, including potentially the Kyle projects, provided they go through the process with the rest of us.
Regarding the agenda item to "reserve $1.7 million for Harrison Ranch" - That Commissioner Ford has placed on the agenda, it has no place on the agenda and certainly deserves no support. It is totally outside any fair process and has no more right to be on the agenda or voted for than would be Swimberley being allowed to reserve $1.7 million before going through the process. The argument that Precinct 4 has not received their fair share of bond fund money holds no water. They have now received over $6 million dollars. Their argument that they have not received their fair share of recreation based bond dollars holds no water either. Precinct 3/Wimberley hasn't either. The $3.875 awarded to Jacob's Well is for a preserve - an area that has been publicly identified by the WVWA which you all approved to manage it - as only being accessible to very limited recreational access since it is an environmentally sensitive area. That money did not go to a recreational oriented project. And it can be argued that Blue Hole has some similarities. Public access to it is limited to specific times of the year and it was supported as much because it is a 'treasure' to Hays County which deserved protection. After Ms. Ford's placing the item last week to discuss fair process on the agenda, this attempt to circumvent any fair process is amazingly disappointing and disturbing.
Do what is fair and right, not politically biased and expedient Jeff. In fact, I'm sending this to not only you, but also Judge Sumter, Commissioners Conley, Ingalsbe and Ford as it applies to all of you and your votes on these items. The public is watching and expecting you to do what is fair and honest.
If Kyle does not intend to go forward with the Kyle Vista Park Project, Kyle should not be voted any of those funds without first going through the same process the rest of us are waiting to go through for new projects - which those projects are. The Precinct 4/Harrison Ranch project request should be expected to do the same, not only after they the Court has set aside/reserved $1.7 million for them. This is a clear circumvention of the process that you all have publicly discussed as needing to be in place and should be followed.
For you or any of the members of the Court to vote for either of these fundings or reserving of funds will be totally transparent as to what has been taking place here and what continues to be a total circumvention of any fair and just process. Do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Carl Owens President - Swimberley, Inc.
Judge Sumter and Commissioners of Hays County,
I am writing to comment on two items on the Agenda of the Commissioners Court Meeting to be held tomorrow, August 17, 2010: Agenda Item 9 (Harrision Ranch Park in Dripping Springs) and Agenda item 16 (City of Kyle).
It is unfair and unjust to reserve allocations of parks bond funds for specific projects or even specific precincts before those projects have been reviewed and scored in their entirety and compared to other projects worthy of consideration by the Park and Open Space Advisory Board.
These funds should not be spent at the discretion of any one precinct nor necessarily spread across precincts evenly. To even decide how much should be spent on "conservation/preservation" versus "recreation" and pre-allocate before all projects have been adequately reviewed and then to cap new projects prior to that review was not in the original language of the bond issue. How does one justify all this pre-allocation and capping even before the specific needs have presented themselves?
Open up the scoring process and let it begin for everyone in the county with(out) making prior reservations for special projects. Hold projects that have already funded accountable! Do not continue to assume responsibility for those that misappropriated its original funding or miscalculated its needs! No city or precinct or project should receive special consideration until all projects throughout the county have been allowed to apply for a review and scored before an unbiased committee that represents the county.
If the City of Kyle spent county park money at their own discretion and not according to the purpose for which it was approved, the entire amount should be returned to the county. When the moratorium is lifted, then the City of Kyle can make an appeal for support on the same scoring system as everyone else. (Otherwise, give every city government $1.3 million dollars to spend at its own discretion without review!)
Projects such as Harrison Park Ranch should also have no right to receive special consideration ahead of process. No reservation of funds should be granted prior to making the review process open to all!
Furthermore, any project that has already been allocated money and proven to not be viable under its original application should be held accountable for any and all representations of its viability, and it should not necessarily be the county's responsibility to see the project made viable or expanded upon unless and until a new review of the entire project has been submitted to the parks board under the same timelines and guidelines available to every other potential applicant. In other words, it's unfair to fund Phase II of a project that received funding just because it received funding for Phase I, especially prior to an opening of the process to all. There are ways for Phase II to get more funding other than through the Parks bonds funds.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Patty Willis
9 comments:
So let me get this clear - Precinct Four has received 6 million dollars in park funds from the current park bond? Who and where was this $6 million allocated ($750K to the City of Dripping Springs is one known), but where was the rest allocated?
Did Jacobs' Well go through the CPAT? Did it get a recommendation for approval from them? How did they score? What was the scoring system used? Can that be made public for everyone else to know, so that a comparison can be made? How did they get funded if there is a MORATORIUM? Who wins from this?
The old saying from the Watergate era was "follow the money". In the instance of Jacob's Well - who stands to win financially? David Baker first and foremost as an operator of a private business adjacent to Jacobs Well that he owns and operates. The fact that he is also in charge of the WVWA is also curious as they are the manager of the Well, that is also owned by the WVWA, which is a private organization that has now been awarded bond money, which I thought was illegal based on a post on this blog some months ago about giving public funds to private entities. Who else profits? Where do the developers who were suing Woodcreek come in? Why are we paying (as it is rumored) that the bond money is being used to pay off or end up lawsuits against the City of Woodcreek and the WVWA brought by the developer is a massive and colossal waste of public funds.
As for who gets what - it would never in reality be an even 25% across the board match for all precincts, but a fair attempt to make it so should be done. Whether or not a project in any given precinct is "recreation" or "preservation" doesn't matter, there is 30 million dollars, and once it is gone, it is gone.
A few honest answers please! Why isn't more of the people in Wimberley concerned about the apparent double-dealing going on with the WVWA and its owner, David Baker? Is the double-standard such that so long as the project is conservation it is exempted from the same standard Mr. Owen is so hot to require everyone else to hold to? Apparently.
A quick review of the status of park funding available at http://www.co.hays.tx.us/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=FHx%2f4gnyius%3d&tabid=71&mid=552 shows that Pct 4has received approximately $1 million out of $30 million. The Harrison Ranch Park project is about recreation and as a part of that project has also created conservation of land for something other than development.
I am calling out Mr. Swimberley to show where his bogus numbers of $6 millions comes from? Is he making a leap of logic that Dahlstrom Ranch is Pct 4? Researched that one, obviously it is in Pct 2 (Comm Barton). Where are the other $5 million we have supposedly gotten? Please help here with that Mr. Owen.
Precinct 4: $775,000 Harrison Park; $266,919 Founders Park; and $5.0 million Nicholson Ranch equals $6,041,919. If Harrison Park gets another $1.7 million that $7.74 million
Anyone know how much is left outta that 30 million? I haven't seen much in parks or recreation improvements in my part of the county.
Coming up with $2.719751 million remaining if Kyle doesn't return anything and before Harrison Ranch gets proposed reservation of $1.7 million.
Why is Commissioner Ford trying to circumvent the process?
All the Commissioners are circumventing the process because they wouldn't know how to act any other way. I hope everyone will remeber this fiasco when the next bond package is trotted out for consideration. As far as the David's well of money ---- strike that ---- I meant Jacob's Well, is concerned, it was a masterful rip off of the taxpayers. David Baker and Jack Hollon should be ashamed. They aren't ashamed, and they never will be, but they should be.
Regarding the anonymous posts about Jacobs Well at 2:54 and 9:35 pm on August 16. I want to point out the host of errors in these comments beginning with the contentions about WVWA and David Baker.
You stated that public money is going to a private entity and that is completely untrue. WVWA is not a private business. It is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. As for Dancing Waters Retreat which is a part of Jacobs Well Natural Area, it was donated to WVWA by David Baker in 2006. All income from the Retreat goes only to WVWA. Although David Baker once owned property at Jacobs Well, he sold his land and home years ago. He owns no real estate at or around Jacobs Well. David has devoted the last 20 years of his life to preserving Jacob's Well, Cypress Creek and the Hill Country aquifers that are so vitally important to all of us.
Another skewed assertion is that the County bond money “is being used to pay off or end lawsuits against the City of Woodcreek and WVWA.” The 1.7 million is being used to buy land for a preserve from developers who agreed to sell at that price. The lawsuits simply become irrelevant as a result of that transaction. The purchase of the property will double the amount of protected land surrounding the spring and the so called “colossal waste of public funds” as you say, is in reality a legitimate and highly appropriate use of bond money to save one the most iconic natural springs in Texas (from becoming a high density condo development or mobile home park in private hands.) This property currently has a lift station and centralized water from Aqua Texas that will be retired with the purchase preventing further development in this very sensitive part of the watershed.
And that leads to other uniformed claims about the Citizens Parks Advisory Team (CPAT) process that the slightest effort at research would have corrected. WVWA presented the Jacobs Well Natural Area project to the CPAT board in early 2008. The CPAT scored the Jacob's Well Natural Area project as one of the highest rated projects to date and voted to approve the project unanimously and recommended that Hays County approve the proposal. The Commissioners voted unanimously to approve $2.6 million of the $3million in August 2008. The Parks Board also reviewed the most recent proposal to purchase the additional 50 acres and approved the project unanimously and recommenced the Commissioner Court move forward with the acquisition. This purchase will create a 96 acre preserve around Jacob's Well that currently provides public access, environmental education and research as well as space for community meetings, workshops and retreats. The WVWA and community volunteers have established over 1.2 miles of trails with ADA access to Jacob's Well and removed and recycled nearly 3 acres of impervious cover from the site.
As for how the bond money has been distributed among the precincts go to
http://www.co.hays.tx.us/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=FHx%2f4gnyius%3d&tabid=71&mid=552 ;
for an accounting of where the money has gone although it does not include Harrison Ranch Habitat Conservation Project or the recent JWNA purchase.
Rusty Middleton
rustymid@austin.rr.com
Post a Comment