Six candidates are vying for three two-year terms on the Village of Salado Board of Aldermen for the May 6 general election. They appear on the ballot in this order: D. Jasen Graham, Bert Henry, Linda Reynolds, Rodney W. Bell, Lennox J. Alfred, and Samuel Morris. Cody Coufal withdrew from the race on April 10.
This week, Salado Village Voice asked the following questions about roads and parks to the candidates.
Question 1: The Village is in negotiations with a developer in which the Village will purchase a wastewater treatment plant on the west side of I-35 using impact fees and wastewater charges to repay the debt on the WWTP. Do you favor this plan or not? Why or why not? (150 words)
Question 2: Through voluntary annexation and formation of a Public Improvement District (PID), the Village is bringing in more than 1,000 acres of property to be developed as Mustang Springs of Salado. Do you favor PIDs for funding mechanisms for developers? Why or why not? (150 words)
Question 3: The Village recently endorsed a proposed Municipal Utility District (MUD) for a proposed development in southern Bell County that could bring as many as 14,000 homes in phased development to this area. What impacts positive or negative do you see from this possible new community on the Village of Salado? (150 words)
Question 4: What concessions in terms of Economic Development should the Village make in order to bring in developments that are in the extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) in terms of property tax rebates, hotel occupancy tax rebates and/or sales tax rebates would you support or oppose? Why would you support or oppose these agreements? (150 words)
Question 5: Do you support or oppose overlay districts? Why or why not? (150 words)
D. Jasen Graham
Question 1: Yes, the use of impact fees and wastewater charges to repay the debt of purchasing the plant makes sound financial sense because it essentially pays for itself. There is no additional tax burden imposed on current tax payers and only those who connect to this particular plant would be responsible for the required fees and charges.
Having a wastewater treatment plant on the west side of I-35 will provide support to the west side of Salado and help the Village shape Salado’s growth pattern for years to come. Providing wastewater service is a key tool we have to annex properties into the Village. This gives us increased commercial and residential tax revenue to provide increased essential services to the entirety of the population.
Question 2: Yes, PIDs are effective funding mechanisms for developers and come at no risk to the municipalities that agree to them. They come at no cost to the Village. Neither the Village nor its current taxpayers pay any funds toward the establishment and maintenance of a PID for a prospective development.
PIDs are loans to the developer from a financial institution that they are responsible for paying back. They repay these loans primarily through additional fees that are tacked on to the mortgage payments of those owning property on the development.
PIDs generally focus on the development of the roads, sidewalks, lighting and parks within their development and are paid for by those who reside within that development alone. These improvements bring value to the Village and increase property values resulting in increased revenue for the Village to prove essential services.
Question 3: Local businesses stand to benefit from an increase in patronage as the new population center grows resulting in increased profit margins. Increased commercial development along the I-35 corridor and FM 2843 to support this growth would also bring in additional commercial sales and property tax. The school district also stands to benefit from this development as even more of the development would fall within the school district as opposed to the Village limits or its ETJ.
Negative impacts should be negligible since the only portion of Salado that would touch the development is where we have newly annexed the rights of way along I-35 south of town and FM 2843 toward Florence. The majority of this development would fall within Williamson County and Jarrell’s ETJ. It will also have to meet established prerequisites before being authorized to break ground, including resourcing water within acceptable levels as determined by the state.
Question 4: Yes, I would consider rebate incentives so long as the Village will be able to recoup the revenue within the same time period for which the tax rebate was established. The tax rebate MUST also have a time limit on it not to exceed 10 years. However, a 10-year tax rebate would certainly be the exception as opposed to the rule. These rebates must only be granted when the benefits for the Village clearly outweigh the cost of the tax revenue lost resulting from those rebates.
The Village hasn’t needed to consider the use of this tool very often. However, as residential growth drives the need for additional commercial development, we want to make sure we are attracting commercial development that is consistent with Salado’s vision as outlined in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. If rebate incentives are required to attract those types of businesses, we may want to consider them.
Question 5: Yes, but overlay districts should only be considered when simpler zoning mechanisms will not suffice. A very limited approach to using an overlay district should be used to help shape future growth. Overlays can help fill gaps where traditional zoning does not address specific or complicated local conditions like the proposed historic district overlay which will provide protection to the look and feel of what is generally referred to as the historic district of Salado while still respecting the rights of property owners.
There are other overlay districts that may warrant consideration like river shed overlays which protect land along the entirety of Salado Creek with one set of rules that could apply across districts. Overlays can also be used to help encourage economic development or curb traffic congestion. Foremost, this is a governing tool that should be used sparingly and only considered when simpler zoning mechanisms will not suffice.
Bert Henry
Question 1: In order to determine whether or not I am in favor of or against this plan, I would need to review input from the citizens of the Village. I am not prepared to make a public statement either way, as I have not had an opportunity to ascertain whether or not this is in alignment with the wants and needs of the taxpayers.
Question 2: My vote would be on a case-by-case basis. A Property Improvement District (PID) can be an effective tool for local governments to implement development. They provide advantages, such as cost-effectiveness, community engagement, and effective partnerships. However, there are downsides to be considered when considering a PID.
The main pro of creating a PID is cost savings. Property owners in a new development are responsible for the costs associated with any PID project, rather than current taxpayers having to fund the project. PIDs also provide an opportunity for local stakeholders to get involved and participate in community improvement projects. This type of engagement increases community pride and sense of ownership, creating a sense of cohesion.
The downside of PIDs includes potential for local corruption, misuse of funds, and favoritism towards certain stakeholders. A PID has limited impact if the improvement projects do not adequately reflect the community’s values, wants, and needs.
Question 3: An additional 14,000 homes would potentially 28,000 new neighbors (based on 2 people per household) to the Village of Salado. With a surge of that size, impacts will be felt, both positive and negative.
With 28,000 new neighbors, we could certainly see a positive financial impact as it relates to local businesses. It has a potential to breathe new life into struggling small businesses, as well as expand the customer base for the businesses that are more successful.
However, that positive financial impact would come at a price. More vehicles on our area roads (up to 56,000 if each household had two vehicles) that are already in need of repair. Additionally, congestion on the roads is cause for concern. School traffic is already enough to drive some folks crazy, if only for a few minutes. Adding thousands of vehicles to that scenario could become a problem.
Question 4: When local governments are interested in economic development in the extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of their municipalities, providing certain concessions to developers in order to make their projects more attractive should be considered. These concessions may include offering property tax rebates, hotel occupancy tax rebates and/or sales tax rebates. These rebates may be beneficial to both parties, as the local government would benefit from increased development and increased tax revenue, while the developer would benefit from reduced taxes, providing more attractive profit margins for their development.
It is important to note, however, that these concessions should be considered carefully by local government and offered judiciously to ensure that their goals for the municipality’s economic growth are met. Additionally, if used properly, concessions such as these may prove to be a useful tool for helping to attract businesses to the municipality. I would support negotiating any of the above concessions.
Question 5: Establishing an overlay district can be costly, as local government must research the issue and create legislation for it. Also, there can be landowner conflicts, as some property owners might disagree with the overlay regulations or feel that the new rules will take away their right to use their land in a certain way. Creating overlay districts is a long and involved process which can lead to an excessive number of meetings and paperwork that can be overwhelming and inefficient, creating excessive bureaucracy. Conflicts can arise if proposed regulations within an overlay district contradict existing zoning codes. Members of the community may oppose changes in an area out of a fear of what they perceive as a loss of control over the development in their neighborhood. Whether or not I would favor or oppose an overlay district would be decided after input from the citizens of the Village of Salado.
Linda Reynolds
Question 1: We absolutely must stop any further Westside wastewater moving under I35 and into the two Village lift stations. The stench from the two Village lift stations is already polluting the commercial Village and Mill Creek air.
Perhaps this is why the village manager and mayor want to move out of town?
A WWTP has been offered to the village for purchase and use on the Northwest side of Salado, and will not affect Historic Salado Creek.
Don Ferguson announced it is a higher quality plant than the one we built up a hill. Our Temple engineer told the Village, long ago, that the site would have been the best placement for our first Salado WWTP.
Question 2: Almost every development in Houston and Dallas are done with PIDS. But a Village of 2,400 taxpayers is not Houston or Dallas.
Alderman Graham and Bell have supported Mustang Springs which will dump their wastewater up stream of Salado into Salado Creek.
What happens when flooding causes a spill and raw sewage floats down Salado creek?
What happens when Salado, in an emergency, needs bond money to recuperate from a weather disaster?
Our name will already be on millions of PID dollar bonds for The Sanctuary and Mustang Springs, and our credit may be stretched beyond helping local taxpayers.
I will NOT support the taking of individual’s private property to assist ANY developer.
Question 3: A MUD means the developer takes all the financial responsibility. It means someone other than the village taxpayer’s name will be used for funding of infrastructure.
The Villages “endorsement” was just a requirement, so the Village and school district would be aware of any future impact.
The real impact to the village is the continued sucking sound of our Salado Water district wells in the Edward’s aquifer. I suspect Dirk Aaron’s at Clearwater will have nightmares about keeping Bell County out of drought controls…and I for one thank God for Clearwater’s work every day.
Our problem is, Travis and Williamson counties have no one protecting the underground water resource we all rely on.
Question 4: The Sanctuary contract “gave away the farm.” Our lawyer, at the time, told the BOA, DON’TSIGN THAT CONTRACT! Why did they?
The previous mayor and BOA gave away the farm. Now every developer wants the same deal!
I remember Alderman Amber stating, developers should want to come to Salado….we shouldn’t have to pay them.
Recently, a developer wanted a variance, or else he’d forget about developing, and sell the land. The planning and zoning gave the variance.
The word is out…SALADO FOR SALE, and we are cheaper than Austin, Round Rock, and Georgetown.
Set up an AirBNB in town, and swindle some old lady’s ranch out of town…. with government assistance?
Question 5: The problem with this question is the overlay district, which has seemed like a Volleyball game between the PNZ and the BOA has had secret meetings and “Public Hearings”, but the public has never seen a clear map of what is being discussed.
Also, at one meeting, the Village manager says we never had an Historic District, and then at another meeting he says you must have a permit since you are in the Historic district.
Overlay districts are attempts to control zoning and prevent development. Since incorporation, the business district on the Eastside of Salado has tried to WALL OUT the Westside businesses, and control all development.
Competition may be the American way….but killing the competition behind the shield of a government imposed overlay may be easier than just improving your product, and lowering your profit.
Property rights are lost. Doesn’t sound like Texas.
Rodney W. Bell
Question 1: I do favor the plan as it is presented. To be clear, the impact fees and charges will be strictly for this plant and NOT be tied to the existing plant on the east side of the village.
• My position is that each plant must function on its own financial merit and the east side plant must retire the debt as soon as possible. I would not support an action that uses the funding from the current plant to finance debt on the west side.
• The building of the west side system will assist in growing any commercial tax base on the I-35 and FM 2484 corner. The building of the QT is the first step in that progress.
Question 2: The use of a PID to develop a community is a financial choice each developer must make for funding their development.
• I personally am not in favor of a PID, however, there are benefits to the overall community. It does not change the amount of property tax the overall community receives. The PID “tax” is on top of and becomes a choice of the homeowner buying in that development.
• As long as the PID is communicated to the potential buyer up front, then to me it is an acceptable use of financing by the developer, and the buyer should beware.
Question 3: As of today, the only positive impact to the Village of Salado may be some commercial property on the I-35 access that may bring in some property tax.
• On the negative side, the growth of this area is going to have a big impact on the schools and roads in our area. As this develops, we need to assess the growth progress, attempt to stay ahead on road planning by allocating funds, and taking advantage of state and federal dollars as growth continues.
Question 4: I can be open to concessions, however the development or business needs to bring overall value to the community. I am in favor of businesses that work with the village and want to move forward as corporate citizens looking to improve and not take advantage of the people of Salado.
In support of an agreement, there must be a finite term not to exceed 7 years, and be a rolling number that decreases the abatement year by year. Never should the abatement be a 100% or a length that runs past the 7 years. Some believe there should a tax abatement policy, but I believe that puts the village in a poor negotiating stance.
Question 5: I am opposed to the current proposed historic district overlay. I would be open to the idea if there were some modifications made in order to make it more friendly for the actual property owner.
• In the current overlay, the property owner would need to navigate a system to gain a variance on the property that they own. They should have the ability to make modifications using zoning ordinances already in place.
• It is my opinion that the current proposal is too restrictive and requires some modification.
Lennox J. Alfred
Question 1: The Village is still in negotiations with the developer in reference to the purchase of the wastewater treatment plant and these negotiations are still ongoing. The development of the west side is a five-year project consisting of the improvement of approximately 1,100 acres which when completed will include residential, multi-family, some mixed use and some commercial property. Given the magnitude of this development the WWTP will not be built until Phase 2 and 3 of the development projects. Considering the possibility of the impact fees throughout the development and the successful installation and operational ability of the WWTP, I will be in favor of the Village purchasing the WWTP. I will be supportive of this although we are speaking of a plan that is five plus years away. I believe the Village ownership and operation of the WWTP could create an additional financial revenue stream for the Village, and also provide the Village with the opportunity and ability to consider future growth on the west side of I-35.
Question 2: The developers of Mustang Spring of Salado Development requested voluntary annexation into the Village city limits as they saw and appreciated the quality of life the Village and surrounding area has to offer. I am in favor of the Public Improvement District (PID) for Mustang Springs. This PID will ensure that the cost of street maintenance, roadway construction, landscaping or drainage facilities, water, and even landscaping will be paid for by the residents of that community through PID assessments and not cause a financial burden of the Village financial resources. The PIDs created by the Mustang Springs and Sanctuary Development will be self-sustaining for those specific developments and paid for by the residents usually with a payout over a 20 or a 30-year period. PID can also generate millions of dollars to the Village in the form of tax revenue.
Question 3: The development of 14,000 homes at the southern border of the Village and the increase in population it brings will affect all aspects of life as we know it within Salado, from our School District to our entertainment and lifestyle. This increase in population will put a greater demand on the Village to extend city services, including police security service, additional leisure space/parks, and increase the maintenance of key infrastructural needs. The increasing population can exacerbate some issues already present in the Village. SISD will have to add additional campuses, staff, security and playground to support the growing educational needs of this community. If we look at this area from an economic viewpoint, we will be able to identify an increase in the tax revenue for the Village from the residential homes and any commercial sales tax that may be associated with this developing area. Every municipality has a responsibility to its citizens to preserve their quality and standard of life while encouraging sensible growth and development.
Question 4: The Village has the ability to provide monetary terms and incentives to developers and development that’s located in its ETJ. Tax rebates, subsidies and tax incentives are all local incentives the Village can use if they are interested in including these areas into the city limits. I am not in favor of these tax incentives, or any form of tax rebates and agreements. These agreements by their nature limits the tax revenue that the Village would normally receive while creating the responsibility to provide all city related services, security and maintenance to the acquired area.
Question 5: I am supportive of the overlay district with the information provided by the historic committee. The committee’s efforts produce an historic overlay area which takes into consideration owners’ property rights, the preservation of a defined area that retained its originality, ecstatic’s look and that unique feel for what the Village of Salado is known for and appreciated. The overlay also identifies the requirements of any future building construction, and the type of building material that can be used. The conservation of this district ensures that the elegance of the Village will remain for future generations to enjoy.
Samuel Morris
Question 1: Upon reviewing the plan for the purchase of the Salado Center WWTP, it appears to be favorable for the Village. The facility is well-established and has the current capacity to accommodate the anticipated growth on the west side. However, it would be beneficial to have a clearer definition of the facility’s ability to increase capacity in case of future needs.
As for the terms of purchase, the payment plan seems to be mutually beneficial for both the seller and the Village during the initial term of the agreement. However, it is important to exercise additional diligence to ensure that the impact fees collected will be sufficient to cover the balloon payment at the end of the term. We must protect Village taxpayers from potential financial burdens by avoiding a large bill at the conclusion of the agreement.
Question 2: Understanding Public Improvement Districts (PID) in Texas can be complex, as it depends on how it is written. One positive aspect of a PID is that it is not funded by taxpayer money, but rather by deposits made by the developer and installments made through PID assessments attached to the real estate within the PID. In addition, the use of a PID does not impact the bond rating of the local government in Texas. Another advantage is that it allows the Village to negotiate development standards that exceed the current Village standards.
However, one drawback is that it can add to the burden of real estate within the PID. It is crucial for potential buyers/builders in this area to be aware that the PID is tied to the deed and will impact the annual tax burden. The PID should be written in a way that is self-sustaining and does not impose any administrative burden on the Village. Furthermore, it should not involve day-to-day management or oversight by the Village for its operation, and it should only be used for new development.
Question 3: The endorsed MUD (Municipal Utility District) takes responsibility for utility infrastructure from the Village to the developer, which can be viewed as a positive aspect. However, one drawback is that the proposed 14,000 homes within the MUD would be excluded from the Village tax base. On the other hand, this would increase the tax base for the Salado ISD, which can be seen as a positive outcome. Additionally, the influx of visitors to the Village shops and restaurants due to the increased development. And that is a positive. However, this may exacerbate the existing parking issues in the heart of the Village. Therefore, it is crucial to address these parking issues promptly to attract and retain visitors as regular customers of our local businesses. Difficulties in parking or navigating around the Village may deter visitors from becoming regular patrons of our esteemed Village businesses.
Question 4: When it comes to economic development, I have concerns about the fairness of rebates that are not applied equally to all businesses. Through discussions with Village residents and small business owners, it has become clear that this issue raises questions of fairness. If we offer rebates to one business to come to Salado, then we must extend the same opportunity to all businesses that have chosen to remain in our community. Our current businesses are the backbone of our community, and it is important to treat them all fairly. Salado is a gem in the Hill Country, and I believe that development can continue without the need for special rules exclusively for newcomers. If changes to our current codes are necessary, they should be implemented consistently for all those affected by them.
Question 5: After careful consideration, I do not support the overlay districts in their current form. While I understand the desire for a consistent look and feel in the Village, I find the business type restrictions to be oddly focused. Through discussions with members of the community, I believe that we can achieve continuity without the need for the current overlay proposals. I believe that there are better legislative solutions that can help us maintain the unique character of our community while also supporting the diverse needs of our local businesses.