First hand look at Woodcreek Comp Plan committee

I am Debra Hines, a member of the Citizens’ Comprehensive Planning Committee. I am here to offer an alternative perspective and clarification on statements made by Council during the discussion on March 3rd regarding the survey created by the Citizens’ Comprehensive Planning Committee (or CCPC for short) and Pegasus.

1.) The CCPC and Pegasus did look at surveys from other cities. I personally submitted questions from the Buda 2020 survey for consideration.

2.) We did review previous City of Woodcreek surveys. These were part of the initial information packet we received from Pegasus.

3.) We incorporated professional guidance from a Professor at Texas State. That input was generously gathered by a citizen and submitted to the committee. In fact, I would like to take a moment to thank all the citizens who have stepped forward to offer input for the survey. That flow of communication was very much appreciated. The 2nd draft of the CCPC survey is a direct reflection of that widespread collaborative effort.

4.) It should be noted that the CCPC has met just 3 times total. Only two of those times involved editing the survey. We had spent less than 4 hours reviewing and editing that document together, and had barely created a second draft. It was far from a finalized or finished product.

5.) At one point it was mentioned that code, zoning or city ordinance potentially have no place on a Comprehensive Planning Survey. As evidence to the contrary, I’ve provided a copy of the Buda 2020 Survey to Council today. Here are three examples of code and a specific ordinance being addressed on this Comprehensive Planning Survey conducted by Texas State:

- Page 12 code changes involving zoning and mixed use development

- Page 25 specific code changes involving building height

- Page 26 code changes involving regulating light to preserve dark skies

6.) The Comprehensive Planning Process is purposefully set up to be a citizen-directed and community-driven effort. Implying that Pegasus should have been “controlling” the CCPC in any significant way doesn’t seem to align with the guidelines as outlined on the city website and presented to the CCPC in our introductory meeting.

7.) Those same guidelines state explicitly that the CCPC is to serve as ambassadors for the community and that we are to “provide residents with the most possible public engagement.” I maintain that the use of social media to drive interest and participation falls under this umbrella.

8.) City Staff removed 3 questions from the 1st draft of the survey without CCPC approval and this occurred outside of a public meeting. I worry this was a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. At the very least, it felt like a clear overreach by the City Staff into CCPC responsibilities. Any and all changes should have been made in a public meeting, and while contributions from the City Staff are important, ultimately the power to make survey changes rested with the CCPC alone as outlined in our agenda packets under “Attendance by Other Elected or Appointed Officials.” The CCPC, with guidance from Pegasus and City Staff, reinstated those questions with edits to the wording on the 2nd draft of the survey. Immediately after that, “the City informally fired Pegasus on February 10th, 2021” to quote the resignation letter from our former CCPC chair, Amanda Erwin, who listed a lack of communication and waste of volunteers’ time in her reasoning for leaving the committee at this juncture.

If I am being honest, I am also disappointed and discouraged by the way my committee and Pegasus have been treated. I personally still feel like the termination of Pegasus was premature and lacked sufficient grounds to justify such extreme action. I hope we can all learn from this experience together and do better when we resume the CCPC work on March 30th.

It is important for us to remember that the future of the City of Woodcreek as a whole is far more important and much bigger than any one committee, board, City Staff, Mayor or current City Council Members and, perhaps most importantly, even our own personal and individual agendas.

Thank you for your time.

Debra Hines