This meeting was thorny. Several complex items with odd outcomes: the Sinai church field next to the VFW, SMPD contract with Axon, fees at the Activity Center, and what happened when we charged $5 for out-of-towners at the river? Read all the complex, unsatisfying semi-resolutions right here!
Let’s go:
Hours 0:00 – 3:39: A new VA clinic, the Sinai Pentecostal field by the VFW, the SMPD contract with Axon Enterprises, new fees at the activity center and library, and some smaller items.
Bonus! 3 pm workshops: Two workshops:
1. Designing the river parks, and a mini-rant about Rio Vista pool
2. The big one – how did charging people at the river go? (Answer: it was mixed)
San Marcos River Foundation: The Sinai Church proposal on Hopkins is in very sensitive land. We’re okay with 30% impervious cover, but not 80% impervious cover.
The Sinai Pentecostal Church is beloved and serves the people of San Marcos. Please approve the rezoning for the new sanctuary.
We have too many contracts with Axon. (three speakers)
The new Veterans Clinic will be great for area vets.
The VFW floods easily, and it’s right next to the proposed Sinai sanctuary. (two speakers)
Some council candidates are delinquent on their campaign finance reports
We banned Flock, but why haven’t we brought in some other license plate reader company?
Moving along!
….
Item 15: New VA Clinic
Here’s how it works for veterans in San Marcos: the southern part of town is in the San Antonio district, and the northern part of town is in the Austin district.
This makes it very hard to get to doctor’s appointments! Some vets can just go to New Braunfels, but others have to go up to Austin, or even Temple. Arranging transportation is a big, ongoing problem.
But now, we’re getting our own VA clinic here in San Marcos. This is great!
Here’s where it will be:
Here’s another view:
There’s not much to say here. It only came to council on something of a technicality: they wanted the parking lot in front, instead of the back of the building. You want vets to have easy access to the front door, because many have mobility impairments. So now it’s been rezoned and the parking lot can go in front.
Everyone is very excited for the new VA clinic.
….
Item 16: Sinai Church Lot
This is a big, dicey item, and it’s confusing how it played out. Bear with me here.
They have super deep roots in the San Marcos community. Everyone loves them.
They also own this land, right where Hopkins road switches over to being Hunter Road:
On Hopkins/Hunter, it looks like this:
That’s pretty hard to see…. here’s just the field:
Anyway.
They want to build a santuary here. Sanctuaries are very expensive, though.
This brings us to Pennington Funeral Home!
Pennington used to be here:
right by Little HEB.
It just got demolished recently, to build some apartments. They’re looking to build their new home.
Pennington reached out to Sinai Pentecostal and offered build a joint sanctuary-funeral home on the field on Hopkins. This sounds like a great partnership!
Here’s the problem:
San Marcos gets two kinds of floods. In 2015, the Blanco river flooded. Since the Blanco and the San Marcos river converge, the San Marcos river backed up. Between these two rivers, there was a lot of flooding around Highway 80 and Blanco Gardens.
But back in 1998, it was Purgatory Creek that flooded. Across central Texas, 31 people died. I’ve heard that there were apartment complexes near the river where the second story flooded.
The Sinai property is the most sensitive possible land for flooding – it’s not just a flood zone, it’s a floodway. Building there will make flooding worse.
The P&Z Meeting, September 22
The church and Pennington Funeral Home asked for a rezoning. Right now, the church can build a sanctuary, but they can’t have any commercial businesses, like Pennington.
This affects the amount of impervious cover: currently the church is allowed to build up to 30% impervious cover. If they get commercial zoning, they can up to 80% impervious cover.
P&Z took both sides very seriously:
the mission of the church, their decades of service to San Marcos, and this opportunity that they’ve prayed for
the risk of increased flooding to Dunbar neighborhood, directly behind the church.
One commissioner grew up in Dunbar, and recalled a little boy who died in a flood in the 1980s. She said that she could not, in good conscience, possibly approve something that could make the flooding worse.
P&Z denied the rezoning request.
(I literally emailed them afterwards to tell them I was impressed by how gracefully they handled this item.)
This week: Sinai and Pennington appeal to Council
A few facts to keep track of:
Since P&Z denied the request, Council has to get 6 votes to overturn it. Otherwise the P&Z denial stays.
Right now, the church is allowed to build a sanctuary, and they are allowed 30% impervious cover. It’s only Pennington that can’t join in, because they are a commercial business.
Finally: since the P&Z meeting, a new deal was struck – what if Sinai and Pennington agree to stay at the 30% impervious cover, instead of going up to 80%?
My reaction: this is great! This addresses the flooding, while allowing Sinai to partner with Pennington to build the sanctuary/funeral home. Win-win!
It did not go so neatly.
What does Council say?
Josh: They haven’t drawn up plans yet, right? It’s possible that the floodway may still prove to be impossible to build on? Answer: That’s right. Getting the re-zoning is the first step, but this would still be a very tricky process.
Matthew: I’m really concerned about the VFW next door. They really are basically on a river bottom. I’m worried about toxic chemicals in the case of a flood. I’m willing to have faith and vote for this, but I ask them to think about the VFW.
Amanda: I’ve known Pastor Montoya since I was a child. This is tough.
I don’t like overriding the Comprehensive Plan
I’m worried the deal that is being proposed is not as enforceable as I’d like.
I’d feel better if it were a Restrictive Covenant.
I’m sorry, but I’m a no, under the current proposal.
Lorenzo: P&Z never saw the new proposal. They only voted on the proposal for 80% impervious cover. Why don’t we send it back to them? If they approve it, then we only need a simple majority, instead of a supermajority.
Everyone likes this idea. This seems to solve everything!
Sending it back to P&Z would delay the rezoning by about 5-8 weeks. Council asks Pennington: is that kind of delay okay with you guys?
Pennington: Actually, no. We’re terribly sorry. We’re renting temporary space and we absolutely have to move forward now, or else we’ll bail on this partnership altogether.
Well shit. Back to square one.
Amanda: I’d like to rescind my 2nd on the motion to send it back to P&Z. I don’t believe in jerking people around. If that will force Pennington out, then let’s not do it. Let’s make a decision tonight.
She then asks for a brief recess so that she can wrestle with her decision.
…
I have thoughts!
Maybe it’s okay – maybe there are six votes on Council, and Amanda can be the sole NO vote.
Amanda did say that she’d be okay with a restrictive covenant, instead of the current deal. Maybe that can be proposed tonight, and that’s how they get to six votes.
If Penningtons can’t handle a five week delay, how on earth will they make it through an entire construction process? There’s no way. As my grandmother used to say, “Double the costs and triple the time.” A five week delay is nothing.
Council goes in an entirely different direction.
…..
Back from recess, nobody seems to remember that Amanda had rescinded her 2nd on the motion to send it back to P&Z.
They go in circles for awhile longer:
Is Penningtons super duper sure that they can’t wait even five weeks? (Yes, they are super duper sure. No, they will not wait.)
Is the time schedule urgent for Sinai? (Yes, they need to plant trees in their prayer garden.)
Can we add teeth to the deal, and make it stricter? (Yes, but nobody actually proposes anything.)
So it’s time for Council to vote.
This is where we went off the rails: Council voted on… whether to postpone and send it back to P&Z?! Up until this moment, I thought it had been rescinded.
I was so baffled that I went back and double-checked, a day later. But yes:
Here is the outcome of the vote:
Knowing that Penningtons would bail on the deal, Council sent the rezoning back to P&Z anyway. I feel like I must have misunderstood something! This makes no sense.
Either:
we killed the deal, by forcing Pennington out, or
we called their bluff, rudely, and they’ll figure out a way to stick around, or
I totally misunderstood the last few minutes of this item.
Its initial product and former namesake is the Taser, a line of electroshock weapons. The company has since diversified into technology products for military and law enforcement, including body-worn cameras, dashcams, computer-aided dispatch software, and Evidence.com, a cloud-based digital evidence platform. As of 2017, body-worn cameras and associated services comprised a quarter of Axon’s overall business.[3]
They do not have anything to do with Flock or license plate reader cameras. But the kind of person who doesn’t like Flock is often also the kind of person who doesn’t like Axon. Axon is cop-adjacent. Also Axon does a lot of maybe-controversial business with the county.
More background:
Every time SMPD seizes a phone or a computer, they have to deal with all the data, files, and video. All that digital evidence need to be stored. It’s a wild amount of data. SMPD has a contract with Axon to buy cloud storage for digital evidence. They want to renew it for another year.
Alyssa: there’s a bit in the contract about using data for product enhancement. Can we opt out of that?
Answer: Yes we can!
This will come back around with that provision.
Council postponed signing the contract, because of data privacy concerns. Now it’s back.
This meeting:
Alyssa and Amanda dig in:
We’re concerned that we contract with Axon for such a wide range of services. Answer: This is tied to the body camera footage. We’re already uploading that footage to them. Also the county uses Axon, which makes it easier to coordinate with them.
Is the data ours? Answer: Yes, we retain all control, etc.
What about the metadata? Answer: these guys are as secure as any of the other hundred online vendors that San Marcos uses. They may all have problems, but this is no worse?
What was the thing from last time, about using our data for product enhancement?
This last question is where things went off the rails.
Here’s the issue: in the contract it says, “Axon may retain data for purposes of improving the customer experience, unless you opt out.” Like I mentioned above, back in September, Council was like, “This is terrible. Please opt out.”
So Alyssa asks if we’ve opted out? Answer: I think so!
Alyssa: I’m sorry. Could you point me to where we opted out? I just can’t find it.
Opt Out
Customer may opt out of ACEIP Basic at any time via aceip@axon.com. Axon endeavors to implement opt outs within
fifteen (15) calendar days. Transformations of Customer Content cease when Axon implements the opt out. Axon may
retain Transformed Content created before it implemented the opt out request.
So we have absolutely not opted out. This is just a generic paragraph with instructions on how to do so.
Chief Standridge gets very defensive and says, “You didn’t tell me to opt out. You told us to come back with information. Which we did.”
Alyssa: Come off it. You didn’t come back with information. I had to pry it out of you. You know our constituents are mad about this. We’re trying to build trust here! You guys could have put this information in the presentation, instead of burying it.
Chief Standridge: the constituents could go back and listen to the first presentation and read the review form in the council packet.
Alyssa: The council packet is a billion pages long! Why wouldn’t you just make it easier for them?
Assistant City Manager Anderson: We’re very sorry.
Lorenzo: Don’t we have a current contract? It looks like we’re 10.5 months deep into one already. Why didn’t we ask you guys to go opt out of the current one?
Nobody has a good answer.
They discuss a few more things:
What happens if Axon goes out of business or we terminate the contract? (we have 90 days to download our data)
Do we really have 128 people who need access to the data? (yes)
What is the policy that governs how officers interact with Axon? (sort of in their manual)
Amanda makes a motion: As soon as possible:
Opt out of data retention for the current contract
Opt out of it for the new contract
Ask if we can reclaim old data from the past 10.5 months
The vote: should we opt out of letting Axon use our data and see if we can reclaim old data?
Shane Scott feels strongly that your data should be used for improving the customer experience!
Goddamnit, you know how he loves improving the customer experience. Don’t make him choose.
…
The overall vote: should we sign this contract with Axon for cloud storage of digital evidence?
So there you have it.
…
Item 21: Library and Parks and Rec Fees
The next thorny issue!
All fees automatically adjust yearly with inflation. But they’re also reviewed every three years to see if they make sense. Library and Parks and Rec fees are being reviewed.
(But they did not go back and propose different rates.)
Amanda: I’m really struggling with this. Is there no way we can review the fee increases in light of the poverty rate, compared to our comparison cities?
City staff: I mean, you all haven’t been willing to raise taxes in years.
Amanda: I’ve taken a lot of unpopular votes on taxes! I’m not willing to make up revenue by passing the costs on in the form of fees.
Amanda specifically calls out the Activity Center yearly membership fees:
“These rates are going up almost 50%!” she exclaims. “This is really going to hurt our residents!”
“Technically 41%,” says Lorenzo.
Amanda: How would you all feel about raising rates 5%?
Josh: Yikes. And we’d eat the other 36%?
Amanda: Ok, what if we split the difference, then? Go halfway between the adopted fee and the proposed fee?
Lorenzo: This works out to:
$111 for resident adults (for 1 year) $ 72 for resident seniors $ 55.50 for resident youth $ 180 for a resident family
Josh: Will this make or break the city budget if we do this? Answer: No, not at all.
The Vote: Raise resident memberships by half as much as proposed?
Matthew was present, but chose to abstain. (He didn’t say why.)
Shane Scott really wants you to pay the MAX for your Activity Center membership. He’ll vote for lower taxes, lower impact fees for businesses, lower utility rates, but goddamnit, he’s got to draw the line somewhere: ACTIVITY CENTER!
Anything else?
Lorenzo: Are we really charging 20¢ for a black and white copy? The university charges a penny. Answer: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The vote on the entire package of fee hikes:
I have no idea why Matthew voted no. He was entirely silent during the discussion.
…
Item 21: The Olympic Torch
The Olympics are coming to Los Angeles in 2028!
Whoops, that’s Paris. Anyway, the torch will go from Paris to Los Angeles.
Are we interested in being one of the cities along the way? Are we curious to learn more?
Josh: Hell yeah! I love the Olympics.
Amanda: Hell no! I’m lukewarm on the Olympics.
Jane: Seems like everyone agrees! So we’ll find out more.
….
Item 22: Centerpoint Road
There are two Centerpoint Roads. Some day they will connect, but right now they don’t.
Jane: It’s a problem for EMS when you have confusing names for roads. You don’t want emergency services to go to the wrong one.
I tried to get everyone to change the name back in 2022, before people lived on Centerpoint, but it didn’t happen.
Now there’s a whole apartment complex of people living out there. You have to get 50% of residents to agree, if you want to change someone’s address.
We really need to change the name now, before more people move there!
Amanda: Do we? Really?
Jane: Yes! If you have two roads with the same name, it’s a safety issue.
Amanda: I’m just thinking about staff time, determining if 50% of the residents want to change their address. And then all the residents would have a huge hassle: change their addresses on their license, all their bills, all their contacts, etc. What did EMS say?
Answer: EMS said they weren’t worried about it.
Lorenzo: What if we left the main Centerpoint as “Centerpoint”, and just re-named the La Cima one “West Centerpoint”? That way fewer people have to change their address.
Jane: That’s how it is, currently.
Lorenzo: Then what’s the problem?
Jane: I want to call the main one “East Centerpoint” and the new one “West Centerpoint”.
Nobody is following Jane on this.
Jane: When I google 1600 Centerpoint, it sends me to 1600 West Centerpoint.
City Staff: Why don’t we reach out to Google Maps, and get that fixed?
Everybody is on board with this.
Jane: Also do Apple Maps and Mapquest.
Staff: You got it, boss.
…
And with that, Jane closes out her last meeting as mayor.
Workshop 1: Riverfront Parks and Quail Creek Parks
We’re coming up with our longterm dream plan for the Riverfront parks and Quail Creek Park, out east. None of this will happen any time soon, but you might as well have a vision, right? (Seen before in July and in September.)
This time they focused on fine-tuning Rio Vista and Ramon Lucio:
Rio Vista is the one with the falls, Ramon Lucio is the one with the baseball fields.
To be honest, I had trouble listening, because I kept thinking about Rio Vista Pool. The issue is whether or not to keep Rio Vista pool in its current location.
Pros:
If you want a pool that nobody can use, this is a great spot.
Cons:
Families barely use the pool, because you have to venture into Peak River Craziness.
It is not a packed, rambunctious pool, like every other public pool in the country. It is a calm, still pool with 1-2 families with a few toddlers in the corner.
Originally, staff suggested that the pool be moved out to Quail Creek. City Council said no, keep the pool central.
I do agree that the pool should stay central! Just not at Rio Vista. There are so many more good places for it!
Where else could we put it?
Remember how we’re considering these three city hall sites?
Well, two of them are on park land:
So after they pick a spot for City Hall, one or both of these would be left over. These would be GREAT places for a pool!
…
Back to the River Parks Plan:
Most of the meeting was them debating how to squeeze features in, since they were trying to work around the pool.
Here are the features they want to add in:
Sand Volleyball Courts
Chess/checkers tables
More pickleball
Full court basketball
More parking spaces
More pavilions
More and better bathrooms and water fountains
Better EMS access
Honestly, it sounds really amazing. The goal is to bring residents to the park during the fall, winter, and spring. All these amenities would do that! (Except the pool.)
They mentioned pick up soccer fields, but it doesn’t sound like those will happen. (I wasn’t clear on why pick-up soccer fields couldn’t be included. Space?)
They were kind of playing Jenga and trying to shoehorn all those features into these two options:
Some of the pavilions had to be let go, and they’re only gaining 7 parking spaces.
I didn’t listen too closely, because clearly they just need to relocate the pool, and then it all sorts itself out.
….
Ramon Lucio:
They’re keeping all the baseball fields and the softball fields. In addition, they’re going to put in sand volleyball courts!
It’s a little hard to see, but it’s on the far left:
You can also see it here, to the right of Cheatham:
Sand volleyball courts are a lot of maintenance. City staff suggested putting them in Ramon Lucio park because they will use similar equipment as the baseball fields use.
Josh: I love sand volleyball!
Matthew: These will be giant litterboxes for the cats and wildlife.
Both things can be true!
…
They talked a little about noise buffers and shade for bleachers, and trail connectivity at Quail Creek, but nothing significantly different from what is already planned:
I couldn’t get this to display in landscape orientation. Sorry!
Again, all of these plans cost millions of dollars that we don’t have. The city will have to put together a bond package eventually.
…
Workshop 2: How did the summer go at the river?
We have been trying to get the river under control for years. The problem is that it gets packed with too many people. The river gets destroyed and it’s not safe for the people, either.
San Antonio schools had a big Senior Skip Day last April, before the fences were up. It got a little nuts. (At that link, they estimate 1500-2000 kids were there.)
So park staff would like to put the fencing up earlier next year?
Council says yes. It will go up after Easter weekend.
…
Onto litter.
A lot of people work hard to clean up the river every week:
And also the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Program:
Let’s pause here for a sec.
Last year, the yellow bar above, it looked like the fences were really helping to get litter under control. This year, in blue, the litter spiked back up again.
What they say is: TikTok and social media has made Rio Vista into a destination. More people than ever are coming. Even with the fencing and charging admission, crowds are surging. And it’s pretty much all from out of town.
It’s kind of depressing!
Here’s some more data:
Kind of mixed, but not exactly good news.
….
There’s a whole fleet of Marshals who work in the parks over the summer. They are mostly trying to keep drunk people from getting heatstroke.
This is a partial list of violations, but a lot of things don’t get logged, because the next crisis is happening. So this is an underestimate:
They didn’t put a slide like this in the presentation last year, but here’s the one from 2024:
So it does look like the scene at the river has calmed down a little bit? But there’s still a lot more to do.
The marshal said, basically, it’s the alcohol. Drunk people in the heat, getting rowdy and getting heat stroke.
Also a lot of out-of-towners seem to think that it’s a lazy river.
Lots of people thinking that it’s a theme park, lots of people getting lost, lots of people not clear on the rules, etc.
It’s kind of discouraging. But it’s also just the hand we’re dealt: we’ve got this amazing river, and it gets widely promoted on social media. You have to keep people safe, you have to protect your river, and none of this has much to do with actual residents of San Marcos.
…
Onto managed access: this is the first year we’ve charged $5 entry for out-of-towners:
We’ve never had good numbers on how many people are visiting the river. So at least now we know. It’s definitely mostly out-of-towners.
That said, $61K is not much money towards off-setting the costs.
We also had our second summer of paid parking at the Lion’s Club:
Both of these things – river access and Lion’s Club parking – are supposed to be free if you live in metro San Marcos, but you do have to register with the city.
They said that the profits here paid for 10 staff positions at the river. So that’s significant.
I guess I just have mixed feelings about all of this.
Place 6: I want Juan Miguel Arredondo and Lisa Prewitt to compete on the strength of their positions.
Both Miguel and Lisa are solidly progressive candidates and they will vote the same way 90% of the time. They are both qualified and will do a good job.
Miguel: Stronger on housing issues. Will be more proactive on collaborating with SMCISD, and reaching out to service organizations around San Marcos and building partnerships. He will also be slightly more pro-business.
Lisa: Stronger on environment and transit issues. She will think more about bike lanes, the river and renewable energy. On infill and density, she is more likely to listen to the Historic District stalwarts and protect existing neighborhoods at the expense of building more housing.
(Bill Miller does not have the resources nor connections to compete with Miguel and Lisa. He seems like a good guy, though.)
Look in your heart and see who aligns most closely with what you would like to see for San Marcos’s future.
….
Survey Questions and Answers
I emailed all the candidates a survey with these questions:
Top 3 voter concerns: What are the top three issues you hear from voters, and how would you address them?
Networking: which organizations (nonprofits, businesses, governmental, schools, commissions, etc) in San Marcos have you collaborated with or worked for?
Flock Cameras and Data Centers: Both have been banned in San Marcos in the past year. Is there any scenario where you would vote to roll back those decisions? (Background: Flock Cameras decision, Data Center decision)
Social Services Grants: Over the past five years, the Human Services Advisory Budget (HSAB) has ranged from $500,00 to $750,000. What dollar amount would you advocate for, in next year’s budget?
Lindsey Hill: What is your best-case scenario for Lindsey Hill? (Very brief background here.)
Cape’s Dam: Do you want Cape’s Dam to be rebuilt?
Future City Hall: Current location, across the street in the park, or downtown?
Public Transit: Would you commit to taking public transit every day for a week? (thanks to Rob Roark for the question)
Activity Center and Library: If elected, would you do me a solid and fund more weekend hours for the these?
Anything else: Any final last words about what sets you apart as a candidate? What is your signature issue where you’d like to bring about change?
Frankly, the candidates all wrote really thoughtful answers (except Shane Scott), and none of them sound like they used AI. If you’ve got the appetite for it, I highly recommend reading their answers.
Your prize for wading through all this is a photo of Shane Scott waving around a baggie with 4 oz of pot, during a city council meeting. (I will never get tired of bringing this photo back.)
Place 6: Juan Miguel Arredondo, Bill Miller, and Lisa Prewitt
….
Mayor: Amanda Rodriguez vs Ryan Thomason
Amanda: Amanda has been on council for two years. Before that, she worked at the Texas Legislature for about five years. She has substantial knowledge of how to write good policy.
Listen, Amanda is eloquent and fiery when she talks about fighting for the vulnerable, for equity, and for making life better for everyone in San Marcos. I am here to tell you: she 100% walks the walk. She fights hard for the things she says she is fighting for. She is extremely thorough and reads legislation carefully, and makes smart improvements. It is hard to write good policy! She knows what she’s talking about.
You might be surprised to learn that during meetings, she actually comes across as relaxed and easy-going, up on the dais. She does not pick fights and she is genuinely interested in problem-solving and finding creative ways to thread the needle in real time. She sticks to her convictions without alienating everyone else.
Listen: she is a gem and we are lucky to have this kind of political talent in San Marcos. Vote for Amanda.
Instructive answer from the survey:
What are the 3-5 biggest complaints you hear from voters?
Lack of deeply affordable housing and general affordability concerns
Lack of contiguous sidewalks and lighting infrastructure, as well as broader
municipal infrastructure concerns
Lack of interactive activities for kids and families, including activities for those on
the spectrum or with differing abilities
Ryan Thomason: He served on council from 2010-2015. His whole shtick is “Make local government quiet again” by which he seems to mean “step aside and invite businesses to do whatever they want.” His main point in debates seems to be, “If you haven’t lived life on the side of business, you can’t appreciate how annoying it is to have to deal with government and permits.” I am interpreting this to mean that he does not like constraints on businesses and does not see any reason that you might be angry about their decisions.
Sidebar: Current Mayor Jane Hughson is his treasurer. She appeared to believe that she was going to hand the mantle over to him, uncontested. Then she was shocked, shocked when Amanda filed to run… and then Jane seemingly revenge-filed for Place 3. (It’s been a wild ride, folks.)
Instructive answer from the survey:
What are the 3-5 biggest complaints you hear from voters?
Listen: Alyssa fights against the status quo. Jane IS the status quo. Vote for Alyssa.
Alyssa: Alyssa has been on council for 6 years, including a big stretch where she was the only progressive member there. She consistently fights for low-income folks and disenfranchised people, and often points out that we can do more, we’re just used to doing less. She fought hard to get Covid dollars put towards direct rental assistance programs, and forced the city to figure out why our utility assistance program wasn’t helping anyone, and get it redesigned. She shows up for people in need.
Instructive answer from survey
Any final last words about what sets you apart as a candidate? What is your signature issue where you’d like to bring about change?
Six years in office have made me less willing to accept tHaT’s HoW wE’vE aLwAyS dOnE iT (see meme below) as an answer. I’m an organizer, and I bring that approach to governing: listen, do the research, question the assumptions, and keep working when the first answer is no.
My signature issue is getting more resources and decision-making power into residents’ hands. That is the vibe for my work on housing, direct assistance, criminal justice reform, and public participation. People should be able to get help without a councilmember intervening (I am exhausted, y’all), influence decisions before they are settled, and expect accountability from institutions with power over their lives.
“It takes time” can become a very comfortable place for government to live while residents bear the cost. Experience should make us bolder about what local government can accomplish, not more comfortable with the status quo.
I know progress takes work and four votes. I’m asking to be reelected to keep doing that work, alongside people willing to engage with neighbors, learn from what works elsewhere, and refuse
to accept gold stars for gradual change then call it a day. I believe I can be effective alongside Amanda Rodriguez, Heather Hunter, and Miguel Arredondo. I want to see what we can accomplish with a majority willing to ask more of City Hall and follow through.
Jane: Jane is the status quo. She was on Council in the 90s, and then got back on Council in 2014, and has been here ever since. She’s been the mayor since 2018. She decided not to run for mayor again, and then a week later she revenge-filed for Place 3 against Alyssa. At candidate events, she generally says she decided to run again because she feels we need someone up there with long institutional memory, which is a veiled attack on the younger generation of adults becoming leaders in the community.
She’s not exactly conservative or liberal – she is detail-oriented. Lots of fiddling with a random word choice or wondering about far-fetched edge cases. My understanding is that she is not pleasant to work under.
Any final last words about what sets you apart as a candidate? What is your signature issue where you’d like to bring about change?
Workforce development is a way for many to achieve better housing and a better life. School districts in our area all offer multiple ways to graduate from high school with a license or certificate to begin work at a good wage with benefits. For those who are already out of high school and realize they need a better job, there is free training available.
Through a partnership with Community Action providing the funding, Austin Community College
providing the classes, and the city providing the facilities, more than 50 people now qualify for a career in HVAC that can provide a living wage. Those newly certified can get a better job, with benefits, and rent a bigger place or start on the path to home ownership. The classes began at the library, and I championed
the use of our former public works area behind city hall for this.
We cannot afford to provide 50 houses, but we can provide training for a better job. And this at no cost to the student or the city.
Newbie Heather Hunter seems generally knowledgeable and progressive. Shane Scott has been around forever and is mostly absentee and libertarian. Vote for Heather.
Heather: Solidly liberal and has a background in political science and municipal grant-writing. She has not lived in San Marcos that long. But her answers to questions during debates have been generally knowledgeable and progressive.
Instructive answer from survey:
How could Council help fix the issues listed above?
Issue 3: Lack of support for our local/small businesses
Through my discussions with local businesses, there has been little to no assistance for them from the City, but we have assisted larger developments/businesses through tax incentives. Why are we not offering the same courtesy to those small businesses that need the most help and make SMTX the most unique? What are we offering to make them want to stay and become a legacy? Through building relationships with our businesses and listening to their concerns, I believe we can build a strong base of support and potentially funding to assist them further and thrive.
Shane: Prince of hair-brained schemes, which he then abandons. He basically says nothing on the dais, and then votes somewhere between conservative and libertarian. He has missed every candidate event since September 16th*, and has not responded (or even seen?) any of my emails or messages over social media. This guy, man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
*I don’t want to ding him for having health issues. It’s just not that different from when he doesn’t have health issues?
Place 6: Juan Miguel Arredondo, Bill Miller, and Lisa Prewit
I basically gave my whole spiel above. Both Miguel and Lisa have a ton of experience in local politics. Miguel has been on the school board for 11 years and is the president of the Hays County United Way, and Lisa served two terms on City Council, from 2014-2019.
They will both take the office seriously and do a good job.
Bill Miller is new to politics, but seems like a good guy. But he’s up against two very well-connected candidates, so he is definitely the long shot candidate.
…
One side note: At some point going forward, I do want to see Miguel elected to Council. He’s been around forever, but he was very young when he started, and I think voters are slow to realize that he’s grown into a trustworthy and dedicated public servant.
For example, here’s what he says about the HSAB budget:
I’d advocate for a minimum of $15 per resident annually, which would put us at approximately $1.2 million based on a population of 80,000. As the leader of our local United Way, I see firsthand how much our nonprofit partners accomplish with limited resources. Rather than forcing these organizations to compete over an arbitrary amount every year, I believe we should establish a sustainable, population-based funding formula. Investing in food security, housing stability, domestic violence prevention, mental health, and other essential services is both compassionate and fiscally responsible. Our community is growing, and our investment in our neighbors should grow with it.
This is a great answer, and different than anyone else’s answer!
…
Anyway! Instructive quotes for all three:
Lisa Prewitt:
How could Council help fix the issues listed above?
Issue 1: Water: Protection of river and the future of safe water for drinking, basic human needs and agriculture.
Fight to protect the Edwards Aquifer, the springs, and the San Marcos River from over-pumping, overuse, and pollution.
Oppose developments that place excessive demands on our limited water supply while delivering no meaningful benefit to our community.
Support stronger conservation initiatives and infrastructure investments that prepare San Marcos for a drier future.
Ensure growth pays for itself rather than shifting costs onto existing residents through higher utility rates and impact fees.
Build coalitions with regional partners to preserve our water resources and protect the land for future generations.
Create a comprehensive plan to expand our water reuse system and work with local stakeholders to create a chart / plan that could offer credits for new development to integrate rain water harvesting and other water preservation efforts.
Bill Miller:
How could Council help fix the issues listed above?
Issue 3: Food Security: Food security has always been something in the forefront of my mind. It effects more people than and most realize. One thing that city council could and SHOULD do is add an amendment to the city charter that requires HOA’s to allow residents to grow their own food in the front and back yard of their home if they so wish. It should also require them to allow them to have, within reason, chickens and rabbits in their back yard if they so desire. Everyone should have the right to grow food for themselves.
Another thing city council can do is invest in the Free-Fridge program that is currently here in the city. This program allows people with extra food to drop off at locations, and those that need the food to go pick up what they need. City council could help expand this program to install little pantries all over the city for people to drop off or pick up food.
Juan Miguel Arredondo
How could Council help fix the issues listed above?
Issue: Affordability
I want to be the housing affordability council member. My first initiative would be creating a Housing Affordability Dashboard so we’re making decisions based on actual housing costs, local incomes, rental availability, development timelines, and infrastructure capacity.
We need to encourage responsible infill development, expand housing choices, preserve existing affordable housing, and make it easier for working families to afford living in the community they call home.
Quick and easy week! Some little development projects, a transit workshop, and Utility Assistance update.
Hours 0:00 – 1:35: Some new apartments on North LBJ, La Cima is growing, and a new Habitat for Humanity duplex is coming
Bonus! 3 pm workshops: Two workshops. First, on transit: the city partners with Texas State to coordinate bus systems. Second, the Utility Assistance Program: it runs much more smoothly than it used to, but it runs out of money faster.
Election Notes:
I’ll publish my recommendations next Sunday, October 18th!
Early voting starts on the 19th.
Upcoming events:
Possibly a Mayoral Forum hosted by San Marcos Area Dems at their October meeting? (They really make it extremely hard to find any official info published online. Facebook page here.) October meeting: Thursday, October 15th, 6 pm? or 6:30? San Marcos Public Library
Possibly a CONA Candidate Forum? (Again, nothing available online.) October meeting: possibly Thursday, October 15th? 7-8 pm? Details should be posted here eventually
No one spoke at the 6 pm Citizen comment! And just one person at the 3 pm:
We have two young daughters who love the library, but there are too many incidents with homeless people that make us feel unsafe. There was a guy sleeping in the entrance with his pitbull off the leash, and another guy with a knife on his belt.
I demand a safety action plan within 60 days or I’ll be back with more notes!
I will note that I am a frequent library user, and this does not match my experience.
But also: this is a great example of how everybody wins when we take care of homeless people!
Imagine if everyone had a safe home with air conditioning and space for their dog, and access to mental health services.
Imagine if there was a social work emergency line to call if someone is acting weird in the parking lot.
(Also I’d like a pony.)
Anyway: there is a lot of transition of leadership at the library right now, so I’m pretty sure there will not be a safety action plan within 60 days.
…
Items 1-2: Quarterly financial report and update:
How was the budget from March-June last year? Did we actually bring in the money we expected to, and did we limit spending to the amounts we expected to?
We did! Green is healthy. None of the funds are yellow or red. Great.
…
Item 17: New apartments on North LBJ
Suppose you’re heading north on LBJ, north of campus.
You pass Treff’s Tavern on the left, and Grins on the right:
You pass these apartments on the right, with the charming mural on the retaining wall:
And then you pass these apartments that I’ve literally never noticed before:
They’re fine! Totally nondescript. I’m told they were built in 1979.
What if there were bigger, better, and more urban apartments there?
A developer wants to tear down those vague brown buildings and rebuild shinier versions. This is partly because of the North Campus Area Plan: we’re being intentional about what parts of the city should feel walkable and urban. This is one of those areas.
Sadly I don’t have any renderings of what it might look like, but here’s the generic ideas from the city code:
The biggest difference is that the buildings will be by the sidewalk, and the parking lots will be in back. This is much nicer for pedestrians. It makes your street feel more like Sesame Street and less like a sad parking lot.
I’m guessing there is one other major difference. Zooming in to the photo above, of the current 1979 buildings:
Looks like there are nine total units there. I’m guessing the new building will have a lot more!
That’s fine! Building more housing is good, and this is a good spot for it. (It’s only going to be 3 stories tall, anyway.)
This is the whole point of today: they want to start building out these red sections:
I don’t love La Cima very much!
I don’t love how residents pay an extra $1600-$2700 yearly, which feels like a property tax and contributes to the idea that property taxes are out of control, but is not actually a property tax and goes exclusively to La Cima. I don’t love the sprawl. I don’t love how these huge decisions get locked in, back in 2012, and last for decades. I don’t love how it’s over the aquifer, which is super environmentally sensitive.
That said, it’s not the absolute worst:
A lot of land was set aside for conservation, on the aquifer.
They are going to build apartments out there, so it’s not exclusively single family homes.
There are significant constraints on impervious cover.
Anyway: we’re 13 years deep into La Cima. Give that, today’s bit isn’t particularly controversial. They want to annex and zone those bits in red, above.
The four votes:
Annex the northern bit (22:21, using time stamps in the lower left)
Rezone the northern bit (30:52)
Annex the southern bit (35:14)
Rezone the southern bit (41:35)
Sure.
…..
Item 3: Meeting minutes
They’re approving the minutes to the September 15th meeting. Amanda flags some inconsistencies about what time people are recorded as being present.
It sparks a brief conversation about how the process for meeting minutes actually works. How do meeting minutes actually work?
It turns out: staff draws up the minutes, which then go to the Mayor, which then come forth to Council as a whole.
In the future, they’re going to bring Council the redlined version, so that everyone can see the revision process, and determine which version is most faithful to the meeting. (This matches the procedure that we use for other revisions, anyway.)
Great.
….
Item 16: Hays Caldwell Economic Development Partnership
There used to be something called Economic Development San Marcos, which was supposed to go out and court businesses and make life better for businesses. We used to give them $400k every year.
Now their name is the Hays Caldwell Economic Development Partnership, and we give them $200K per year, and we have an in-house economic development person who works for the city.
There’s going to be some changes coming next year. Right now, Hays county puts in $400k, and has less board representation than we do. It sounds like they’re frosty about this.
But for today: do we want the status quo for one more year, until the changes are proposed?
The vote:
Great.
…
Item 22: Habitat for Humanity
Back in the 60s and 70s, the city acquired this little lot:
For years, it was home to the Community Health Services Clinic:
In 2023, they announced they were vacating.
Shortly thereafter, Habitat for Humanity asked we had any properties that they could develop?
Council said:
don’t demolish the existing building
don’t spend one dime of city money
So they sold the existing building, and the buyer moved it a few blocks away. Great.
The city’s aerial photo shows that it’s gone:
but google maps hasn’t been updated yet.
Habitat for Humanity has a lot of rules, like the future owner (or a relative) must work on the house for 200 hours. (It’s called Sweat Equity.) If the owner sells the house in the future, it must stay affordable. If Habitat ever dissolves or the property stops being a Habitat property, it reverts back to the city.
It’s going to be a duplex. Sounds great!
…
Item 25: Arts Commission
Two vacancies on the Arts Commission get filled – congrats to Nancy Slitz and Steve Wilson.
Note: I usually don’t post when vacancies get filled. This is because it all happens out loud, and they mumble the last names, and then refer to the applicants by their first names. The names of the nominees aren’t written down anywhere (until the minutes get approved at a later meeting). So I’m usually stuck.
However: today they said the first and last names very clearly, and even spelled S-L-I-T-Z.
Workshop 1: Transit Partnership with Texas State University
We often kvetch about how the city and Texas State don’t collaborate. This is the opposite of that. This is a fantastic, cooperative, good-faith long term partnership. It’s really outstanding.
Things to keep this in mind:
A well-functioning public transit system has
routes that cover the town, and
buses that come frequently. (Like every 10-15 minutes)
If you don’t have those two things, no one rides the bus if they can help it. But it’s also really expensive to implement those things.
This leads to a chicken-and-egg problem:
In order to have a lot of riders, you need a well-funded program.
In order to get funding, federal agencies want you to show that you have a lot of riders.
See the problem? Let’s dive in.
Background:
2010: It all starts when San Marcos hits 50K people in the 2010 census. This means we can now start applying for federal grants for busses, from the FTA. (Federal Transit Administration)
2013: We get a grant for CARTS from the FTA. Then we take over CARTS in 2019.
This is where Texas State comes in:
Texas State has a ton of riders, because their system is designed to do something very specific: get students back and forth from apartment complexes to the university.
Their system works great! There are a ton of students, and parking is terrible on campus. They can run buses frequently and have lots of riders.
Their task is easier, because they are not trying to cover all of San Marcos. They just connect high density apartment complexes with the university. High demand, low coverage.
So 2017 is a big deal:
Basically, Texas State starts sending in their ridership data to the FTA, and this makes San Marcos look REALLY good. This gives us a huge boost because we can show ridership demand.
They didn’t have to do this! Just straight up helping us out.
Behind the scenes, the city and Texas State then started working to merge their systems into a single system:
Everyone can ride the Bobcat shuttles for free, and everyone can run the city buses for free.
This is all great!
Here’s how the two systems compare:
Here’s how the city breaks down:
and here’s how Texas State breaks down:
So now we’ve got the riders. And it’s really because of Texas State – they didn’t have to start reporting their data, but they did, and it made all the difference.
Here are the kinds of stats that they report:
This is all really great. (They didn’t include what those category statistics actually are.)
…
Next they needed some grant funding. We’ve been getting money, but it’s on a five year cycle, and so right now they’re working on the next cycle.
First off, you need a Transit Development Plan.
We’re working on it.
Keep an eye out for surveys and city meetings, so that you can give your input.
…
The last part of the presentation gets really weedy – it’s about how best to split up grant funding between the city and the university.
Some of the federal money has to be spent on the actual buses, so we send that over to the university, and then we keep the kinds that can be spent on staffing or whatever.
There were three different pots of money, but I think basically this is how it shook out for the past five years:
…
Side note
It’s worth noting one thing: we’re leaving a bunch of money on the table.
All that money requires the city to put up a 50% match. But we can’t afford the 50% match! So we just sit here and watch the money sit there.
Fortunately, it’s not going to get clawed back. It’s just going to wait for us.
I mean, we’d need an extra $900,000, just to cover 2026. Where on earth would we ever get that kind of money?
Just you wait until 2041, when we’re done giving Kissing Tree $1.8 million every year!
…
This is the decision before Council – is Council okay splitting the funds for the next five years in similar ways to how we’ve split funds for the past five years?
….
What does Council say?
Everyone is basically on board.
Great!
….
Side note on microtransit:
Several times the phrase “micro-transit” gets tossed around. This basically means paying for things like uber, on an individual basis, for users.
Council made a one-time pay-off of all delinquent utility bills, and then spent many, many, many meetings trying to figure out how to improve the system. (This was driven by Alyssa Garza, who absolutely refused to accept that it was just too hard to figure out how to do it right.)
The program works pretty smoothly now: we allocate money, and the money ends up getting to people who need assistance.
Here’s how much the city kicks in:
Here’s where it goes:
We used to be able to give a lot more, because we had a lot of Covid money. But Covid spending has basically ended.
Here’s how many households have been assisted, since the program was redesigned last year:
And here’s how much was given out each month:
Here’s what the average recipient gets:
Last May, we also started waiving late fees and reconnection fees:
Does Council want to keep doing this?
Jane: is it hurting the budget? Answer: It’s about $4000.
Amanda: Does it make sense to include Southside on this fee waiver? So many people go there to get help.
Jane: What about Hays Helping Hands?
Alyssa: How about any organization that has received funding in the past can get the fee waiver?
They’re going to keep doing this.
…
They didn’t get into it in these slides, but the big problem is that Covid money has run out. Since we no longer get federal money, we don’t have enough money to last all year long. It runs out very quick.
Today was the big day of final decisions on the budget, but it was pretty tame and quiet compared to last time. Still, I tried to keep it punchy. Enjoy!
Details ahoy:
Hours 0:00 – 2:35: Utility rates, the new budget, and tax rate are all finalized. Also city fees, especially for parks and library, and HSAB funding.
Possibly a Mayoral Forum hosted by San Marcos Area Dems at their October meeting? (I can’t find any info published online. Facebook page here.) October meeting: Thursday, October 15th, 6 pm? or 6:30? San Marcos Public Library
Possibly a CONA Candidate Forum? (Again, nothing available online.) October meeting: possibly Thursday, October 15th? 7-8 pm? Details should be posted here eventually
The city funding of HSAB is generous, but there is a much greater need. Southside is getting less than half of what they need to continue their Homeless Action Plan. There is a matching grant proposal from the McCoys, if the city can match it.
We have a new budget. Meetings are too long. Staff does a great job, but Council talks too much. The speaker has great respect for SMPD and has always been treated respectfully by police in many different situations, over many decades.
Council Candidate Lisa Prewitt – Could we pull items 6,7, and 8 for the Transit details? When she was last on Council, San Marcos became direct recipients of federal grants. They developed the Hutchison Mobility Hub and focused on connectivity along the I35 corridor.
That’s a wrap!
….
Consent Agenda
The consent agenda is the “bulk items” agenda. Council votes on 10-15 items all together as a package, without discussion. (It’s not mandatory. Any item can be pulled for discussion.)
All these feisty items from last time got bundled together in the consent agenda this week:
Raising the electric rates
Raising water/wastewater rates
Raising trash/recycling rates
Community benefit charge
Specifically almost all of this:
(But not Stormwater. That got pulled and discussed separately.)
Last time, Alyssa complained “Look, this doesn’t match what my constituents get on their bills. This may be the average, but I need to see more details. What is someone paying in a multi-generational household?”
Staff tried to help. They organized utility bills by neighborhood:
That’s a pretty big spread of electric rates, from 516 kilowatt-hours, to 1416 kWh. Here’s roughly what different neighborhoods will get billed:
(The rate increase is pretty similar across the board, though.)
Here’s the neighborhood breakdown for water:
So the spread is from 1,525 gallons to 6,938 gallons per month. If I’m reading this chart and this chart correctly, you’d most likely pay:
$37.13 for water and $32.40 for wastewater, on the low end
$41.22 for water and $41,74 for wastewater, on the high end
I don’t think we’re incentivizing people to use less water! It costs you maybe $10 extra to TRIPLE your water use.
I mean, JFC these guys use a lot of water:
My dudes. Maybe invest in some drought-resistant native plants.
….
Anyway, like I said, there was no discussion during the consent agenda, so I’m just noting the vote here:
Increase utility rates, water/wastewater rates, and trash/recycling rates?
Yes: Jane, Amanda, Josh, Matthew
No: Shane, Alyssa, Lorenzo
To be clear: The “no” votes are chickenshit. These contracts have already been signed. These council members approved the new developments. We have a wastewater treatment plant already being built!
They are only voting “no” because they know the other four council members will suck it up and vote yes. If these votes actually failed, we’d be up a creek and scrambling for a re-vote. That’s what makes this cowardly.
OH WELL!
…
Separate thought: those charts above are very AI, but it’s nothing compared to this one:
Holy AI, batman! Someone found the Copilot key on their keyboard.
…
Item 14: El Camino Way
El Camino Way is way down here:
Some day, El Camino Way will be extended. Right now, it’s in pieces:
The yellow part and the red part don’t yet connect, but they’re both called “El Camino Way”.
This is a bad idea because you don’t want EMS calls going to the wrong piece of a street, and being unable to get to the right piece of the street. (Discussed before here.)
Solution: temporarily rename the new, little yellow piece where no one lives. Then it will switch back to El Camino Way when it is connected.
Options:
Carlita’s Way
Crested Caracara Way
Old Johnson Farm
Wild Wind Way
Heritage Lane
Some of these got ditched already:
These are Caracaras:
I like them!
Council goes with Old Johnson Farm Road.
(At P&Z, one of the commissioners had to recuse herself, for being a Johnson of Old Johnson Farm. I thought that was neat.)
…
Item 4: Stormwater Rates
This is the one rate increase that Council did pull to talk about. We saw this last time. Should everyone pay 86¢ more, to pay for projects to help with flooding?
This time, we go a little deeper into the rates. Not everyone would pay 86¢ more:
So home owners might only pay 53¢ more, or 86¢, or $1.26.
It’s based on the paved footprint of your home. If you’ve got a big home and driveway, you’re causing more water run-off than someone with a small home and no driveway.
Today’s discussion is about the last category: Non Residential. In other words, businesses.
Your business gets also charged according to how big it is. Anything impermeable will cause water run-off. So parking lots, pavement, and your building footprint all get counted. It’s measured in ERUs, which stands for “Equivalent Residential Units”. In other words, how many houses equals the same amount of paved ground as your business?
By state law, you have to charge stormwater fees in a way that scales with size. You can’t carve out different rates for home owners and businesses.
So how much are we charging local businesses?
So Chepo’s bill would go up $3 a month, from $52 to $55. Premium Outlets would go up $960 a month, from $16,547 to $17,503.
Jane Hughson feels awful about this. She focuses in on San Marcos High School, but she’s also concerned about the outlet malls and Amazon, and the rest. SMHS would go up $647.49 a month, from $11,163 to $11,808 per month.
…
Let’s talk about SMCISD.
I’m not so worried about this $650 increase, like Jane is, but it is true that the high school pays $11K/month to the city. It works out to $133K/year. That’s a lot! On the other hand, there is a huge amount of paved parking there.
Two notes for context:
In March 2025, SMCISD came to the city and asked for a waiver on their stormwater bill. Their yearly bill was $372K to the city, and they were facing a $4 million budget shortfall.
The school district didn’t agree, but they didn’t disagree. They said, “We’re starting Mendez renovations and we don’t have final plans yet. We’ll get back to you.”
The new larger Mendez opened this year, so these questions all have answers now. Maybe it’s a good time to revisit this trade-off! (Presumably it’s been happening behind the scenes. Presumably it’s still in a stalemate, or else it would have come up at a meeting.)
Let’s be clear: the villain in the story is the state of Texas, which has refused to keep up with basic inflationary costs in their school funding formula. They starve public schools of resources, and then everyone scrambles locally to cover costs.
2. SMCISD pays stormwater fees, but Texas State university doesn’t have to.
Texas has laws that state that their universities don’t have to pay fees. Their pavement causes more stormwater run-off than anywhere else in the city, because it’s at the top of the hill! It’s far worse than the high school or the outlets, both east of I35
How much money are we losing here?
Texas State is about 517 acres in town, which is mostly paved. This works out to 8739 ERUs. They would be charged $137,727 monthly, if they paid local fees, or $1.65 million every year.
That would probably help with stormwater projects!
(Always! Always! The problem with San Marcos is Texas.)
….
Back to the meeting:
Jane’s concern is a little weird. She’s not upset that SMHS is paying $11K every month, but she does think the extra $600 increase is too big, too fast. She proposes a 3% increase, across the board.
By law, you can’t just cut businesses a break. So residential fees would get cut in half, too.
Josh: These rates seem appropriate. Premium Outlets is a huge business with a ton of stores. $12K for them doesn’t seem crazy.
(I agree!)
Amanda: This will save us money long term. Floods are super expensive.
Alyssa: Where was all this concern for SMCISD a year ago?!
The vote: should we cut this from a 5.8% increase to a 3% increase?
So Jane’s amendment fails. (Alyssa voted outloud, over zoom, because she was home sick.)
Final vote: Should we increase stormwater fees by 5.8%?
great.
…
Items 15-17: The budget and the tax rate
All of these sail through. The tax rate (65.15¢) is not changing from last year.
Property values went down a little, so home owners will get slightly smaller bills:
But business values went up a little, so the city is going to bring in a little extra money.
Because of this, the Texas government has laws about the exact words that council members must utter. It’s so bizarre and micromanaging. The council member has to say these words:
This state is wild. Your taxes will go down, but the state is so obsessed with Performing Conservatism, that they literally are controlling the words that must be said outloud, even though the words are very misleading in this case.
…
Here’s the whole budget:
Here’s the General Fund:
We eliminated 20 positions and kept department budgets flat for the 3rd year running. That’s not sustainable or responsible, you guys.
The vote:
(Both the budget and the tax rate go the same way.)
…
Item 18: Fees and Fee Schedule
San Marcos has about seven pages of fees, across all departments. We’re talking things like:
what’s the Jumpy Castle permit fee at Rio Vista?
what’s the False Alarm fee with SMPD?
the library card fee, the copying fee at the library
the rabies vaccine or microchip fee at the animal shelter,
burial lot fee at the cemetery
building permit fees with the planning department
and so on. There’s a LOT.
The plan:
increase all fees by 3% every year. (Otherwise inflation costs will get passed onto taxpayers.)
Review fees every three years, to make sure they still make sense and don’t need specific adjustments.
Everyone is fine with the automatic 3% fee schedule.
The reviewing is done on a rotating basis. This year it’s Parks and Library.
Library:
Parks & Rec:
Here’s what the slideshow says about how they got the new rates:
The actual study wasn’t in the packet. So I don’t have any details about how it was run.
What does Council say?
Amanda: When you looked at peer cities, did you look at poverty rates? Are we really comparing apples-to-apples here? Some of these rate hikes are really significant. Answer: We did not look at poverty rates, no. We were just comparing and also thinking about recouping costs.
They discuss the port-a-potty rental rate, which is increasing five-fold from $18 to $115. Apparently that’s just the reality of the vendor fees – it costs San Marcos $115 for the portable toilet cleaning, so we just pass that on to whoever is holding the event.
They discuss the Activity Center. It’s very popular and bursting at the seams! Yearly membership would go from $92 to $130.
Question: Can we offer a monthly payment plan? Answer: yes, but we eat the credit card fees every month.
….
I have thoughts! The Activity Center is incredibly popular and bursting at the seams. And it is also closed on Sundays
This is a weird combination of facts:
It’s always packed.
It’s sitting empty for half the weekend, every weekend.
Sounds like the Activity Center needs more funding! Right now their budget is $1.4 million. So maybe it would cost $200,000 to stay open on Sundays?
This is peanuts. This is budget dust. Free the Activity Center from its Sunday chains! Double their weekends!
…..
Bottom line:
Council postpones the Library and Parks fee increases until October 20th, to give the community time to weigh in.
My $.02: Subsidizing the library and parks is one of the most tangible ways that San Marcos improves the lives of the residents. They should not be trying to recoup their costs through fees.
This is philosophically different than utility rate increases:
Water and electricity: Environmentally, you want to incentivize people to use less. However, you also want to support people who are financially precarious. This means you want:
Rates that reflect the reality of the resource constraints.
Utility assistance programs for people with financial need
Parks and Library: This is totally different! We want people to use these, as much as possible!
We want to remove obstacles on using these.
Your entire community gets bigger and better parks and libraries when they are well-used. Everyone wins!
People who are broke stand to benefit the most.
You don’t want Parks and Libraries to be self-funding, out of user fees. Subsidizing them out of taxpayer funds is the right mechanism. Keep them as cheap as possible.
…
Item 20: HSAB funding
San Marcos gives money to nonprofits in a few different ways:
CDBG Funding (Community Development Block Grants, money from the federal government) – ($775K)
Museums, Core 4, Project Graduation, Crimestoppers, Arts, Special Events, Utility Payment Assistance Program all get funding from the General Fund. (As of 2024, this was about $500K)
There’s a lot of overlap between who gets HSAB and who gets CDBG funding, but they occur at different times of the year. The CDBG funding has to go to the federal government over the summer, and the HSAB funding gets voted on in September.
To deal with the calendar mismatch, Council did both back on July 7th.
Today is mostly a formality, then. Here’s how the funding is shaking out:
The only tweak is that Hays Helping Hands gets their two applications consolidated, so that they can spend their grant between either project, as they see fit. (I believe Hays Helping Hand is formerly known as Nosotros La Gente?)
No one has much else to say! It passes, 7-0.
The city HSAB process used to be full of drama and fireworks. But now there is:
an independent board that works for months
a scoring rubric and documentation of all their discussions
a clear and transparent time frame
etc.
Lots of great procedural improvements.
Bureaucracy is super annoying! Everything takes forever, moves incrementally, and systems have momentum that keep perpetuating the status quo. But the alternative is favoritism, unpredictability, and chaos.
It’s kind of like that Churchill quote about democracy: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
…
Items 6-8: Transit
They sped through these pretty quickly – Triennial Review of some Federal Transit stuff – but I think the takeaway is that the Transit Development Plan is starting!
San Marcos EMS is firing up on October 1st. Council is still wrestling with EMS billing questions.
There are a few final questions that Council has to resolve today:
How much do we want to help low-income San Marcos residents?
“FPL” means Federal Poverty Line.
This means:
For an individual, 200% FPL is about $30K and 400% FPL is about $60K.
For a family of four, 200% FPL is about $65K and 400% FPL is about $130K.
So here’s what the chart means: you call 911 and the ambulance takes you to the hospital. They bill your insurance, if you have it. Your insurance tries to charge you deductibles and copays.
After all that, there’s still some charges left over.
Option 1: waive all charges for everyone earning up to $60K (or $130 for a family of 4). Above that, use a case-by-case basis.
Option 2: waive all charges up to $30K income. Then step down the assistance, as income goes up to $60K.
All of this will get reviewed in 6 months, when we have a little bit of data to look at. So if anything seems like a super terrible idea, we can change it then.
