When this eventually goes public – roughly Spring 2022 – I should go begin a practice of going back and adding links to the meeting minutes, after they’re approved. It would be nice to have the minutes alongside my write ups.
Having the minutes was incredibly helpful in the write up of April 20th. If only it didn’t take several weeks for them to appear and be approved, I’d happily use them heavily.
Miscellaneous items? Several policy threads got their start in this meeting, which we later heard more about.
I think that’s all! April 20th, 2021 should consider itself all wrapped up!
What’s next?
Tuesday, June 29th is a 5th Tuesday. No meeting. I decided not to add an archive meeting and just enjoy the 5th Tuesday.
Tuesday, July 6th is a council meeting, I believe.
Tuesday, July 20th is a second skipped meeting for vacation, I think. So for that one, maybe I’ll hit up the archives again.
The other item that got some citizen interest was Item 26, approving rules to govern Council committees. In other words, there are Affordable Housing committees, Covid Oversight committees, Criminal Justice Reform committees, etc. Generally these only have two council members, so they don’t trigger quorum rules, and then relevant community members or staff or representation from interested parties. So the city has not formalized rules for these committees regarding agendas, minutes, points of order, etc, and the Mayor decided it was time to do so.
Five people spoke on Item 26 during the Citizen Comment period, all from Mano Am/iga, about transparency of committee meetings. Since Mano Am/iga is very concerned with the criminal justice in general, it gave me the impression that the subtext of these reforms was something to do with the disagreements and feuding over the CJR committee. (In fact, using my crystal ball, it will be the very next May 4th meeting where the CJR committee defends its existence and creates its new mission statement.)
The speakers are all concerned that there is no requirement that committee meetings be open to the public. It’s required to take minutes and make those publicly available, but they can be just the bare minimum of what is being voted on and how it shakes out.
It comes up for discussion at 12:20 am. Everyone is tired. Max Bak/er has a list of amendments. All meetings must be available over zoom, the public must always be invited to participate, that sort of thing.
Melissa Der/rick gives the pivotal speech, roughly “Look, I really support transparency and citizen participation. But we can’t get anything done if we’re never able to speak frankly and compromise. And if we’re always in danger of getting flayed on social media, we can’t speak frankly.” That speech probably didn’t change anyone’s vote, but it gave cover for the centrist position to vote no.
It’s a problem. Councilmembers operating in good faith can be hamstrung by citizens operating in bad faith. In that case, there’s a defensible position for closed committee meetings. Councilmembers operating in bad faith need citizen oversight to mitigate the damage. There’s a reasonable argument for open committee meetings.
Baker’s amendments were all voted down 5-2, and the original proposal passed.
I’m glad Mano Am/iga is scrutinizing these things, and I’m glad Max Bak/er is a squeaky wheel, but it’s probably fine that his amendments didn’t pass. All committees can do is pass policy proposals up to Council, and Council is governed by TOMA, the Texas Open Meetings Act. Bad councilmembers can get voted out of office. Good councilmembers can opt to have open meetings when appropriate. Citizens have to stay engaged and informed. Good governance is hard.
(As a reminder, Council was off last Tuesday, and so I subbed in a previous meeting from a few months ago. I believe Council will be meeting next week, but then taking the subsequent meeting off again.)
Nothing earth-shattering happened at the meeting, in part because it’s anti-climactic to hear the beginning of a public policy debate after you’ve already heard the end of the story. But here goes:
Item 15, rezoning 15 acres on the northern tip of LBJ to SF6. Hugely unpopular: there were 21 people who took the time to speak out against this. P&Z also denied the rezoning, which means it takes a supermajority of Council to overturn them. A supermajority requires 6 out of 7 councilmembers to constitute a supermajority. So from where I sit, this was obviously doomed to failure.
So what was this doomed plan? A developer wants to extend the neighborhood further north. This would be behind Timber/crest. The current neighborhood residents hollered bloody murder.
Some complaints are justified: LBJ really does have a hideous blind turn right there, and can’t be widened due to property lines, and truly can’t handle extra traffic.
Some of the complaints were nebulous NIMBYism – and several of the residents mentioned how their feelings had been hurt when P&Z members had accused them of NIMBYism, in undiplomatic ways. (I don’t have the exact quote. Implying that the neighbors were classist and anti-renter? Only wanting houses just like theirs? Something with a kernel of truth, but phrased in a way that stung.)
Some of the complaints are very complex: the perennial accusation that houses will be snatched up by wealthy out-of-town parents, and then given to wealthy students to live in and throw wild parties in. Does this ever happen? Of course. Does this happen to an extent where it renders quiet neighborhoods unlivable and triggers an exodus and the entire neighborhood deteriorates into squalor? The usual narrative goes, “This happened to Sagewood! The only reason it hasn’t happened anywhere else is due to our relentless vigilance!”
Is this actually why Sagewood is a world of rental houses? Or was something else in play? Are there now new policies on the books that keep this from happening in other places? I don’t know! I’m curious, though.
From where I sit, there is a fundamental cure: code enforcement needs to be well-staffed and carry meaningful penalties, enforced on landlords. There’s no reason that college students shouldn’t be reasonable neighbors, if the penalty falls on the landlord.
It’s less obvious to me how to keep out-of-town parents and landlords from snapping up all the housing stock, when their pockets are so much deeper than local residents. This is a thing that happens. But this isn’t an argument against a new neighborhood being developed. A new neighborhood would help, by providing more shiny house-baubles for fancy out-of-town parents to buy.
Finally, the land is sensitive and probably shouldn’t be developed. This is on the Edward’s Aquifer, right on the river recharge zone. The counterargument is that this is probably the least intensive way this land would ever be developed. Is it inevitable that this land will some day be developed? If so, it’s worth taking this deal. Is it possible that this becomes park land? If so, stick to that.
In the actual meeting, deliberations were short and swift. Mayor Hug/hson recused herself, because she owns land over there, and the rezoning was voted down 6-0.
In my opinion, the wildly dangerous curve of LBJ plus the environmental concerns tips this towards denial. So I think this was correctly decided.
Oh, one footnote: P&Z denied this last fall. It went to council. Council did NOT deny it then, which would have forced the developer to wait a year before trying again. Instead, Council threw the developer a bone and told them to meet with the neighborhood, build some relationships, make some compromises, and go back to P&Z.
The developer totally ignored this explicit roadmap towards approval. He said, roughly, “I tried to meet with one resident but they were angry, and so I figured it would be a waste of everyone’s time to meet with anyone else.” So P&Z denied them a second time, and now they really are DOA.
Dude. That is not how you win hearts and minds. Meet with the damn people. Nod sagely at their concerns. Ask follow up questions and feign polite curiosity. Gently modify your plans in ways that show you were listening. Even if it’s mostly symbolic, you’ll mollify your opponents and they’ll feel like they had some say in their changing neighborhood.
The April 20th meeting was 6 hours and 46 minutes long. With a few 10 minute breaks (with some funny euphemism – nature breaks? body breaks? can’t remember), it lasted until 1:15 am.
WHY are we subjecting anyone to 7 hour meetings regularly?! This is nonsense. Why not meet weekly, for 3-4 hours?
Also, it’s a bit anti-climactic to watch a meeting which serves as a prequel to other recent meetings. We know how things end up turning out. On the other hand, it’s very handy to have the minutes available to refer to.
It took me a week to get through just listening to the dang thing, but I suppose no one is waiting with bated breath for a blog post on an April council meeting, in June, on a n unpublicized website with an extremely tiny audience. I’ll get to it in the next day or two.
Note: City Council is on vacation for the second meeting of June (and the first meeting in July? I think.) Since my goals right now are to 1) establish this habit and 2) build up the archives, I thought I could work backwards and attend some meetings from this past April.
(My schedule is most flexible in the summer, so it doesn’t really help me to take a break right now. Too bad I can’t borrow from later this year, when my schedule is a mess.)
So what did they cover, way back in April?
Presentations
Consent Agenda
3. Approval of the minutes
4-5. Annexing and re-zoning Gregson’s Bend/Commercial Loop 64 acres, across I-35 from the Outlet Mall.
6. Utilities water contract
7. Conveyance of city-owned land to build affordable housing
8. Airport master plan
9. County property, along Guadalupe St, at Courthouse, to be used for cycle track
10. Data archiving contract, $285K for five years
11. Environmental Systems Institute change in contract, $96K/year for three years
12. 133K for cemetary improvements
13. Changing police construction contract +$200K
Public Hearings
14. Extending Holt Tract PDD for 5 years (sure)
15. Rezoning 14 acres at North LBJ (terrible idea!)
16-17. Rezone 21 acres, then 15 more at Chuck Nash Loop, up towards Yarrington Road
18. CBDG matters
Non-Consent Agenda
19. Allocating CARES funds
20. Residential Wastewater rates
21. Amendment to CBDG action plan
22. More on CARES funds
23. Low Income Tax Credits for apartment complex on Centerpoint, just west of railroad tracks, towards Kissing Tree.
24. Annexation of 23 acres on Old Bastrop and Redwood (will become Senior Housing because I can see the future)
25. Fill vacancy on Board of Directors for Alliance regional water authority
26. Approve council rules
27. Fill vacancies for five different boards: Construction Board of Appeals, Convention and Visitor Bureau, Econ Development Board, Historic Preservation, Neighborhood Commission, and SM Industrial Development Corporation.
28. Bitty goats discussion!
Work Session that Afternoon:
Next most important items:
Citizen Comment period: several people came to talk about the case of Jennifer Miller. This was not an agenda item so much as a way of generating awareness in the community. Miller was killed a year ago in a car crash in Lockhart. The other driver was a San Marcos police officer, Ryan Hartman.
This is taken from a SM Record article, which I would link if this site were live:
According to Hartman’s deposition, police reports and forensic evidence, Hartman was driving 16 mph over the 30 mph speed limit on a partially gravel road with an open container of alcohol that was ¾ empty, talking on the phone, and he failed to stop at two stop signs before colliding with Watts’ vehicle. Forensic evidence showed that Hartman was not attempting to brake the vehicle when the collision occurred.
According to the incident report, Hartman denied consuming any alcoholic beverages when asked and refused to take a blood alcohol test on scene; he was detained until a search warrant could be obtained on suspicion of driving while intoxicated due to the open container. Hours later no alcohol was detected.
(I’ll slowly go back and put links in over time, once the site is public. Source)
A grand jury only gave him a citation for running a stop sign, and did not find probable cause for criminally negligent homicide. Miller’s spouse is filing a civil suit.
People are basically upset that Hartman is back on the force, and want Council to do something. It’s a horrible tragedy, for sure, and I can see why it looks like a miscarriage of justice.
Item 28: Mexican American and Indigenous Heritage and Cultural District
These will be districts honoring very old neighborhoods – some which have been destroyed – where Mexican-Americans have lived for generations. I imagine some other part besides neighborhoods will be noted to honor the local Indigenous heritage. It doesn’t come with Historical Preservation status, so it’s mostly to raise awareness to the community about the heritage of these areas around town. (Everyone was in favor of this.)
Item 29: Light’s Out, Texas!
Central Texas is a funnel to Mexico for migratory birds, and the lights mess them up. I gather we’re already a Dark Sky city, which means angling lights down and putting shades over them? This would include some additional measures during migratory periods. (Everyone was in favor of this.)
Boring but Important, but Not Controversial
There are several items which are surely important, but didn’t generate much conversation and so I’m unable to evaluate which parts are notable. Maybe these are hiding things I would strongly disagree with! Time will tell.
Items 1 and 2: First quarter financial report and investment report.
Item 23. Texas General Obligation Refunding Bonds up to $75 million
I gather that we regularly issue bonds? The only amendment was to remove a category of $1 million for Cape’s Dam. Apparently it was originally set maybe in 2017 or so, and had been deferred ever since. City Staff made it sound just routine to eventually move things from “deferred” to “happening”.
Item 24. $73.6 million for twelve different infrastructure categories
I’m sure this is important. It was also a slide presentation and I was just listening to audio.
That’s a wrap for this week!
I am still getting my sea-legs on this gig, and one thing that is hard to discern right now is what is pro forma, and what is important. Once cue I use is whether or not councilmembers have questions and amendments.
So for example, in the June 1st, 2021 meeting, there were very few questions on the following items:
Most likely this means that the details are being hashed out in work sessions, or these are things which don’t change from year to year. Certainly these things are important! I just don’t have much context to evaluate them.
If something has always been done a certain way, but it’s problematic, I don’t yet have any way to detect that. I think time and experience will be the only way to pick up on these things.
For the work sessions, again for now, I’m trying to determine how much time I can commit to this. So for now, those controverseys will also stay off my radar.
This may not be the most important item exactly, but Item 22 was definitely the strangest item of the night. And Mark Gleason was the strangest acting councilmember of the night.
Item 22 is about adding language about lobbyists to the code of Ethics. Lobbyists would have to register with the city, and issue reports every two months. Apparently this has been floating around since 2018. Last December, Council gave direction that a committee should be formed. The commission met for three months and gave tonight’s recommendation to council.
Immediately Gleason made a motion to postpone the measure until the end of August. Everyone was caught by surprise. Baker was obviously annoyed and sparred back and forth with Gleason.
Gleason said:
The thing is that these five points are easily swatted down, and they were swatted down, and Gleason just stuck to these five points over and over again. It was a bizarre performance and made me wonder what exactly got planted in his ear over the weekend.
The swatting down of these points went roughly like this:
Anyway. I’m getting ahead of myself.
Gleason’s motion to postpone until the 2nd August meeting fails. Then he moves to postpone until the 1st August meeting. That also fails. (Baker, Derrick, Garza, and Hughson vote no.)
There are other concerns – who qualifies as a lobbyist and who is exempt? What should the penalty be? etc.
Hughson had quibbles that annoyed me:
Shane Scott wonders what the big deal is. It still comes up for a vote. Why does it matter if someone picked up the phone and called you ahead of time? He wins the prize for the most disingenuous councilmember.
Gleason keeps these panicked nonsensical rants going. It feels like this: Someone called him over Memorial Day weekend and convinced him to postpone. That person fed Gleason these reasons, and Gleason can’t maintain a coherent conversation about them because they’re not his real reasons, and he’s unwilling to divulge the real reason. He was like a parody of someone squirming under pressure – practically yanking on his collar and wiping his brow and saying, “Is it me or is it hot in here?”
Gleason hasn’t been on council long, but his general shtick is to be the most earnest person on the block, although a bit repetitive and rambly. I don’t always agree with him, but he usually appears to be operating in good faith. This was like an easily rattled stooge sweating bullets before a mob boss. It was very strange!
Finally, conversation seems to be winding down. Surely they are getting ready to vote on this first reading!
But wait! Saul Gonzalez makes a motion to postpone. Everyone is dumbfounded. Saul’s reasons are that it’s getting late and he’s not thinking clearly anymore. He wants to postpone to the second meeting in August, ie the same as Gleason’s first attempt.
WHAT ON EARTH. The conversation has been had already. It’s now 10:30 pm. This is only the first reading – if you have misgivings, you still have a 2nd reading to bring them up! Nothing is binding here! (Like, did someone also get to Saul? Am I imagining conspiracies here?!)
The amendment to postpone fails. Again. As before, Baker, Derrick, Garza, and Hughson vote no.
They vote on some dates to implement the policy, and then hold the final vote on the first reading. It passes 5-2. Gleason and Scott vote no. Hughson and Gonzalez both qualify their yes-votes with ominous “for now…”s.
Well! Not the most important item necessarily, but definitely the most fun to write up.
What’s on the docket for tonight?
Presentations
1 and 2: First quarter financial report and investment report.
Consent Agenda: All the stuff that has already been hashed out goes here for final votes.
3. Approve old minutes
4. 7 acres to be zoned CD-5 by Centerpoint
5. Miniature goats
6. 1 year injury leave for a specific police officer.
7. Wood grinding contract, $104K
8. Engineering contract for Highway 80, $350K
9. Blanco Vista elevated storage contract, $330k
10. Tx-DOT airport master plan reimbursement
11. Air quality
12. One year airport hangar lease, 12K. (Really, this needs approval by council?)
13. Rejecting a “sole proposal” for CDBG application. Not sure what the story is there, but if it were interesting, it shouldn’t be on the consent agenda, so I assume it’s pro forma for now.
14. LCRA interconnection agreement
15. IT contract $355k
Public Hearings: The hashing out happens here.
16-19. Annexing and rezoning a parcel of land out by Centerpoint
20. Submitting something about CDBG grants to HUD?
Non-consent agenda: And here.
21. Allocate $41K from the State Seized Asset Funds for various police technology and equiqment
22. Code of Ethics: lobbyists have to register and contacts have to be reported
23. Texas General Obligation Refunding Bonds up to $75 million? I don’t know what this means.
24. $73.6 million for twelve different infrastructure categories
25. Parks & Rec applying for county bonds fund.
26. Fill vacancies on various boards and commissions
27. Grant writer position
28. Mexican American and Indigenous Heritage and Cultural District
29. Lights Out, Texas! to turn off or dim non-essential lights during migratory peak periods
30. Parkland fee calculation methodology in the Land Development Code
Executive Session:
31-32: San Marcos Sports/plex purchase and sale
The San Marxist 