What do I think, before hearing any debates or anything? Glad you asked!
Mayoral Race
Mayor Jane Hughson is a centrist. She is extremely honest, hard working, detail-oriented, and she operates in good faith. She tries to compromise and find common ground. She tries to educate herself when she doesn’t know or understand something.
In short, she’s an outstanding politician, but I don’t entirely agree with her ideology.
John Thomaides was on council from the 2000s until 2018, and he was mayor from 2016 to 2018, when he lost to Jane Hughson. Early on, he was the single liberal vote against a tide of conservative votes. Then in the early 2010s, he switched sides. Thomaides joined forces with Shane Scott, Jude Prather, and Scott Gregson. They rammed through a bunch of contentious issues, despite community uproar. (The issue of the day was large student apartment complexes in central San Marcos. Think the Cottages, the Retreat, and the Woods, which is the worst of all, and is now called something else. Redpoint? They were also trying to put one on Sessom Creek, which would have been a holy disaster. Fortunately that one got defeated.)
[Updated to add: I need to go through and check those assertions above, when I’ve got a minute. JMA pointed out that neither Thomaides nor Prather voted for The Woods, and also reminded me about the HEB fight next to Purgatory Creek. And that Prather just opted not to run for re-election. In the next few days, I’ll try to get a more accurate post written. And I’m sorry about potentially spreading misinformation.]
Thomaides burned through all the trust and goodwill that he’d built up from the left, and then some. Scott, Prather, Gregson, and Thomaides all lost their council seats in the mid-2010s.
In short, I expect him to tell me what I want to hear, and then go vote for the opposite. I have zero trust in him. With Shane Scott and Jude Prather both back on Council, it feels like Thomaides is trying to get the band back together.
City Council Place 1
Max Baker is the encumbent. He is extremely liberal. He is very knowledgeable and prepares thoroughly. He sometimes argues tiny points to the detriment of the larger battle that he’s fighting, and has a reputation for getting into fights up on the dais.
He’s great on the environment, challenging the status quo, and being suspicious of traditional bastions of power that keep the status quo entrenched. The only thing I often disagree with him on is increased housing density. He’s anti-sprawl, but not particularly pro-density.
Matthew Mendoza is new to P&Z, as of March. I know very little about him. I’m open to hearing what he has to say, during the debates.
I wish he hadn’t picked Max to run against. Max is an asset to the progressive movement, and Matthew is brand new to politics, and would benefit from another year or two on P&Z to learn the ropes. On the other hand, if Matthew had picked Saul, then he is competing against another Hispanic candidate and can’t increase the Hispanic representation on council.
In the absence of knowing much else, that is one thing that Matthew Mendoza has going for him: he can represent the Hispanic community, which needs more representation on Council. Still, if he waited a year, he’d be a stronger candidate and could run against Shane Scott. That seems better, right?
City Council Place 2
Saul Gonzalez was first elected in 2016, then re-elected in 2019. He almost never says anything, and almost always votes with the majority. In the past two meetings, he’s been talking a lot, and it’s been a comically abrupt change from his usual.
I do know that he’s extremely well-known in the Hispanic community, and thus represents them quite well, even if he keeps it to himself. My guess would be that many people feel very comfortable reaching out to him. So that is his biggest strength.
His opponent is Adam Arndt. Facebook tells me that this is the same person as Atom Von Arndt. That’s about all I know of him! He seems colorful. I’m looking forward to the debates.
Last time, we did a deep dive. Here is the executive summary:
Option A: Drop the property tax rate to 59.3¢ from 60.3¢. On average, each household saves $24 for the year. Budget is $700,000 less.
Option B: Keep the property tax rate at 60.3¢. Use the extra $700,000 to pay for six new public safety employees, split up as four fire-fighters and two police officers.
Mayor Hughson, Jude Prather, Shane Scott, and Mark Gleason are all Option B. They all cheer for public safety.
Max Baker, Alyssa Garza, and Saul Gonzalez are all Option A.
Max and Alyssa both represent constituents who are highly skeptical of cops. (hi!) Their basic argument is that more cops does not automatically mean more public safety.
Saul’s reason is different: he is unwilling to put the $24 increase on struggling home owners. He shares that his mother worked at Texas State as a maid when he was growing up, and she’d have to go to financing companies to cover her taxes. His sympathy lies with the most struggling home owners.
The Vote: Should we adopt the budget with the extra $700K? Yes: Mayor Hughson, Jude Prather, Shane Scott, and Mark Gleason No: Max Baker, Alyssa Garza, and Saul Gonzalez
That was so fast! So we’re done? Ha, no. We’re never done. But this time, we’re really not done.
Here’s the problem: the tax rate is a separate vote from the budget. Aaaaaaaannnnd…by Texas state law, the tax rate must pass with a 60% majority. Council needs 5 votes now, to establish the 60.3¢ tax rate. And of course, there were only four “yes” votes above.
Either Max, Alyssa, or Saul has to flip to “yes”, or Council has to go back and undo the budget they just approved.
So now we dig into the deeper arguments, from SMPD Chief Standridge and Fire Chief Stephens.
Chief Standridge’s argument is basically this:
There are a lot of public safety things we can do without more cops, and we’re doing them. (I went over this last time, here.)
You need cops for in-progress, violent 911 calls. There is no public safety alternative. You just need cops for that. We don’t have enough. I need officers specifically to respond to violent-in-progress-911 calls.
Max and Alyssa both concede the first point. They both praise his efforts to be an ally to progressives. He’s worked hard to form this allegiance, and they are right to recognize it.
For this one, narrow context (responding to in-progress-violent-911-calls), I do want SMPD to hire extra cops. I want faster response times to these calls. Standridge says they’re around 8.5 minutes long, and it should be 5 minutes.
Max and Alyssa’s other points are much weaker:
Max argues that it’s hypocritical that cops were so indifferent to safety when it came to wearing masks during covid, but now they need more cops. This is just irrelevant. Yes, cops should have worn masks, and yes, cops died unnecessarily of covid. Either way. right now, we need cops to answer 911 calls.
Alyssa argues that it’s irresponsible to pay for more personnel when we’re doing such a miserable job reaching out to our most vulnerable citizens for feedback and conversations. This is also true, but you can apply it to absolutely any proposal. Government would grind to a halt if we held it to that standard. Public outreach to the most vulnerable citizens is incredibly important, but also incredibly hard.
Chief Standridge says that San Marcos is more dangerous than Georgetown, Kyle, New Braunfels. There’s something called the Violent Crime Index, which is the number of violent crimes per 10K residents. Here’s how we stack up:
Georgetown: 12.4 Kyle: 17.4 New Braunfels: 24.5 San Marcos: 53.5 Statewide: 44.4
Max and Alyssa both question the methodology of that index. But I don’t think their criticisms hold water. I can believe that this statistic is shoddy or inflated, but whatever problems it has, it’s going to affect all those cities, not just San Marcos. It wouldn’t make San Marcos look specifically worse in comparison.
Fundamentally, Max and Alyssa are never going to vote for more cops, because they see it as betraying their constituents. That is fine!
But we still have to pass a budget, and Saul isn’t budging, either.
Next up: Fire Chief Les Stephens.
Fire Chief Les Stephens sounds like he’s about to quit. In a nutshell, “I really resent having to grovel in front of you all. You make me grovel every year. We’ve been underfunded since I took over 13 years ago. I used to think the old chief wasn’t good at his job, but now I realize you put him in that position. I will not be groveling here next year.”
Which brings us to the most absurd moment of the evening, at 1:39:00. Saul Gonzalez attacks Chief Stephens on the flimsiest of pretexts, and then Saul just doubles down and digs in his heels. It just keeps going. It’s so bizarre and inappropriate.
Saul asks Chief Stephens about a $45K charge for landscaping, a few years back. Chief Stephens answers that they do their own landscaping, and that the contract is soil and mowing, and the costs are on par with the rest of the city buildings.
Saul says – and this is a quote – “I just want to know what you value. What’s more important? More fire personnel, or keep your grass looking really nice?” Chief Stephens is like, “Facility maintenance is a council priority. You all literally make me.” Saul cuts him off, saying, “Well, I don’t want to pay $45K for that.”
But Saul is not done! Next, Saul asks if they get fancy firetrucks with bells and whistles, and Stephens is like, “No. Mid-range. Like you all told me to get.”
Jane admonishes Saul for not asking those questions back at the time, and Saul says he did. (If Saul did, it was super out of character for him.)
It’s very weird to see Saul being such a jerk!
Actually, that’s not quite right. Saul seems is acting like someone who is running for re-election, and hasn’t said a word in three years, and is now trying to say a whole lot of words. Way too many words.
Detour over!
So here we are: Either Max, Alyssa, or Saul has to flip to “yes”, or we go back to the old budget.
It’s time to vote. Drum roll …Saul reiterates that he’s looking at the budget hard, but that he’ll change his vote, and support the 60.3¢ rate. “But I’m going to keep an eye on you guys!” he says ominously.
The Vote: Yes: Mayor Hughson, Jude Prather, Mark Gleason, Shane Scott, and Saul Gonzalez No: Alyssa Garza and Max Baker
The budget has passed.
For the rest of the night, LMC relentlessly teased Saul about that line – “I’m going to keep an eye on you guys!” – every chance she got. And I enjoyed it every time.
One final note, for the wonkiest of municipal nerds
Before the first vote, Max Baker asked why he hasn’t heard about his question on the appraisal lawsuits over MLS data. Max has brought this up many times. Based on this, I assumed that the appraisal district was being sued for artificially inflating home prices. I assumed that the appraisers aren’t allowed to use MLS data to appraise houses, because it would be unfair to home owners, and now they were being sued for it.
Jane Hughson replies that she did get a response from the appraisal people, and she reads it on the spot. It says, more or less, “It was legal for us to use the methods that we used.”
Max gets frustrated that she hadn’t asked them the specific question he wanted to know: “Are they being sued for using MLS data?”
Jane Hughson just goes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
The thing is, the letter does answer Max’s question. The answer is, “Maybe we’re being sued, maybe not, but we’re on firm legal ground.”
So finally I went and looked up the lawsuit. It’s not about appraisals being too high. It’s about MLS being private data. The MLS people are suing because they don’t want the appraisal district to use their data.
There’s just no smoking gun here, and not one that benefits the community in any way that I can discern.
Item 22 Next up: a little light industrial area by the airport:
169 acres, to be exact. They want to zone it to be Light Industrial.
Reminds me of the new park land we bought a few weeks ago:
Eh, I guess it’s not that close. There’s a lot of space out there.
(Also, did you notice that google maps has renamed I-35 “Monarch Highway”? That’s so cute! much better than “Smushed Monarch Highway”.)
Shane Scott asks about flight paths, and the developer concedes that the property is right in the line of Runway 3. But also says that the FAA and the airport both gave this development a thumbs up. I have no idea about such things.
The vote: Yes: Mayor Hughson, Saul Gonzalez, Jude Prather, Alyssa Garza, Mark Gleason No: Shane Scott, Max Baker
So it will come to pass.
…..
Item 23: Alternative Compliance for Cut-and-Fill
Cut-and-fill means that you are trying to build on a rocky, uneven slope. But your building needs a flat foundation. So you decide, “What is the average elevation of this portion?”
Once you know your average elevation, you have some bumpy parts that stick up, and some sunken parts that are too low. So you shave down your bumpy parts and fill in your sunken parts. Ta-da, cut and fill!
The problem is that if you’re on a hillside, you may have to cut out a lot of dirt and move a lot of dirt, and this is going to affect how water runs down the hill. What’s worse is if you’re on a hill in a flood zone. You may have heard, but San Marcos has a flooding problem.
So these folks are trying to develop here, in that blue region:
on the corner of Rattler Road and East McCarty.
They’re allowed to cut-and-fill up to 8 feet, but they want to cut and fill up to 13 feet. And it’s in a flood zone.
But the real reason that I’m interested in this case is because I’m invested in this case, where the water will run downhill to Redwood – also a cut-and-fill ordinance that is coming up soon. I was intently watching this case, to read the tea leaves on the next one.
Max Baker suggests that the developer could offer up some environmentally friendly perks to take the sting out of this flood risk? The developer responds that he’s under the gun to get this approved tonight, and he’d love to try.
So the motion gets tabled for a few hours. The developer goes off with the engineer. They come back with a compromise:
They’ll put a 20,000 gallon rain barrel on each 150,000 square foot building, and use it towards irrigation.
They’ll reduce impervious cover from 80% to 60%
They’ll do some water quality treatment thing that I didn’t follow.
It gets approved unanimously now.
These are good, environmentally, but as a harbinger for the Redwood case, I didn’t like it. For the Redwood case, I want them to deny it altogether.
….
Item 15: Art purchases
The Arts commission is purchasing four sculptures for our San Marcos sculpture garden. I didn’t realize we had a sculpture garden!
Then I looked it up, and realized I did realize it after all!
It’s in between the library and the Activity Center, on Hopkins. (Photo yoinked from the city page.)
Item 16: Back to Boyhood Alley! Shall we name the alley after the film, Boyhood?
Jane Hughson still thinks Boyhood Alley sounds dirty, which still cracks me up. She offers up an amendment. “How about Boyhood Film Alley”? she offers.
Saul Gonzalez likes it.
Max points out that “Boyhood Film Alley” sounds even dirtier than whatever someone is misconstruing Boyhood Alley to be.
Jane concedes this point, and backpedals from “Boyhood Film Alley” to “Boyhood, the Movie Alley”, which is hilariously clunky. We’re almost in High School Musical: The Musical: The Series territory for winky-awkward names. How about “Boyhood, the Movie, Not the Porno, the Alley”? I’m here for it!
The vote on “Boyhood, the Movie, the Alley”: Yes: Jane Hughson and Saul Gonzalez No: All the councilmembers under 60 years old
So it fails.
Should we call it Boyhood Alley?
The vote on just plain “Boyhood Alley” Yes: Everyone except Jane. No: Jane
I will say this for Jane: she takes defeat in good humor. She merrily says, “It’s not the first time I’ve lost a vote in public!” and shrugs it off.
…..
Item 27: Library fines will go away! This was fast and unanimous.
Item 36: Eco-friendly burials are now going to be allowed at San Marcos cemeteries.
People are just dying to have them!
(Thanks, I’ll be here all week. Try the veal.)
…
Items 28-29: We’re going to trade some land with Texas State, right at Sessom and Loquat. Trying to get a map of what’s going on is a disaster, because they didn’t include it in the packet, but here’s where we’re talking about:
So if you’re driving west on Sessom, then Loquat Street is on your right while campus is on your left.
I am not sure I’ve ever been on Loquat before, but I’d better check it out soon, because they’re closing it, as part of this deal. Jane Hughson was kind of bummed out about closing it, since it makes a useful shortcut.
Google streetview tells me it looks like this:
which is probably why I’ve never ended up on it.
So, we’re giving Loquat street to Texas State, and they’re closing it down. In exchange, they’re giving us some land along Canyon Road, which we’re using to stabilize Sessom Creek without polluting it.
Would you like to see a good map of what’s going on? So would I. Unfortunately, the presentation was not included in the packet, so I only have a screenshot of it:
City council videos are the WORST quality. I mean, seriously. Sessom is running along the bottom of the diagram here.
The thick red line is Loquat Street, which we’re giving to Texas State.
Green is the land along Canyon, which Texas State is giving to the city.
Blue is staying as the city property
Yellow is fragile environmentally
So, what is Texas State planning on doing in that big red area? NOBODY ASKED.
Here’s the problem: Texas State University does not have to follow city flood mitigation rules. In our land development code, we have a million rules about floods: limits on impervious cover, catching run-off water, water quality treatment zones, flood zones, recharge zones, and on and on. Texas State follows exactly ZERO of it. By state law, Texas State University does not have to give one whit about city ordinances.
This is insanely sensitive land, and it drains directly into Sessom Creek. It’s uphill from most of the entire city. It should not be paved and it should not be developed. In fact, this is more-or-less where there was a huge fight circa 2013, when a developer wanted to build apartment complexes around there. It’s a TERRIBLE SPOT to build.
Some more googling tells me that the blue part below is owned by the city, called the Sessom Creek Natural Area:
I assume that blue part is staying put. But what about the other side of Loquat?
I am extremely worried that Texas State is going to put dorms or something high intensity on it. There is nothing in the council packet, and no one asked. We just gave them the final piece they needed.
Maybe I’m wrong! But maybe this is a big fucking disaster and we just waltzed into it.
Hours 0:00-3:44: Let’s talk about budgets for three hours. – Property Taxes in their dirty glory – What would we do with $700K extra in the budget? – Chief Stephens and Chief Standridge both make their cases
Hours: 3:44-4:30: In which we discuss the development behind the outlet mall, the Blanco Vista flood mitigation project, and the new downtown fire station
Hours 4:30-5:10: It’s time for new contracts for SMPD. Mano Amiga declares war.
The League of Women Voters debate will be on October 11th. Unfortunately, it looks like they’re still only over zoom, which is disappointing. I miss the frisson of live debates.
I am planning on a rundown of my opinions of candidates, but I’ll wait till the election is closer.
Items 21, 24, and 25: If you want to understand the budget, it’s probably worth going back and listening to the August 18th budget workshop. But I’ll do my best.
First off: it all comes down to property taxes. Property taxes are steep. But let’s zoom out for a second:
Most of San Marcos rents. Indirectly, property taxes get passed on to renters, but that’s not the main reason rent goes up. Rents have gone up because landlords realized they could get away with it. When we talk about property taxes, we’re mostly ignoring renters.
Texas taxes are regressive. Poor people pay 10.9% of their income in taxes, whereas the wealthiest people pay 3.1% of their income in taxes. Details here.
Texas could do a lot to alleviate poverty. For example:
The United States can easily afford for every person to have a safe home, free healthcare, and access to healthy food and education. This country is extremely wealthy. Collectively, we can afford to lift everyone out of basic poverty. But we don’t choose to do so.
So: do property taxes force people from their homes? In one sense, yes. A $5000 tax bill is huge, and it can be the final straw, for a financially precarious person or family.
So should we be mad about property taxes? No. Poverty forces people from their homes. Be mad at the state and national elected officials who are complacent about poverty. Do not misplace your anger about poverty onto property taxes.
We should work hard to keep property taxes from being the final straw that forces anyone out of their home. But the actual problem is not the local property taxes themselves.
Let’s break down property taxes:
Last year, the city had a property tax rate of 60.3¢ per $100. Let’s say you have a house, you lucky home-owner. Now, city taxes aren’t the only property taxes you pay. Total, you would have paid $2.0492 per $100 of value. (Source.) Then that gets divvied up between the city, SMCISD, the county, and the special roads district.
Say your house was worth $250,000. Then you paid $5123 in taxes. It breaks down like so:
$ 2868.88 to SMCISD (56%)
$ 1485.67 to the city of San Marcos (29%)
$ 717.22 to Hays County (14%)
$ 51.23 to Special Roads District (1%)
So far, so good.
The problem is that home prices went through the roof last year, right?
Suppose your $250K house is now appraised at $400K. You should not freak out! First of all, the state of Texas caps the increase for property taxes at 10%. So you aren’t going to be taxed on $400K. The most you could get taxed on is $250,000 x 1.1 = $275,000.
Second, the city has a homestead exemption. If you live in your house (as opposed to renting it out), then you can file the paperwork and get a deduction for $15,000. So instead of getting taxed on $275,000, you’re now getting taxed on $260,000. Fine. (If you’re a senior citizen or have a disability, you can get another $35,000 taken off.)
The city has boiled it down to two scenarios:
They could charge you the same rate, 60.3¢ per $100, and this time you’d pay them $1567.80, based on your house being worth $260,000.
They could charge you one penny less, 59.3¢ per $100, and you’d pay $1541.80.
The city has drawn up a budget based on 59.3¢ per $100. The big issues are:
What’s in the 59.3¢ budget?
What would be done with the extra penny, if we went for the 60.3¢ rate?
What’s in the 59.3¢ budget?
Obviously, everything is in it. It’s a budget. That said, they emphasized a few things in the presentation:
Personnel challenges: We’re terribly understaffed, across the board, and it leads to burn out and people taking jobs elsewhere, which perpetuates the problem. So, personnel challenges. The budget includes a 5% raise for all non-civil service employees. (Ie, the less highly paid public employees.) Everyone gets a one-time retention incentive. Funding for an additional 47 positions (2 funded from elsewhere).
Additional funding for CASA, GSMP/Splash co-working, art center
Squirrel some money away for future City Hall. (There’s a state law that you can’t borrow money to fund you city hall, and the voters will never approve a bond for a new city hall building. So you have to squirrel money away for it.) (Which is actually financially not great, but there you have it.)
All the regular business as usual, of course: CIP projects, parks, planning department, utilities, police, fire department, municipal courts, etc.
What would be done with the extra penny?
If rates are 60.3¢ per $100, then the city will bring in an extra $700,000 with this. According to the city presentation, the average house is worth $245,197, after all the deductions and everything.
– At 59.3¢ , city taxes would be $1,454.02 – At 60.3¢, city taxes would be $1,478.54
So, a difference of $24 per household, on average.
The $700K would be used for six new positions, which could be either fire fighters or police officers.
Mayor Hughson suggests going for the 60.3¢ rate and letting staff decide how the six positions should be split between SMPD and fire fighters.
Alyssa Garza says she’ll vote against the 60.3¢ rate until she’s consulted with more community members.
Shane Scott says he wants the 60.3¢ rate, and he specifically wants 3 firefighters and 3 cops.
Saul Gonzalez is in favor of the 60.3¢ rate.
Jude Prather is in favor of the 60.3¢ rate.
Max Baker is opposed. Largely, he argues that having more cops does not make us safer. Instead, it increases petty citations. He criticizes the outreach efforts of “playing basketball” and instead wants to see more town halls and more data driven discussions.
Max is way off on that last point. “Playing basketball” is shorthand for taking time to build trust and relationships with teenagers in neighborhoods. This is how you begin to counteract the cop mindset that young men are all potential criminals. Cops and young adults need to have healthy, non-punitive interactions and build relationships.
Max Baker says two other things: we should be reviewing officer duties and seeing what can be removed. (I like this!) And he praises the presentations that Chief Standridge has given at the Criminal Justice Reform committee meetings.
Mark Gleason’s take is interesting. He feels tortured over the decision, but comes out against the 60.3¢ rate, at this point. His neighbors are getting forced out of their homes due to property taxes. (Later, he’ll change his mind. But his angst is real.)
Mayor Hughson says she’s also worried, but this is a $24 difference. That’s $2 a month.
Chief Stephens and Chief Standridge both get a chance to plea their cases.
Fire Chief Les Stephens talks:
In 2009, 46% of the city was outside of the effective coverage area of all the fire stations
He’s relocated firestations and done his best, but with the growth, etc, it’s still just slightly lower than 46%
Worst part: far northern part.
Firestation 5 is the northern most station. Blanco Vista plus Whisper Tract.
Currently, it takes 15 minutes and 10 seconds to get from Firestation #5 to the deepest part of Blanco Vista. That’s the best case scenario.
If Firestation #5 out on any other call, Station #1 downtown is the next best. It will take them 21-22 minutes, in a best case scenario.
I know you know where Blanco Vista is, but look: it’s not close.
Sprawl is a really big problem! It takes 15 minutes to get to someone having a heart attack in the upper corner of that blue region!
And in this VERY SAME MEETING, we approve the little development by the Hays Power Plant, discussed here:
Equally far away, but in the opposite direction. WHY?!? The Chief just said he needs 27 firefighters to cover the existing city, and we’re funding three of them. The problem is the sprawl!
A few other points from Chief Stephens:
Insurance rates are tied to ratings. If our PPC safety rating goes down, everyone’s insurance goes up. So saving $24/year in taxes could cost you more in insurance, later on.
We want to buy a run down beater firetruck to use as a blocker, on I-35 or any time traffic is blocked, so that they can use their expensive trucks for calls. Takes 1 person to staff instead of 3. Seems like a good idea!
Next, Chief Standridge talks about SMPD:
Philosophically, can a police chief be progressive? Or are they doomed because they’re trapped in a toxic culture? I don’t know. But if it’s possible, Chief Standridge is making an appealing case.
He validates everything that Max says. He agrees that more cops don’t equal less crime, and he builds a case that we are already implementing the crime-reduction things that don’t require extra officers:
Since he got here:
Implementing intelligence-led policing (I love names like this that insult the alternative. What exactly had we been doing before?)
Build an intranet database of everything a cop might need to know
Twice-monthly collaborative crime meets to work on highest repeat offenders and highest repeat call locations (This is really important.)
Stopped sending officers to minor crashes that do not result in injury
Stopped sending officers to child custody calls. The idea is to keep custody disputes in family court, and out of criminal court.
So, to Max’s point about looking to see what duties can be removed, Chief Standridge is saying we are doing that.
Doing some kind of big legwork thing to keep high-repeat violent offenders locked up
Redid the downtown unit. During the afternoon and evening, they serve as a Crime Reduction Unit – preventative violent crime measures. Then they head downtown as the town square heats up.
Re-imagining mental health. Next week someone from some state org will come in to help re-invent how we respond to mental health and our behavioral advisory team
Homeless outreach team. We have 5 members focused on homeless help. Not issuing citations.
Used to have 1 internal affairs manager. Now we have 4 internal affairs investigators, all with state training. (I do NOT approve! Misconduct should be reviewed by external, independent investigators. But still, 4 is better than 1.)
Extra officers needed for in-progress violent 911 calls. Right now, it takes 8.5 minutes to get there, on average. Takes 3 minutes just to find an available officer. We need 10 officers.
Civilian liaisons: this is a new program where SMPD will hire regular civillians to take incident reports and direct traffic, and free up cops to do cop-things. (I am worried about George Zimmerman types being attracted to this job.)
Chief Standridge’s bottom line is that he’d like four more officers to respond in-progress violent 911 calls, and three to work on community outreach. If the $700K goes through, he’d probably get three new hires towards 911 calls.
Council discussion:
Shane Scott asks the cutting questions: SHOULD POLICE OFFICERS BE REQUIRED TO HAVE COLLEGE DEGREES???
Standridge cries, “no! We can incentivize it, but please don’t reduce our applicant pool!”
Saul asks if annexation cause problems?
Standridge answers: “We’re doing a cost study to answer that.” (But seriously. How could it not?!)
Mark Gleason says he’s now in favor of the 60.3¢ rate, after all.
Saul Gonzales says he’s in favor of the 6 new positions, at the 59.3 tax rate.
Jane Hughson tells him he can’t do that. The six new positions come from the 60.3¢ rate. It’s a package deal.
Saul says he’s doing it anyway! He’s in favor of cops, firefighters, and lower taxes, and opposed to staking out unpopular positions. Gotta love Saul-on-the-campaign-trail.
The vote on the budget: Yes: Jane Hughson, Mark Gleason, Jude Prather, Shane Scott No: Alyssa Garza, Saul Gonzalez, Max Baker
Alyssa reiterates that her intent is to find out more from the community, and then base her decision on that. So here’s my two cents:
At the moment, I have a fairly high degree of trust in Stephanie Reyes, Chief Standridge, and Chief Stephens. So I’m mildly in favor of the 60.3¢ rate, although I won’t be heartbroken if we decide against it.
…….
Item 22: Stormwater Rates
We have $25 million of flood projects to be done. We have about $6 million so far. They are proposing raising stormwater rates to help pay for a little more of it. If you have a small house (less than 2000 sq feet), your rates would go up $10/year.
Increase stormwater rates?
Yes: Alyssa Garza, Shane Scott, Max Baker, Jane Hughson, Mark Gleason No: Saul Gonzalez Absent: Jude Prather
It feels like Saul is being weaselly for re-election. What is this.
Item 23: Trash and recycling
Here they will probably not raise rates. There’s some 3% surcharge that we’re contractually obligated for, but the recommended rate hike above that will get voted down.
If you turn that orange square so that it lays flat, it breaks down like this:
The light blue section is “Light Industrial”. Council is voting on a giant package of tax breaks for a developer to build a bunch of light-but-industrial buildings there.
There’s so much that happens in top-secret Executive Session. As far as we plebes know, this land was just zoned during this very meeting, and now there’s a near-instantaneous agreement with someone calling themselves Majestic Reality Co. The project was code-named “Project Thin Mint,” in case you like code names, and thin mints.
Basically, they’ll get a bunch of tax breaks for a while, and then we’ll start to collect taxes on the buildings and businesses that eventually move in. That’s the plan.
Is this good for San Marcos? I have no idea! It depends what gets built and what businesses move in. Ultimately, we lose a ton of control when we approve things like this, and we have very little information about how it will go. (And this is standard, for Texas at least. Texas is set up to let private developers shape cities, instead of elected officials, all the time, because we value their profit so much.)
Max Baker does grill the developer a bit, and comments on how secretive the Chapter 380 process is.
The vote: Yes: Mayor Hughson, Shane Scott, Alyssa Garza, Mark Gleason, Saul Gonzalez No: Max Baker Absent: Jude Prather
….
Item 28: Blanco Riverine Flood Mitigation Project
Today they’re awarding some contract to some builder, and it is given all of 15 seconds during the meeting. However, I wanted to give some background to this, because it’s interesting.
In 2015, we had the deadly Memorial Day floods, of course. (More detail here, if you’re new to town.) The Blanco Riverine Flood Mitigation project is supposed to create some extra channels for flood waters to go, instead of running into Blanco Gardens.
Here’s where it will be:
I don’t really know what’s involved, but this picture comes up a lot:
So I picture a massive drainage ditch through that periwinkle-colored rectangle, designed to catch the flood water, and then also, a long earthen hill that makes a wall between the ditch and the neighborhood. So that’s coming.
Presumably when it’s not flooding, this should have trails and green space on it.
It’s not big enough and there are problems with that street. So we’re moving it.
The new one will someday be here, in this building:
That is the old Diaz Martial Arts center, right across from Toma Taco. Industry is to the left of that photo, and in the background is the old Golden Chick. You’re on LBJ, heading west towards the town square.
The SMPD has a union, SMPOA, which negotiates contracts for cops with the city.
No one else gets to do this, because unions have been undermined in Texas. First, it’s a right-to-work state, which means you can’t be forced to join a union, even though you may benefit from the outcomes. (This is bad, in my book.) Second, unions aren’t allowed collective bargaining powers. If you’re not allowed to bargain for contracts and legal matters, then you’re basically an advocacy group. Underfunded advocacy groups don’t generally have much power.
The exceptions is police and fire fighters (and Houston municipal employees?) Meet and Confer is how the city of San Marcos negotiates contracts with the police and fire fighter unions.
The Ryan Hartman issue: Ryan Hartman was a police officer with SMPD. In 2020, he was in off-duty in Lockhart. He was speeding, ran a stop sign, probably under the influence, and crashed into Pamela Watts and Jennifer Miller, and Miller was killed in the crash. He had an open container in his car, but refused a breathalyzer for a few hours.
He wasn’t indicted in Lockhart, and Chief Standridge was brand new, and dithered on the issue until the 180 day time frame expired, and Hartman was put back on the force. Somewhere in here, Mano Amiga takes up the cause on behalf of Miller’s partner, Pam Watts. Mano Amiga begins a full press assault on Hartman. Back on the force, Ryan Hartman tazes someone under sketchy circumstances, and is suspended again this past January. Finally he’s terminated, this past June.
Mano Amiga has a list of five “Hartman Reforms” that they want implemented (and that are incredibly hard to find online.) Based on this article, I’m pretty sure they are:
End the 180-Day Rule
repeal of the statute of limitations on investigating wrongdoing by officers
“End Delay of Interviews for Misconduct,” due to officers being allowed 48 hours to prepare answers and review materials before giving an official statement.
Public Transparency for Personnel Files
End Third-Party Arbitration.
(I’m not really sure how 1 and 2 are different from each other.) In the Meet and Confer agreement, they are proposing to extend the 180 day rule to a 360 day rule. The other reforms are all ignored.
Max Baker asks about the rest of the Hartman Reforms.
City staff says that the Hartman Reforms were announced on June 15th, but the negotiation meetings had already run from April-May 27th. Max Baker says that the Hartman Reforms overlap with reforms he’s brought up in the past, but he hadn’t gotten the support of council on those.
In Citizen Comment, Mano Amiga made it clear that they do not think this contract holds officers accountable. They’re going to collect signatures to get a repeal of this agreement on a future ballot. Stay tuned!
What do I think? Here are some reforms that I think are important:
Reviews of police misconduct need to be done by independent, external investigators
End qualified immunity for police officers (Currently, officers can’t be sued for violating someone’s civil liberties. San Marcos can’t just unilaterally change this, but it’s important)
Ongoing de-escalation training (this may already be happening, I don’t know) and cops need to be immersed in neighborhoods and build positive relationships with young adults.
Prioritizing mental health of police officers, keeping ongoing relationships with therapists or counselors
Redirect mental illness emergencies to first responders with social work or mental health backgrounds
On one slide in the presentation of the Meet and Confer contract, it says, “Applicants with degree in social work, sociology, psychology, human services, or human relations will receive additional points.” This is good! You want officers with backgrounds in areas that humanize people.
By all appearances, Chief Standridge is implementing progressive principles into SMPD. This seems like an opportunity to collaborate and make progress.
….
Item 32: Chris Cardoza is voted onto the Arts Commission.
Item 33: Should renters get notified when there’s a proposed zoning change? This is sent to a committee.
This is the first time I’ve attempted a retrospective summary post, and it is very rocky. I went back through my notes, but I can guarantee that I missed things. I wasn’t even consistently taking good notes! Life’s a dance you learn as you go, right?
Here are my three categories:
Major legislation from the past year, and how each councilmember voted
Oh god this was hard to carry out. Full set of caveats at the link.
Unfinished business. Lots of things feel like they got accomplished, but haven’t been formally turned into policy and can still stall out. For example: – Ending the ban on more than two unrelated people living together – Banning sales of pets from puppy mills Both of these were discussed, but not yet implemented.
Again, my list is super spotty and incomplete! It’s also possible some of these did wrap up, and I missed it.
The San Marxist 