Citizen Comment:
Citizen Comment always starts with Jane Hughson reading a spiel about not being a jerk at the podium. However, this time there’s a new bit about how the security guy will haul you out of the room, if push comes to shove. Jane mentions that this is because of an incident a few weeks ago.
Now I’m all curious! I don’t know what happened, but it sounds exciting.
Here are the big topics for citizen comment:
- TDS stands for Texas Disposal Systems. They’re the guys that run San Marcos trash and recycling. Apparently TDS was first awarded the San Marcos contract in 2003, and they’ve been renewed ever since. They are coming up for renewal again.
Five people all have something to say about this. They don’t want TDS to automatically get the contract again. They want council to open up for bids from other companies this time around, instead of automatically going with TDS.
This item isn’t on the agenda tonight, but clearly there’s some sort of backstory here.
2. SMART/Axis, and whether they should get a new road.
This is the big item of the night, so I’ll save the comments for then!
3. Handicap Access around San Marcos.
This has come up before – speakers at Citizen Comment saying that San Marcos does not enforce handicap parking violations and does not prioritize accessibility.
Today they’re focused on Thorpe Lane, which is coming up in the CDBG projects.
4. One person brings up the Gaza ceasefire resolution.
…
Item 8: CDBG money.
CDBG stands for Community Development Block Grant. This is money the federal government gives us for small projects, for low-income residents.
First off, we have $766K from this year, and $640K rolling over from previous years, so we have $1.4 million total to spend. The new money, $766K, comes with strings attached:
So you have to be a little strategic about which projects get funding in which category.
This is the second reading. We saw this same list of projects back in June:
The second project – Thorpe Lane Sidewalk improvements – is the specific ADA accessibility one that the speakers were talking about, during citizen comment.
What does Council say?
Matt Mendoza: This is a new better council! I live in Rio Vista, so I get it!
What he means is that old city councils might have been jerks about funding the ADA projects, but this version is a kinder, gentler city council. Also he lives in Rio Vista, which is near Thorpe Lane, so he understands about the obstacles facing people in wheelchairs. Sure, why not?
And that’s it! In the past, they’ve tinkered with these amounts, and moved $100 here and there whimsically, but this time they just vote.
The vote to award these CDBG grants:
Yes: everyone.
No: no one.
….
…..
Item 9: The big item. We’re talking about annexing a SMART/Axis road.
Background: (Dec 22, Jan 23, Mar 23, Apr 23, May 23, June 23, July 23, July 24)
January 2023, Council makes a development agreement with Franklin-Mountain for this property:
Look how big that is! It’s wild.
Here is a complete list of all the details Franklin-Mountain gave for this project:
[ … Silence….
…crickets….
Somewhere, a train whistles in the distance. ]
In other words, they wanted complete freedom to do whatever they want on this land. And so Council gave it to them! The worst-case scenarios would be some sort of toxic industrial mushpot.
As soon as the community found out, they were super angry. The development agreement contract had already been signed, though.
So the community started looking for the next Council decision point, to intervene and turn the ship around. Franklin-Mountain needed annexation and zoning to start their plan. So the community focused on this.
Franklin-Mountain reluctantly tried to placate the community. But every time they met with the community, they pissed everyone off. They would just stonewall and give bland platitudes. Everyone got madder and madder.
Eventually the community put enough pressure on council, and Franklin-Mountain withdrew their application at the last minute. That was in the summer of 2023.
Which brings us to today.
This is the first time they’ve been back since last summer.
Back to this map:
Here’s the version on the company website:
We’re going to look at the left half of it:
This is just south of the airport.
Here are the roads that we care about:
That is, Loop 110, the new loop on the east side, Highway 80, and a tiny country road called Highway 1984.
And just for funsies, here’s the aerial view of what we’re talking about:
So notice that dirt road running horizontally across.
In the original plans, there was a road here:
Now, we don’t care about the WHOLE road. We care about the red portion of the road:
Franklin-Mountain wants San Marcos to annex that part of the road in red.
So first, notice that the road has jumped since the original plan:
You can tell it jumped by looking at the homes off of 1984. It used to be away from them, and now it’s right at the homes. This road is supposed to continue straight along someday. So now it will run along everyone’s back yard, instead of being separated by a field. This is a point of contention.
Franklin-Mountain wants San Marcos to annex the land and maintain the road. I think they’d still pay for the initial costs, though.
…….
Fundamentally, there are two questions:
- Do we loathe and resent SMART/Axis so much that we basically just want to stall/delay/irritate them out of San Marcos? Or at least get them to take our concerns seriously?
For me, the answer is a hard yes!
- Does this road benefit anyone besides SMART/Axis?
Here’s where it gets murky. It’s hard to tell what’s a good faith argument, and what’s a fake argument designed to give cover for Franklin-Mountain. There’s definitely some bullshit that we’ll try to weed through.
What does the public have to say?
- This only benefits the developer
- 1984 is not equipped for this kind of extra traffic, because there will be heavy 18-wheelers constantly going to and from SMART/Axis.
- They should submit plats and a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) first.
- This runs along people’s homes now.
- According to the development agreement, if you move a road, you have to get an amendment to the development agreement. Clearly they moved a road.
What does city staff say?
- This road is supposed to connect big trucks from I-35 to SMART/Axis. Hopefully they won’t use the 1984 part, but we can’t tell them not to.
- Running along people’s homes is actually a buffer! It’s a good thing.
- We have a draft of a Traffic Impact Analysis, but the details are super sketchy.
- The original road location was conceptual, not a major change.
What does council say?
Shane Scott: If this was an HEB, I’d say yes! But traffic is a nightmare out there already. You want to add more trucks? That sounds like a terrible idea. I’m a no!
Saul Gonzales: Samesies! I don’t see the benefit. Now is not the time.
Alyssa Garza: Can staff talk about the concerns about all the extra traffic on 1984?
Answer: We can’t prevent trucks from taking 1984. They have to put signs encouraging trucks to take Loop 110 though. We just don’t know the future.
Jane Hughson: If we deny this annexation, can they still build the road?
Answer: Yes. They would have to work with Caldwell County, and build it to Caldwell standards.
Jane Hughson: If we annex it in the future, we’d have to pay for the upgrade to San Marcos standards?
Answer: Yup.
Alyssa Garza breaks in: My spidy sense is telling me that Annie Donovan might have a useful point to make here.
(Citizens can’t talk during the discussion unless a councilmember calls them up.)
So Annie goes up to the podium, and says, “Franklin-Mountain already tried to build the road under Caldwell County standards. But Caldwell requires a full plat and all kinds of information that these guys won’t supply. So Caldwell wouldn’t grant them a permit. We’re their back up plan because we let them get away with anything.”
Isn’t that enlightening? Other counties don’t give freebie blank checks to developers like we’ve done! They require the developer to explain what they’re going to be doing to the land. Amazing.
Alyssa: Staff, do we even talk to Caldwell County about these things?
Answer: [Vague mushpot of an answer about Intralocal Agreements and whatnot.]
Jane: Why would trucks come down 1984 to get to SMART/Axis? This seems like an internal road to me.
(I don’t know why Jane thinks this. Look at the map:
Definitely not an internal road or dead end. Regular old two-way road from Hwy 1984 to Loop 110.)
Matthew Mendoza: I know 1984 very, very well. Been out there my whole life. My cousin was killed there. We have to do this, to make 1984 safer! I wish it weren’t so close to the houses. But this is so important.
Mark Gleason: Thoroughfares are good! I don’t like the proximity to the houses, but development is coming, so we should be the ones to do it. I’d like to talk directly to the developer, but they aren’t here. But yoo-hoo? If you could show up next time? That would help!
Usually developers send a representative to hearings, especially if it’s controversial like this. The representative would say sympathetic things to the neighbors, in a Bill Clinton “I feel your pain” kind of way. They can also answer questions and discuss compromises with city council. This is the bare minimum to pretending to care about the community.
These shmucks can’t clear that low bar. Mark Gleason wants to ask about the road moving, and maybe find a compromise with them, and so he is trying to alert them that they really should show up and field some questions.
Jane: I also don’t like proximity to houses. But when you think about it, isn’t a road just a different kind of buffer? What, otherwise they want some nasty industrial building in their backyard? This is a WIN!
Mark: I bike to Martindale. Highway 80 is wild in between 110 and 1984! Be forward thinking!
Alyssa: Could staff explain why this road is life-saving? Is that for real?
Answer: Well, it at least is good for traffic flow. Always better to have an alternate route in case of an accident!
Staff engineer: We like the San Marcos street and drainage standards better than the Caldwell standards. It’s also good to connect streets.
My thoughts:
First, the safety argument is worthless. This road will absolutely not make Highway 1984 safer. It will definitely increase traffic on 1984. There is no way there could possibly be less traffic on 1984.
Look, if you want to make 1984 safer, you do things like this:
There is nothing on there remotely related to our situation on that list.
This road is good for traffic flow! If Hwy 80 is backed up, people have a second route to get to I-35. But it is not good for safety.
…
Let’s be blunt: If SMART/Axis was a great project run by a transparent, forthcoming company, and everyone was thrilled about it, this road would be fine.
- People who are opposed to this road are really saying that they’re opposed to giving any ground to SMART/Axis.
- The question is: for the people in favor, are they toting water for SMART/Axis, or do they genuinely believe in the beauty of this road?
This meeting is just a first vote – there will be a second reading at the next meeting.
The Preliminary Vote:
Yes, I want this to come back next meeting: Jane Hughson, Mark Gleason, Jude Prather, Matthew Mendoza
No, shut it down: Saul Gonzales, Alyssa Garza, Shane Scott
I would have voted no, as a vote against SMART/Axis. In a different world with a different company, the road is probably fine.
….
Items 10,11, 12, 14, 15, 16: A whole bunch of utility stations and electric substations and things like that.
La Cima is getting a Pedernales Electric Station here:
That is just past the intersection where Old RR 12 meets New RR 12:
We’re annexing the electric Rattler substation here:
which is here:
We’re annexing the Guadalupe County Municipal Utility District No. 9, which is here:
And creating the new Sedona Municipal Utility District No. 1 here:
and we’re paying $3,218,046.00 to Payton Construction, Inc., for the Comanche Pump Station Improvements Project here:
Also we’re spending $2,340,876.46 for waterline construction along Staples Road.
…
Item 18: Hail damage
Apparently city cars had $1,483,482 worth of hail damage from the May 9th storm.
San Marcos is part of something called the TML Intergovernmental Risk Pool, where a bunch of cities all band up together, pay into a pool, and basically self-insure.
So our deductible is $25,000 to cover the $1.5 million in hail damage. Not bad.
The San Marxist 