The San Marxist

Hours 0:00 – 1:54, 8/20/24

August 25, 2024September 8, 2024 by The San Marxist, posted in Uncategorized

Citizen Comment:

A few main items:

Malachi Williams. (7 speakers)
SMART/Axis Terminal road annexation (3 speakers)
Some one-off topics: San Marcos Civics Club, ceasefire in Gaza, RFP for wastewater, council attentiveness to residents.

Let’s tackle the killing of Malachi Williams first. There have been some major developments – namely the grand jury declined to press charges against the officer, and so he’s not facing any legal repercussions. SMPD released the name of the officer who killed Williams, but no one else, and the bodycam video from that cop, but not the rest of the footage.

I get to go first, because this is my platform!

Listen: there’s a big gap between what’s legal and what’s moral.*

Here’s what’s legal: According to Chief Standridge, the cops followed de-escalation procedure in the convenience store. Then there was a footrace. Malachi Williams was holding knives, and headed through the HEB parking lot, and so the cop shot at him several times.

The grand jury did not indict the police officer. This is legal – it means they thought there was not enough evidence to convict the cop in court. And the grand jury is probably correct. The Supreme Court standard for cops is that they are allowed to shoot if they perceive a threat. That is a very low bar to clear, which is why it’s unlikely this officer would have been convicted. It is easy to believe that this officer will claim that he perceived a threat. Therefore he’s allowed to shoot and kill Malachi Williams.

This is all legal.

None of this is moral. As a society, we failed Malachi Williams in many, many ways. Long before the night of April 11th, we had set the stage for this, because we do not provide anywhere near enough investment in mental health services and housing for homeless people.

Once Malachi Williams is having a mental health crisis on April 11th, we sent police officers in blue uniforms. These officers may have been trained in current de-escalation techniques, but plainly that training is nowhere close to what this kid needs. Remember, Malachi Williams had been acting creepy, but not violent. He has not actually threatened anyone with a knife, or even been close enough to anyone to threaten them with a knife. Importantly, he does not have a gun.

Malachi Williams runs away. You run away when you’re scared. But the cops do not think of him as being scared. They think of him running towards HEB, with knives. They themselves are running towards HEB too, with guns.

Malachi, with knives, is considered a worse threat than a cop openly firing a gun in the HEB parking lot. Malachi’s life is not worth the extra police training that it would take for this officer to better understand how to handle this situation. That is not moral.

Ultimately, the only person who did anything violent is the police officer. Malachi Williams is now dead and his family are now left to grieve. This is a moral failing by the police department and the larger, complacent society.

Some good links:
– why police officers are rarely prosecuted
– how to think about police reforms
– Guiding Principles on Use of Force, with a whole section on both mental health and people with knives. (That is a police research group, and they argue that police should never need to shoot someone with a knife.)

Onto what the speakers say:

The grand jury is unnaccountable and secretive.
SMPD needs to release the full footage. Did the cops deliver immediate medical aid, like they’re legally bound to? [I am very interested to know this, too!]
One person (Sam Benavides) submitted a FOIA request for all footage. She was told that she needed to provide names of officers in order to get their body cam footage. Of course, the only name that has been released is the one officer that held the gun, so this is totally circular obfuscation.

A note about grand juries: proceedings are generally not released to the public, because it’s one-sided. The defense is not present, just the prosecutor. So it would be unfair to the defendant to release a one-sided story. However: this falls apart with police shootings, because the prosecutor can sandbag the proceedings, out of working so closely with the police. Independent prosecutors would help a lot with police accountability.

*hat tip to my friend for helping me with this framing.

Axis/SMART Terminal road

Just to refresh, here’s what we’re talking about:

It’s that dotted blue line between Loop 110 and Hwy 1984. Not the whole thing, just the right hand elbow of it:

Speakers brought some numbers from TxDot, CAMPO, and the Traffic Impact Analysis:

FM 1984 currently has 2380 cars per day
Hwy 80 has 17,400 cars per day
The new road is estimated to have 25,000 trucks per day.

So this is adding way more traffic to the surrounding roads.

Speakers also still want to know why the road moved – it used to be away from houses, and now it’s right by them. (We discussed this last time but didn’t get an answer.)

At the 3 pm meeting, the direct of of the San Marcos River Foundation (Virginia Parker) gave their two cents: they are in favor of the road annexation. They spoke to Caldwell County, who said that they’re stretched too thin to maintain the roads to San Marcos city standards. SMRF’s position is that it’s best for flooding if the city of San Marcos is responsible for maintaining the roads.

At the 6 pm meeting, it was pointed out that San Marcos can surely come up with a workaround there. We make deals all the time to deal with this sort of thing.

….

Onto the meeting!

Item 1: The SMART/Axis Right-of-way road is up first! (Background here.)

Aaaaaaand…… It got postponed. Womp-womp. Something was discussed during Top Secret Executive Session that made Mark Gleason want to do more research on the issue?

One off-topic comment: SMART/Axis’s whole shtick is that they can’t possibly give any details up front, because they don’t know who their tenants will be. Last year, they just want the whole thing annexed and zoned in one big blank-check chunk. They are still refusing to provide any details whatsoever.

This slide was shown during the presentation:

Wow, look at that magical exponential growth! In 20 years, their property will be worth $10 billion dollars! They may have make-believe tenants that they can’t yet explain to us, but they will definitely be wildly successful, and the city will swim like Scrooge McDuck in the tax windfall. Let’s make all these important decisions based on this Very Serious Graph of Reality.

…

Item 12: Intralocal Agreement with the Animal Shelter

Up till now, San Marcos has been running a regional animal shelter, and it’s too much. So we’re transferring responsibility to Hays County, and operating a local animal shelter just for the city, instead.

Hays County was maybe taken by surprise by this? It’s in their court now.

City Manager Stephanie Reyes has talked with the city managers in Buda and Kyle, and has requested a few things:

Hays County, Kyle, and Buda need to change their ordinances to match ours
They need to market animals at events
Consider participation with PALS to address pet overpopulation

Of course, these other jurisdictions could come back with amendments, which we’d consider. We’re not ordering them to adopt our version so much as asking them to consider this first version. But at some point, the ordinances need to match.

…

Item 16: School Resource Officers (SROs)

SROs are a joint collaboration between the city and the school district. This is the yearly re-upping of the contract.

There are a few proposed changes:

Maybe the contract should last two years, instead of one year?
Maybe the contract can be renewed by administrative approval, instead of coming to council?
(Some others, but these are the ones that got discussed.)

Alyssa Garza makes the case that it should be discussed every year. She’s actually mostly on board with the program, but says she’s only gotten to this place by having lots of detailed conversations every year.

Saul Gonzales agrees.

Jane Hughson also agrees, and adds that the renewal should really occur in the summer, before the new school year starts.

Mark Gleason and Matthew Mendoza are both peeved by the discussion.

Mark: we’re wasting everyone’s time! I just want to bring stability to the program!

Matthew: We should stay in our lanes! This is school board business!

(They both sure do have a lot more trust and faith in policing than I do.)

The vote: Should the contract last one year or two years?

One year: Shane Scott, Alyssa Garza, Jane Hughson, Saul Gonzales
Two years: Jude Prather, Mark Gleason, Matthew Mendoza

So it’ll be one year.

The vote: Should the contract come to council? Or can it be renewed by administration?

Council: Everybody except Jude Prather
Admin: Jude Prather

I’m going to call shenanigans on Jude Prather here. This boy recuses himself all the time. He recused himself during the animal shelter discussion ten minutes ago! He recused during a discussion on equity cabinets, the first Lindsey Street Apartments discussion, an environmental Interlocal Agreement with Texas State, and many others. Usually it’s because it involves Hays County, and he’s employed with Hays County, or it involves veterans, and he works with veterans, or it involves Texas State, and his wife works for Texas State. (It’s not a bad thing. He builds a fence around the law.)

Anyway, Jude has a legit conflict of interests on SROs – his wife is actually the director of the organization that trains SROs. This is a literal conflict of interest! He did not recuse himself.

It didn’t affect the vote, and Jude isn’t running for re-election, so I’m not too fussed. But it’s still a thing.

Overall vote to renew the SRO contract:

Yes: everyone
No: no one

Alyssa says it’s the first SRO contract she’s voted in favor of.

….

One more note: In years past, Max Baker and Alyssa Garza kept asking for the SRO survey data, and it never materialized.

This year, it was here! Good governance in action.

How do middle schoolers at Goodnight and Miller feel about cops in their schools?

How do SMHS students feel about cops in their schools?

How do middle and high school teachers feel about cops in their schools?

So there you have it!

Hours 1:54 – 5:32, 8/20/24

August 25, 2024 by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

Item 20: The Budget

This one item is nearly three hours long.

The budget is long and complicated. First off, city starts having workshops in January and runs them through the end of September, when they pass the budget.

These workshops are deathly boring and I am unable to sit through them. I’m sorry about this.

Notice that they present twice to the Neighborhood Commission:

heh. (via)

Anyway! Here are the strategic goals:

Sure, why not.

The budget is split across a bunch of different funds:

Each of those colored headers is a different fund. So you can see the General Fund on the left is the big one, and there are a lot of little ones as you move right.

Revenue

Last year, we took in $37 million in property tax, and $42 million in sales tax. So sales tax is huge for us.

The problem is that sales tax revenue took a big hit this spring:

I know that’s not very dramatic-looking. Here’s how they presented it over the summer:

They kinda know what went wrong now. Here’s the biggest sources of sales tax:

Basically, some of the top sales taxpayers had unusually high sales for the past few years, and now they’re reverting back to normal. But we had banked on those returns to keep increasing. Whoops. (I’m guessing it was post-covid supply chain kinks working themselves out, especially Matheus Lumber.)

We’re going to start a sales tax volatility fund to help hedge against this kind of fluctuation.

…

Most departments are going to have the same budget as last year. Since inflation is about 3% and the town is growing, that means they have to cover more ground with less money. So that sucks.

We’re doing a little hiring. These are the budget-neutral positions being added:

These are the ones that aren’t budget neutral:

…

I find it extremely hard to get a handle on the General Fund budget. So last year, I filed a FOIA to have them send me a list of how much each department gets from the General Fund.

This is what they sent me:

This is really helpful! This is how my brain works. That’s very clear to me.

What I plan on doing is put this side-by-side with next year’s proposed budget, so we can see what areas are growing and what is shrinking. (I filed a FOIA for the new one, but it’s still being processed.)

…

Another day, we should have a conversation on the $185K of seized assets, at the bottom of that chart. Seized asset forfeiture is wildly unethical! Have another link. It’s really bad.

Here’s what it says in the 24-25 budget:

There are not enough details on the $185K – what’s it being spent on? Was that all seized in San Marcos? Why is there a state and federal part? I have no idea.

….

Let’s talk about TIRZes. These also aren’t discussed much.

A TIRZ is a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones. What this means is that the taxes from those zones mostly go back to those zones. We have six of them, maybe?

The example you’ll hear about most often is the Mainstreet Downtown TIRZ, because we can all appreciate it. We all want a thriving downtown! Taxes from downtown stay downtown, to keep downtown nice and vibrant.

But let’s focus on the Kissing Tree TIRZ, instead. Here are the details from the 23-24 budget:

So San Marcos sent $1,288,406 of tax dollars back to this one single gated community last year. Did you enjoy a thriving Kissing Tree or a thriving downtown more? Which ones benefit all of San Marcos? Feel free to compare $1,288,406 to your favorite category in the General Fund, above.

The other TIRZes are Loop 110, the Downtown plan, the Embassy Suites Conference Center, and maybe Blanco Vista? I can’t tell if that one ended in 2022 or not.

This year’s budget does not have a TIRZ breakdown either, which I find annoying.

…

Let me be clear: city staff does an amazing job trying to clearly communicate the budget. No one is withholding anything maliciously.

I just think that the breakdown of the general fund is a bit of a blindspot. It would help if it were there.

Here’s the city budget webpage, if you’re curious to poke around yourself.

…

I’m skipping over a lot – there’s SO MUCH.

Utility rate increases are being discussed. It’s generally much wiser to raise rates by small amounts every year, rather than letting it accumulate and then needing a giant increase.

Alyssa Garza is opposed, out of economic concern for our neighbors. I think she’s wrong here. Starving your government is how you let capitalism run unfettered. Don’t be a shill for Reagan.

…

That said, we do have a utility assistance program. The DEI coordinator gives a presentation on it.

The city puts about $230K from various sources into utility assistance:

And here’s what we handed out:

There is lots of anecdotal evidence that we do a mediocre job connecting with community members who need help:

One thing that makes it complicated is that there are two kinds of people who need assistance.
– First, people who need wraparound services in lots of areas. These people benefit from filling out the mountain of paperwork needed for federal programs. Community Action does this.
– Second, people who just need a one-time boost to get out of a hard spot. These people benefit from a low-barrier process and quick payment, so that their utilities don’t get turned off.

There is going to be a work session to try to make all this more effective.

…

Final notes:

There’s some discussion on how the Airport has been in the red for a long time, but I can’t find this info in the slides.

As ARPA money comes to a close, we’ll have to pick up a bunch of slack in the budget next year. So more expenses are looming.

That’s the end of the three hour budget discussion!

…

But wait! There’s more!

Item 21: Setting the max tax rate for the new budget.

Background: here are some different tax rates:

That’s all just different vocabulary for levels of property tax rates. City Council can pick any number it wants, although if they go over 70.36 ¢, they’d have to get voter approval.

This whole budget above has been planned on the 60.3¢ number. Here’s how it would affect the budget if we raised or lowered the tax rate:

The 60.3¢ rate is the same rate as last year. Of course, if your home value goes up, then your taxes go up, even if the rate stays the same.

Home values really have shot up:

So how much more is the average home owner paying?

If Council goes with the 60.3¢ rate, the average homeowner will pay $164 more this year, or $14/month.

My prediction: The next few meetings will see a lot of focus on home owners in poverty, and whether its fair to ask them to pay $14 more per month. Some considerations:

Most people in poverty do not own homes. But there are definitely some, and they deserve compassion. However, they’re likely to own less expensive homes. So if $14/month is the average increase, maybe for a homeowner in poverty, it’s more like maybe $10/month.
Focusing on home owners in poverty allows us to avoid a conversation about wealthy home owners.

Today: just setting a ceiling. What’s the upper bound for the tax rate this year? (This is just a weird Texas quirk.)

The vote to set the maximum at 60.3¢:

I have no idea why Shane voted no.

…

Item 26: We’re giving Southside $800K to Southside from ARPA money to implement the Homelessness plan.

Over the summer, we fronted them $50K to come up with a working plan, which they’re now presenting. It’s really thorough! Unfortunately, the slides aren’t in the packet, so I’m relying on screenshots.

The three strategies:

Stop the growth
Improve existing systems through effectiveness and efficiencies
Expand Capacity

Honestly, I’m not an expert, but she sounded way better than Robert Marbut. Feel free to listen, starting at about 4:56 here.

These are just some of the slides:

” – We will hold a community-based network to help neighbors in need.
– We will use best practices and data-driven decisions to guide our work
– We will implement collaborative technologies to support coordinated services
– We will honor the humanity and dignity of all people and help the entire community to thrive”

Target population: Those experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness

San Marcos resident families at risk or experiencing homelessness for the first time
Those with a recurring situation
Individuals at risk or experiencing homelessness for the first time, or in an episodic manner.

Key Deliverables:

Activate a network of community partners and volunteers to help neighbors in need
Develop a homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing framework
Implement coordinated entry processes for easier access to services
Establish standard intake procedures for streamlined client onboarding and information sharing
Implement a client management system, like HMIS, for secure data storage and reporting

So you don’t want homeless people having to supply data and information to a dozen different people in order to get help. You want to get someone in the system one single time, and then let the providers talk to each other and coordinate a response to get help to that person.

It sounds like we’re going to use HMIS:

A big piece of this is stabilizing people who are right on the brink of becoming homeless, or who just went through a crisis:

They’ve already started on this:

It’s just an extremely complicated problem that requires lots of human scale collaboration to put all this together.

One big piece of this is expanding capacity – we literally need more beds.

Again, it’s probably worth it just to listen for yourself. I’m struggling after a long meeting here.

….

After this, Council zips through a ton of items super quickly:

Whisper North and South, and Trace all get their annual thumbs-up. (Whisper North and South are giant planned neighborhoods on the east side of 35, at Yarrington Road. Trace is down south, past the outlet malls, also east of I35. These are all PIDs: Public Improvement Developments. It’s similar to a TIRZ. This is where my knowledge ends. Maybe they’re smaller? idk.)
The Intralocal Agreement with CARTS to provide transit in San Marcos gets re-upped for another year. Also one with the university.
Something something new roles on the Finance and Audit committee, we’re all pretty drowsy at this point. Shane Scott tries to kill off the whole Finance and Audit committee, but its very existence was not on the agenda, so he’s stymied.

That’s about it!

August 5th City Council Meeting

August 11, 2024 by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

Aaaaaannd we’re back! Kicking the new season off hard with some SMART/Axis gobbledy-gook. Plus CBDG money, Hays County Health Department, and the last of the Covid money.

Elections:

Things have actually gotten less exciting – Jane Hughson’s one competitor has withdrawn from the race. So we have three races, each with one candidate running unopposed.

Mayor: Jane Hughson
Place 5: Griffen Spell
Place 6: Maraya Dunn

The last day to register to run is Monday, August 19th! This is where you can check if anyone has signed up.

Onto the meeting!

Hours 0:00 – 2:19: Distributing CDBG money, and the SMART/Axis monster is back in full force.

Bonus! 3 pm workshops: We hear from the Hays County Health Department, and the last bit of Covid money is getting doled out.

That’s all I got. Smell ya later, kids.

Hours 0:00 – 2:19, 8/5/24

August 11, 2024September 8, 2024 by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

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:

Original on left, new version on the right.

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:

From the Department of Transportation, here.

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.

Bonus! 3 pm workshops, 8/5/24

August 11, 2024August 11, 2024 by The San Marxist, posted in 3 pm Workshops

Presentation 1: Hays County Health Department

I assume all you readers here already agree that health care should be free. Americans pay way too much for way too little, for vague reasons about “freedom”, as if anyone is excited about the freedom to be sick or die early.

Everyone deserves affordable health care, as a basic right. Great.

Here’s a second reason that health care should be free and universal: you need a coordinated response in order to launch the best fight against contagious diseases. Do we really want each person to get sick with tuberculosis and see if they can recover, with good old fashioned rugged individualism? Or do we want tuberculosis to actually be eradicated, for everyone, like a bunch of dirty socialists? Maybe grandma doesn’t need to hack up a lung in the first place.

This is what we mean by public health: often it’s better for everybody when everybody gets basic health care. It’s better for rich people, when poor people aren’t sick! Seems basic, but it’s mindblowing if you’re used to punishing poor people for being poor.

So we have a Hays County Health Department.

What’s the need like in Hays County? Well, first, we keep growing:

Second, we’re in need:

Some notes:

1. San Marcos has about 70K people, and Hays County has about 269K people. So the poverty rate is only 12.4% for all of Hays County, because there’s a lot of wealth in the north and west parts of Hays County.

Most of the poverty is concentrated in San Marcos and Kyle. The poverty rate in San Marcos is about 27%.

2. Let’s just note that the poverty rate is 12.4%, but unemployment is only 3%. Can you believe that we allow companies to hire people without paying them a living wage? Me neither.

You’d think we’d be storming the castle over this kind of exploitation, but instead we all just wake up in this world every day, as usual, stressed out over our meager salaries.

3. That housing crisis is a disaster. Spending half of your meager income on housing is no joke.

“TVFC” is Texas Vaccines for Children. “ASN” is …American Supplemental Nutrition? American Nephrology Society? Autonomous System Number? I got nothing.

“TB” is definitely tuberculosis, and we definitely do not want TB cases to be rising.

The presenter stopped and talked about syphilis for a little bit. It is definitely on the rise in Hays County, across all age groups, ethnicities, and economic classes.

Here’s statewide syphilis data:

from here. (The linked report focuses on women, because one of the worst risks is congenital birth defects if she has a baby.)

In conclusion: the health department does a lot on a shoestring budget, but they could do a lot more if the state funded public health like we should.

……………….

Presentation 2: American Rescue Plans (ARPA) money and Covid Relief money.

Covid money is running out. It has to all be budgeted by this December, and it has to all be spent by the end of 2025. We started with $22 million, and we’re down to about $1 million. Most of that is because of projects that came in under budget.

Here’s how staff is recommending we spend the money:

The LCRA tower is a bargain that came out of nowhere. It’s to give radio access to fire/EMS/etc on the southeast side of town. It was going to cost $4-5 million, but in the last moment, we looped in Guadalupe County and some other partners. So the fire chief Chief Stevens is a big advocate for that.

Jane Hughson asks about the running list of side-projects that council keeps, to be funded whenever we stumble into some money. Staff does not have that list available.

Alyssa Garza asks about some of the programs she’s tried to fund with ARPA money, where money never seems to materialize in a meaningful way. Specifically, funding for the Parent-Liaison SMCISD program and translation services. In both cases, money has gone to the program, but not in a way that addresses things well. Like, it’s all well and good to translate the website, but we’re not making events bilingual and bringing parity into public spaces.

Alyssa points out that the whole Council is being steamrolled into saying yes, for the tower they’ve never heard of before. Chief Stevens pleads that the stars aligned in a special way.

I get what Alyssa is saying: this is part of a larger pattern. Whose priorities get fast-tracked and whose priorities limp along, half-heartedly? The tower is not a bad project! It’s just a convenient example of a problematic, ongoing pattern.

Yearly Clean-up, Summer ’23-Summer ’24

August 4, 2024August 4, 2024 by The San Marxist, posted in yearly summary

Hello everyone! Council is back from summer vacation and gearing up for their first meeting on ~~Tuesday~~. [Edit: First meeting is actually tomorrow, on Monday.] In the meantime, this is an organizational timeline post of Fall 23-Spring 24. So a little dull? Next week we’ll be back to normal.

Some notes:

1. As far as I can tell, Council hasn’t posted meeting minutes in two years, since May 2022. What’s up with that?!

2. Election season is ramping up! There are three positions up for election:

Mayor: Jane Hughson is the current mayor, running for re-election for her fourth term. She’s got one candidate running against her so far, a guy named Bill Miller. I don’t know anything about him yet, except that I’m pretty sure he’s not the barbecue restaurant Bill Miller.)

Seat 5: Mark Gleason has decided not to run again. So this is an open seat. So far, Griffen Spell has filed to run.

Seat 6: Jude Prather has also decided not to run again! Another open seat. Maraya Dunn has filed to run.

The last day for candidates to register is Monday, August 19th, so there’s plenty of time for anyone mulling it over. I’ll be covering the debates and other election-related shenanigans here.

One last thing: never forget that San Marcos city council elections are problematic! We structure things in an especially crappy way.

…

Onto the yearly recap!

August 2023

First meeting

CBDG money is awarded out.
City curfew officially killed dead, by state regulations
New zoning: “Business Park”
Contaminants from old dry cleaners on S. Guadalupe Street

Second meeting

Interlocal Transit agreement with Texas State to share busses

September 2023

First meeting

Tax rate and budget debate, part 1
Full implementation of Trap/Neuter/Release for cats (ending the five day hold)

Second meeting

Tax rate debate and final vote on the budget
The gutted version of VisionSMTX comes up for a the first reading
San Marcos sells Edwards Aquifer water to Kyle
Updates to the Land Development Code; Matthew Mendoza reopens the fight to limit housing to two unrelated people.
SPMD body cams
First mention of a can ban.

October 2023

First meeting

Airport zonings to prevent tall buildings around flightpaths
Land Development Code updates: keeping occupancy restrictions at 3 people instead of 2 barely squeaks by.
- For: Shane Scott, Alyssa Garza, Jude Prather, Mark Gleason
- Against: Jane Hughson, Matthew Mendoza, Saul Gonzales
Lindsay Street Apartments floated for the first time.
First mention of CM Allen parks debate

Second meeting

Biden Bus lawsuit settled
First vote on VisionSMTX++
Downtown area plan heats up with the CM Allen district debate – should we expand the parks towards downtown?
Candidate debates summary

November 2023

First meeting

Little retirement village out on 123 and Wonderworld
VisionSMTX++ gets postponed. (Still has not come up for a final vote.)
Downtown Plan: controversial CM Allen part gets carved off, noncotroversial part is passed.
Police get BolaWraps
Program to give vacant buildings a facelift
Workshop on tourism and overuse of the river

Second meeting

Purgatory Creek Flood Control project
Reduction of LIHTC housing requirements from 25% to 15%
Compensation study for city staff

December 2023

First meeting

Human Services Advisory Board (HSAB) money is allocated to out to local nonprofits
Can Ban discussion

Second meeting

Flood mitigation projects
Human Services Advisory Board (HSAB) funding policy

January 2024

First Meeting

Gateway signs
Decision to have a community feedback survey for VisionSMTX++
Hammering out details of the can ban

Second Meeting

parking fees updated
Updating short-term rental rules
My cheatsheet for the VisionSMTX++ survey

February 2024

First meeting

New gas station near the high school
First vote on can ban in river parks
PDDs are being brought back

Second meeting

Dunbar/Heritage area plans get split into separate plans
LIHTC project in Blanco Gardens
First vote on Buccee’s
Final vote on the can ban

March 2024

First meeting

Final vote on Buccee’s
P&Z partially approves Lindsey Street apartments

Second meeting

Annexing Quail Creek
Fake-low income housing by the high school
Lindsey street apartments get major conversation, but no votes
Discussion on new Short Term Rental regulations

April 2024

First meeting

Citizen comments on resolution for Gaza ceasefire starts ramping up
Five hours of discussion on Lindsay Street Apartments, and some of the votes
New drought stages are proposed

Second meeting

New short-term rental regulations approved
New drought stages approved
Another 3 hours of Lindsay Street Apartment discussions, and eventual approval

May 2024

First meeting

Extensive citizen comments on killing of Malachi Williams and Gaza ceasefire resolution
Selling water to Kyle again, until ARWA water comes online
Speed cushions in Blanco Gardens
Larger region for scooter rentals

Second meeting

Two more LIHTC projects
Chapter 380 agreement for Project Snapdragon
Clean up after May 9th storm
Our budget is not doing well

June 2024

Only one meeting

Large number of speakers on Malachi Williams and the ceasefire resolution again
CBDG grants, first reading

July 2024

Only one meeting

Citizen comment focuses on Malachi Williams, including a response from the city manager
One more LIHTC project
SMART/Axis is coming back around, somewhat
Council has discussion on whether there are too many LIHTC projects now.
Presentation on the path forward for a new city hall building

July 2nd City Council Meeting

July 7, 2024 by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

Hello from the dregs of summer! Council meets once in July, and you lucky duck: it was this week. Lots of talk about low-income housing, we hear from the city on Malachi Williams, Dunbar is getting some new pipes, and Mano Amiga is taking on Civil Service. Plus some new City Hall details are materializing.

Let’s do this:

Hours 0:00 – 1:32: Malachi Williams, a new LIHTC project, and some smaller items

Hours 1:32 – 2:23: Mano Amiga submits an unsuccessful petition to repeal Civil Service, and we talk about LIHTC projects a lot.

Bonus! 3 pm workshops: Where are we going to build the new city hall? And fixing the sidewalks.

That’s it for July! Regular meetings resume in August. Enjoy your summer.

Hours 0:00 – 1:32, 7/2/24

July 7, 2024July 7, 2024 by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

First off: it was Laurie Moyer’s last meeting, after 36 years with the city. Mostly she’s done engineering-ish things, but also some City Manager-ish things. She took all these great City Hall photos on her road trip last year. Congrats to her!

Citizen comment:

Two people – Noah Brock and Annie Donovan – talked about the latest iteration of SMART/Axis hijinks. I’ll save their comments for that section.
Two people called for a resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza.
The San Marcos Civics Club, and how Council passively assumes they can’t solve city problems
Mano Amiga’s petition to repeal Civil Service. I’ll save these details for later, too.
Finally, the killing of Malachi Williams by the SMPD officer on April 11th. (Discussed previously here, here, and here.)

To recap, the family of Malachi Williams has been asking for:
1. Release the name and badge ID number of the officer that killed Malachi Williams
2. The officer should be placed on leave while the investigation is ongoing.
3. The family should be able to view all officer and storefront footage, with a lawyer present.

Malachi’s grandfather spoke eloquently. This has happened before. But then the City Manager Stephanie Reyes spoke, which is new.

Here’s what Stephanie Reyes says:
– Video material is available for the family to view along with their attorney. It’s at the Hays District Attorney’s office.
– The DA says that neither the family nor their attorney has reached out to view the footage.
– The DA is waiting to discuss how much of the video the family can watch.
– Because this has been so awful, Chief Standridge is putting together an SMPD Crisis Communication Policy for future incidents.
– the DA Kelly Higgins weighed in on the policy. He has concerns about any public release of video while the investigation is ongoing. He wants videos to be withheld until after a grand jury has reviewed the matter.
– the DA knows that the family needs answers. State code authorizes the DA to let the family watch the video. He’s open to conversation with the family.

(I would like a universal policy that applies to all situations. When an officer is killed by a civilian, how quickly does the family see the videos?)

Next Malachi Williams’ grandfather speaks again, which is usually not allowed. “What we have been offered has not had much substance to it. We have not had a fair offer. There’s been an offer, but it’s not fair.”

Alyssa Garza asks, “Was the family offered the entire videos? All the body camera footage?”

Chief Standridge comes up. “The DA and I are offering the family all the body cam footage. But we are not offering the store’s videos. The DA has not agreed to release that. The DA and I will let them see still photos from the store. But the DA has not agreed to store footage.”

After that, the grandfather has a lot of questions and frustration. Council was not really allowed to respond, legally. They redirect him to the DA. He’s already interacted with the DA and is entirely fed up with him.

It ends in a tense place.

…

Item 23: Another LIHTC project!

LIHTC projects are low-income apartment complexes which don’t pay local property taxes. We’ve seen two others recently here. (LIHTC stands for Low Income Housing Tax Credits.)

Where’s this one?

And here’s a close up:

They’re planning on having 304 units. How affordable will these be?

In other words, this is 46 units for low-income community members, and 258 for regular community members. (The median income in San Marcos is $47,394 a year, so 85% of these units are regular old market rate apartments.)

Okay, fine. How much is this costing us?

The estimated loss in tax revenue is $3 million over 15 years, or $200K per year. They’re softening that by giving us a one-time $400K payment.

What other services are there going to be?

[Technical note: There’s some mucking about with the number of 3-bedroom apartments. This complex only has half as many as the city San Marcos requires for LIHTC developments. However, there’s a letter from the Housing Authority about the different waitlists for 1, 2, and 3-bedroom apartments, and 3 bedroom apartments are not in demand as much as 1 and 2, so it’s fine.]

Jane Hughson has some questions:
– Did this area flood in 2015?
Answer: yep. But the buildings weren’t TOO badly damaged.
– Will the complex provide residential shuttles?
Answer: nope. It’s right on a bus line.
– Will the units have individual washer and dryer units?
Answer: yep.
– Will they have education, services, and after-school tutoring?
Answer: yep.

Alyssa: I’ve heard complaints about restrictions and racially biased access to facilities. How do you make sure that doesn’t happen?
Answer: We partner with Asset Living. They staff everything and report to us monthly. If something isn’t getting used, we ask them to advertise it.

[I am extremely curious about the complaints of racially-biased access to facilities.]

The vote: Passes 7-0.

However: Council is going to have big conversation about LIHTC projects in general, at the end of this meeting. Stay tuned.

….

Items 23-24: Kissing Tree

Kissing Tree is the senior community, way down on Hunter Road and Centerpoint.

Kissing Tree is a TIRZ. This means they pay taxes, but the taxes don’t go to the city’s General Fund. Instead they get funneled to side projects that benefit Kissing Tree – mostly building out the public roads and utilities that run through Kissing Tree. It’s not wasted money, but it doesn’t go to libraries, parks, firefighters, etc.

Costs have gone up and the assessed value of Kissing Tree has gone up, so they’re re-jiggering all the TIRZ numbers:

This is probably all fine! Before we had estimated that we were sending $32 million over to the Kissing Tree for roads and pumps and parks, and now we’re sending $46 million over.

Over 15 years, we’re keeping $5 million and giving $46 million back.

Let’s compare this to the LIHTC Project above! In that one, we’re keeping $400K and sending $3 million back.

So to be stark about it:

The LIHTC project is giving us 13% of their estimated property taxes and using the rest to subsidize rents on low-income apartments.
Kissing Tree is giving us 10% of their estimated property taxes taxes, and using the rest on local roads and utilities.

Guess which project makes Mark Gleason uncomfortable? The big reveal later on will not surprise you at all.

….

Item 2: SMART Terminal/Axis Logistics

The SMART/Axis people want San Marcos to annex about 7.5 acres of land for a road and right-of-way.

Quick backstory (Read more here.)

In January 2023, Council signed a development agreement with SMART/Axis people. Back then, these agreements happened in one single council meeting, and barely anyone had to be notified. So Council approved a gigantic fucking 2000 acre industrial park without public input and barely any details, and everyone got super angry about it.

2000 acres is very big:

Like, REALLY big:

The people who live out this way were absolutely livid. But the development agreement was already signed.

The next step of the process was for SMART/Axis to apply for a zoning change to Heavy Industrial and get annexed into the city.

What they could have done was meet with the neighborhoods nearby, provide details of the project, build relationships and be good neighbors. Instead, they met with the neighborhoods and generally acted like supercilious pricks who couldn’t be bothered. The surrounding community got more and more furious, and launched a major activist campaign against the project.

Eventually SMART/Axis withdrew their zoning and annexation request. That was last summer. Since then, it’s been quiet.

Here’s my best guess: SMART/Axis didn’t want to share any details because they didn’t have any yet. They literally want free reign to do whatever they want on this land. They came off as supercilious pricks because they are supercilious pricks. They assumed San Marcos is a backwater rural town that will fawn over fancy business men and give them whatever they want, in hopes of some dollar bill scraps. City Council was happy to play their role!

…

That brings us to today – should San Marcos annex some land and build a road along the side of the land?

First off: Nothing happens today. We are just picking dates for the public hearing and final vote.

However, let’s do some speculation! This is brought to you by Noah Brock and Annie Donovan, during Citizen Comment. (They spearheaded the public campaign against SMART/Axis last year.)

Here’s the case that Noah and Annie are building:

Is this a major change or a minor change? If it’s a major change, the development agreement needs to be amended. That’s a much bigger deal. (The city is saying this is a minor change.)
Originally, the roads lined up with the end of Quail Run. That was the edge of the whole project. But since then, the developer has bought more property, and asked Caldwell County to move some roads over.
It seems clear that they’re expanding the project beyond the development agreement, and this new land is right next to a residential area.
This new ROW annexation is consistent with a bigger, changing project.

The basic problem is that SMART/Axis people are super secretive and seem to want to walk all over us. Maybe they’re sweet little bunnies at heart, or maybe they want to do some toxic battery mining or who knows what. They act like shitty neighbors every time they have a chance to right the narrative.

…

Today’s vote was just to set the dates, and here they are:

Public hearing will be on August 5th
Final vote will be on August 20th

….

Item 25: Dunbar is getting some new pipes!

We’re spending $6 million on water and wastewater improvements here:

If you go here and scroll to Dunbar Water and Wastewater Improvements, you can keep an eye on the project.

Supposedly will be done by August 2026. So at least two years of dug up streets and annoying construction, but with a worthwhile payoff.

…

Item 27: Installing sports lighting on six soccer fields at Five Mile Dam.

This money was authorized awhile ago, this is just the contract to make it happen. It’s about $1.3 million.

Hours 1:32 – 2:23, 7/2/24

July 7, 2024November 23, 2024 by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

Item 28: Petition to repeal the Police Officer’s Civil Service Law

This was very hard to follow. Here’s my best guess:

Backstory:
In 2022, Mano Amiga organized a petition to repeal and renegotiate the city contract with the PD union. (“Meet and Confer” is the contract process.) They were successful! But then the city sandbagged the renegotiation process. There were some small but meaningful changes, and some cosmetic changes, and then the new contract was signed.

This time: Mano Amiga organized a different petition, to repeal Civil Service.

So what is Civil Service? It’s a State of Texas thing. It’s the basic “framework for the hiring, promotion and discipline of police officers and fire fighters”. So when the city negotiates the contract with the police union (SMPOA), everyone starts with Civil Service, and then negotiates on top of that.

However, cities don’t have to start with Civil Service. You can repeal it and start some other way. So this is what Mano Amiga wants to do. (I don’t know what their strategy or end game is here. I’m sure they’d explain when they launch a public campaign, though.)

Here’s how you repeal Civil Service. It’s long and confusing:

And what happened is that the city rejected the petition. Mano Amiga submitted a petition with 850 signatures, which is enough to adopt Civil Service (per Part B), but not enough to repeal Civil Service (per part E).

Mano Amiga is angry because they say the city waited until the last minute to tell them their petition wasn’t valid. But they vowed to fire it up again, and get enough signatures for the next cycle.

…

Item 29: Funding for low-income housing. (LIHTC tax credits)

Mayor Hughson and Mark Gleason had a conversation. Mark went to Jane and said, “We’re spending all this money on LIHTC Housing, and it’s not just this year. It’s not just the next 15 years. It’s decades and decades to come! This is fiscally irresponsible!” Are we being too helpful to poor people?!?

Jane thought he had a good point. We need money for core services! What if the LIHTC tax credits are ruining everything? It’s worth taking a look at.

Hoo boy. Okay, we have to unpack this. Here’s our plan:

How much money are we spending on low-income housing?
Is this a lot, or a little?
How much more low-income housing do we need?
What did Council have to say?
What are we doing next?

Here we go!

1. How much money are we spending on low-income housing?

In 2022, we started requiring LIHTC applications to include a tax estimate. The first application that includes this is in February 2024. So let’s start there.

February 2024: Existing LIHTC housing in Blanco Gardens reapply for state funding.
Cost to city: $0. Not asking for local tax exemptions.
Units provided: 40 of 54 units are Section 8 housing.
March 2024: Fake affordable housing near the high school
Cost: $0. Not asking for local tax exemptions.
Units provided: 0 for low-income residents.
May 2024: Behind Target, by the railroad tracks
Estimated tax credit: $7,262,589 over 18 years. (I’m going to scale this to $6,052,158 over 15 years.)
Units provided: 34 low income units
May 2024: By Centerpoint, on the railroad tracks
Estimated tax credit: $4,000,000 over 15 years
One time rebate: $400K
Units provided: 55 low income units
July 2024: Earlier in this very meeting, on Aquarena Springs
Estimated tax revenue: $3,207,000 over 15 years
One time rebate: $400K
Units provided: 46 low income units

Summary: Three developments have applied for tax credits for the city. The total cost is $13,259,157.5 over 15 years, for 135 low-income apartments in those three developments.

This works out to $883K per year. Per apartment, we are knocking $550 off of the monthly rent.

Next question!

2. Is $883K in tax credits a lot, or a little?

Kinda both? Here’s some context from our yearly General Fund budget:

Yearly General Fund budget:
– The total General Fund budget is $109 million this year.
– SMPD get $24.5 million
– Fire Dept gets $17.6 million
– Economic Development gets $2.9 million
– Library gets $2.1 million
– Animal Shelter gets $1.6 million
– ~~Parks Department get $850K~~ [Parks Dept gets $6.8 million. I misread the budget at first! Sorry about that.]
– Social services get $550K.
– The arts get $85K

I just grabbed a few useful categories. You can read all you want here.

So we are spending more on the LIHTC projects than we are on the arts or social services. Those combined are about 0.5% of the yearly budget.

We are spending much less on LIHTC projects than we do on SMPD, the Fire Department, and economic development. Those three categories combined are about 41.2% of the yearly budget.

My guess is that LIHTC projects come out of the $2.9 million for economic development. That money is supposed to create jobs. The thing that bothers Mark Gleason is that LIHTC projects don’t create jobs the way Buccee’s creates jobs. (Kissing Tree also doesn’t create jobs the way Buccee’s creates jobs. Kissing Tree is more like a LIHTC project in this way.)

Next! The three LIHTC projects just kind of came up spontaneously during the last couple meetings, and took everyone by surprise. What are some similar comparisons?

The other things that Council approved at this meeting alone:*
– $46 million over 15 years on roads and utilities in Kissing Tree. That works out to $3 million per year.
– $6 million on water and wastewater for Dunbar over 2 years. That works out to $3 million per year.
– $1.3 million on lighting for soccer fields at Five Mile Dam.
– $330K to update the Airport Master Plan
– $430K in a wastewater treatment agreement with McCoy’s
– $125K with Titan Utilities
– Two different Utilities trucks totalling $660K
– Energy management contract for $135K
– $480K for lawns and beds of city buildings
– $439K for Hull Street Stormwater improvements
– $215K on tree removal from the storm
– $432K on health care contracts

So those are the kinds of amounts we spend all the time, and Mark Gleason does not clutch his pearls.

Look, $883K is a fair amount of money! It is worth planning in advance and being intentional with how we spend it, so that we can best serve our community. Right now we’re approving projects on an ad hoc basis, and so there is room for improvement.

However: Kissing Tree is not put under a microscope. There are never any 5 or 10 year updates for Development Agreements where we give tax credits to private companies. SMPD’s budget is not put under a microscope.

It is always, always the programs that help poor and vulnerable people that make Council say, “I dunno, they might be wasting this shiny nickel we’re giving them. Let’s do a deep dive!”

…………..

Next!

3. How much more low-income housing do we need?

We don’t know! In 2018, we undertook a giant housing affordability project.

As of 2017, this was the housing need in San Marcos:

In 2019, Council killed the whole thing off. Years of effort and nothing was ever adopted to help create affordable housing.

In 2023, city staff gave Council a workshop on housing, and recommended that Council resume this project. As far as I know, they have not done this.

Bottom line: in 2017, we had a shortfall of 4233 rental units for all households earning under $35K. This whole conversation is about 135 apartments. We need a lot more affordable housing than that.

LIHTC projects really are too expensive to be the only way we build affordable housing. (Fortunately, there are cheaper things that San Marcos could do! Like allowing ADUs and duplexes everywhere. But I digress.)

….

4. What did Council have to say?

Jane Hughson:
– We are not receiving enough tax dollars to support the services (library, police and fire, etc) going to these projects.
– We need the housing, though.
– Are these San Marcos residents? Or outsiders? I’m frustrated with outsiders.

Shane: How much sales tax revenue do they bring in?
Jane: The people would be paying sales tax either way.

Jude:
– We should update the formula for the proportion of 1,2, and 3 bedroom units that we require.
– We should require cash back, and make a formula for the cash back amount they owe us
– But LIHTC projects are still good, they increase housing!

Stephanie Reyes: I’d like to get a demographer to look at how much low income housing we need.

Saul: These LIHTC projects make taxes are higher on everyone else!! We should have a moratorium on LIHTC projects.

Matthew: Can a development be half-LIHTC?
Answer: not really.

Jane: Other cities give density bonuses and have inclusive housing incentives. Can we do that?
Answer: We already offer these. Since 2018. But we can’t get anyone to take us up on them.
Jane: Not to say I told you so, but we could have done this on Lindsey Street.

Mark Gleason: I have so much budget angst. It’s not just this year – we’re giving away tax dollars for decades to come! It’s not just 15 years. It’s 20! And 30! Decades to come!

[Mark! No. That last bit is nonsense. Nothing automatically extends more than 15 years. Everything will be renegotiated at the end of the contract. Stop hyperventilating.]

More Mark: We have to diversify the economy here! We need more data! I cannot approve any more of these without data!

Alyssa, speaking the truth: Can we do this conversation more productively? Instead of focusing on revenue loss, let’s focus on maximizing benefit to community members.

Jane: I just want clarity on how much we’re spending. And also, how can we bring in more jobs?

Shane: The housing waitlist is like a year long. Doesn’t that establish residency?

…

5. What are we doing next?

In the end, they decide that the housing committee will look closely at the housing policy, and then they’ll hold a workshop. They’re particularly concerned with:

How many total LIHTC projects do we have, and what’s the estimated taxes on all of them?
How many low income projects do our peer cities have, per capita?
Can we re-evaluate how many 1,2,3-bedroom apartments are required?
Can we formalize the rebate formula? Can we require rebates?
Can we do a needs assessment survey?
Rebate money should not go to the general fund. Can it be used in an intentional way?

Alyssa requests that our DEI Coordinator be present at the committee meeting. This is a very smart idea. She also recommends this resource for background reading.

…

Look: There is nothing wrong with those actual bullet points. It is good to review our LIHTC policy and see how it can be improved.

But the whole vibe is, “ACK! We’re spending so much money on poor people housing!” and it sets my teeth on edge.

If Council were serious about housing affordability, they would dust off the Housing Action Plan, update it, and implement it. Instead, we get Mark Gleason huffing over $13 million dollars to poor people, while sweetly handing Kissing Tree $46 million without blinking.

* NOTE: I updated this list because I forgot about the Consent Agenda. Originally I pulled amounts from the most recent few meetings, but I realized there were way more examples than I originally thought.

Bonus! 3 pm workshops, 7/2/24

July 7, 2024 by The San Marxist, posted in 3 pm Workshops

Presentation 1: New City Hall Project

The city needs a new City Hall. (Discussed here and here.)

Laurie Moyer was handling the new City Hall project, but she is retiring. The new person basically gave a presentation to introduce herself and pitch how she sees things unfolding.

Here’s what she was handed:

In other words, City Hall is going here:

across the street from Old City Hall.

So apparently this location is settled? I don’t know how I feel about this. I also have concerns about what might happen to the old site.

However: they’ll need voter approval in 2025 to re-purpose park land as City Hall, so I guess we’ll be hearing some sales pitches. In the end, the voters will decide whether or not it sounds ok.

The new person is imagining making a whole Hopkins Project out of it:

Parts of this sound good to me!

I like the idea that Hopkins could look more like CM Allen.

P3 means “Public-Private Partnership”. This part is inevitable because the city doesn’t think that the voters would pass a bond in an election. So they want to bring in private partnerships. (More things that I feel weird about.)

This whole thing will take forever to complete. If the stars align, it will take seven years.

…

Presentation #2: It’s Sidewalk Maintenance time!

Here’s the game plan:

Here’s what’s coming up in 2025:

or if you prefer a chart:

Would you like to play along at home, over the next year? Go here:

www.sanmarcostx.gov/306/StreetsSidewalks

Would you like YOUR pet peeve to be selected for a project in 2026?

Would you like some more photos?

here you go. Enjoy!