Author: The San Marxist

July 6th City Council Meeting, (Part 2)

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

The next recurring theme was a large amount of money to be allocated, across different items.

  • Items 35-36, $9 million from American Rescue Plan Fund (and it sounds like there will be 9 million more, next summer.)
  • Item 40, $800K in CBDG proposals for the 21-22 fiscal year
  • Item 41, $1 million in utility assistance

So these were quite a lot of fun – feeling flush with cash and able to grant all the wishes to all these nonprofits. Down with austerity and belt-tightening!

  1. On the first, the American Rescue Plan Fund:

– they argued about whether tourism and marketing should get quite such a big cut. It seems that this sector is limited in where they can seek funds, and they did take quite a hit during COVID. But maybe not quite as much as was proposed. ($282K)

– they argued a bit about Briarwood, a neighborhood outside of city limits that suffers severe flooding, in part because of how San Marcos has been developing. There’s a 2.5 million stormwater mitigation project there. They managed to thread the needle on that one – postpone it by three months and fund it from several spots.

– A lot of small projects got some money: Southside Community Center, bilingual outreach and communications, KZSM, vaccination outreach, Nosotros la Gente, which provides shoes for local kids. Good feelings all around.

2. On the CBDG funds, nearly everything got funded besides Roland Saucedo’s proposal, which is seeemingly why they chipped in for him in the previous funds.

3. The Utility Assistance fund is interesting. They’ve paid out about 20% of what’s available, and they’re all concerned that people aren’t applying. City staff was put on the defensive about their outreach efforts.

– Everyone who is past due gets a letter with info on how to apply. If the city has an email address, they send an email too.
– The city has reached out to the Food Bank and SMCISD.
– The application was made fairly short – just one page.
– Disconnections have been suspended during the pandemic, but there will be a date set to resume disconnections.

Criticisms:

– how about going through the churches? Commissioner Gonzalez says that he has to KEEP directing city to this and they never do.
– Commissioner Gleason, Commissioner Derrick, and Mayor Hughson all feel like until you send them notice of disconnection, no one will be very motivated to apply.
– Commissioner Garza talks about how people (meaning the Hispanic community) are more likely to just tighten their belts, out of not wanting to take more than their fair share, and that they’ll want to save the funds for someone who REALLY needs it.

Commissioner Scott, actually, was strongest on this: “Can’t we just see who is past due and pay off their balance without them having to apply?”

Hughson concern-trolled about undeserving people who have the money and could pay. Nothing Texas hates more than someone receiving some crumbs when they could have scraped by without them. Garza is enthusiastic about this proposal.

Scott’s proposal – just pay off the deliquent accounts – has to be put on the agenda and brought back as an item, because it didn’t fit onto the existing agenda. So it still could happen.

…

As an aside: there’s an ongoing dynamic where City Council and Lumbreras are perpetually exasperated with each other. It goes like this:

  1. Council frequently acts like he has done something incompetent.
  2. He then defensively retorts that they tied his hands in the way they made the request.

I am not sure yet who is being a jerk, or if there’s blame to spread to both. Mayor Hughson herself is a generally prickly person, and it often doesn’t mean anything.

…

All three topics will be finalized at some point in August.

July 6th City Council Meeting, (Part 1)

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

The most confounding item – and ultimately anticlimactic – was the Lobbyist Registration measure. Where to begin.

This is Commissioner Baker’s ordinance. It came out of a committee that spent six months or so researching and writing it. The key provisions are:

  • You are a lobbyist if you are paid to make contact with a city official or city staff, or if you stand to profit from an issue
  • If you want to make contact and try to persuade an official on an issue, you must register as a lobbyist, and then report all contacts every two months.
  • There are some exclusions – private citizens are allowed to speak up about zoning issues, for example, without registering.

In Citizen Comment, about 18 people spoke up against the ordinance. They were mad that it’s onerous, would stifle speech and business, etc etc.

The item comes up, and instantly both Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Baker mumble motions into their microphones, but Mayor Hughson sides with Scott and gives him the floor. He moves to postpone the agenda item until November 3rd, which is after the election, and so there will be new councilmembers.

Recall that at the June 1st meeting, they debated postponing this endlessly. It was tiresome! And it failed! And yet we’re right back there.

Commissioner Baker is furious and lights into Commissioner Scott, who has openly mocked the Ethics Review Commission on other occasions. Mayor Hughson reprimands Baker to stay on topic, and Baker argues that this is entirely relevant, and the two of them get entertainingly snippy with each other around the 1:40 mark, (should you feel like listening to grown ups act like cranky children for yourself. It goes on and on! Hughson comes off looking like an overly controlling parent who wants to micromanage her sprog.)

Commissioner Scott can’t really explain why he wants to postpone. First he says, “So it can be re-written”, but he is reminded that it can’t be re-written on postponement. Then he says that he can review it with other people, which is unsatisfying.

Commissioner Derrick points out that it seems like this is an attempt to get a new city council in place first. (Who is up for election? I’m not sure. Garza, Scott, Gleason and Mayor Hughson were all elected last year. So some portion of Baker, Derrick, and Gonzalez could be up.)

Apparently CLEAT (Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas) wrote a letter to the paper which had enough errors that the City Manager, Bert Lumbreras, felt compelled to write a response to the paper to clarify the errors. The key refutations were:

  • This does not prohibit free speech. It just requires registration
  • SMPOA and the Firefighters Org were specifically mentioned in order to clarify their status, but if their names are removed, they’re still included as meeting the definition of “lobbyist”.

This detail is so bizarre that we should dwell on it for a moment. In the original proposed ordinance, SMPOA and the Firefighters Org are explicitly named as lobbyists, and no other organization is named. It’s such an inflammatory way to write the ordinance that it borders on self-sabotage. Who actually chose to explicitly name those two groups? Was it someone who wants the ordinance to pass, or was it someone on staff who actually does not want the ordinance to pass?

I truly have no guesses. It’s just such a lightning rod. Such an unforced error if you actually were fighting for this ordinance to pass. (This may have been removed in the latest draft? it’s hard to tell.)

Mayor Hughson wants to massively pare down the ordinance, and make it so that only councilmembers must report. But that’s not up for discussion, since they can only discuss whether to postpone or not.

Councilmember Baker is clawing out of his skin in frustration, and rightly so. The thing that’s most clearly in his favor is that the proposed legislation uses the language of existing lobbyist policies in surrounding cities. It’s nothing special or onerous. The outsized backlash is more damning than anything else, in the sense of raising my eyebrows and making me wonder what exactly people are trying to hide.

A persistent exchange is one where the someone yelps, “but why? why do we need this when there’s no problem?!” and Baker patiently explains, “We don’t actually know if there’s a problem because it’s all shrouded in secrecy and hidden right now. That’s why we need this.”

Finally it’s time to vote.

Postpone: Scott, Gonzalez, Gleason, Hughson, and Garza all vote to postpone.

Against: Only Derrick and Baker.

Garza gave a very naive speech about how she favors the ordinance, but maybe we can use the next four months to educate people and bring them around.

There is a real point, buried in the flotsam: that paperwork – or the specter of paperwork – will inhibit participation from a largely uninvolved batch of citizens. Behavior is shaped by gentle nudges, and if you’ve vaguely heard that there’s red tape surrounding making contact with council, it could easily dissuade a mostly-checked-out community member from speaking up when there’s an issue that actually does affect them. That would be a worthwhile discussion to hold.

However, postponing discussion is how you drown legislation in the bathtub, and this move is not happening in good faith. But that’s what it is. I told you it was anticlimactic.

Previewing the Agenda: July 6th, 2021

by The San Marxist, posted in Previewing the Agenda

This is going to be a doozy. They need to meet weekly, and instead they’re meeting monthly during June and July. Poor shmucks will be up meeting till dawn!

I don’t actually think anything is that controversial here? Perhaps it won’t be as long as I fear.

Consent Agenda:

1. Approval of the minutes from the past few meetings
2-5. Annexing and rezoning the land behind the outlet malls to be those funny little apartment-houses.
6. State Seized Asset Fund for police.
7. Registration of lobbyists and disclosure form
8-9. Dump trucks and semi-tractor, $750K, some other vehicles for Streets Division of the Public Works Department
10. Contract with LoneStar Paving, $260K
11. Agreement with the university on a raised water tank somehow involved in fire suppression
12-13. Hydroexcavator for $333K
14. CenturyTel contract, $125k
15. Whisper South PID
16. Utility Billing change in service, 125K for this year, 300K/year for the next three
17-18. Mowers for parks board, $137K
19. Support for El Centro to create a plaza and collaborate with city on it
20. SM/RF to apply for Parks Bond funds to acquire 102 acres, the Elsik Tract
21. Water main replacement shared cost – Developer Participation Agreement – <$200K.
22. Purchase of 10 acres at the end of San Antonio street
23. Annexation of 8 acres near the outlet mall
24. Sustainability Committee Purpose Statement
25. Homeless Committee Purpose Statement

Public Hearings:

26. Land Development Code edits
27. Modifying the apartment complex that gets attached to La Cima
28. CBDG reallocation plan

Non-consent Agenda:

29. Cemetery policies
30. Spearguns without permits
31. New municipal judge
32-33. Code of ethics updates
34. Purchasing .11 acres on River Road for flood mitigation projects
35-36. Amending the current budget to include, and allocate, Rescue Plan Funds
37. $640K on Covid mitigation funds
38-39. Election agreement with the county for this November
40. proposed activities totalling $823K of 21-22 CDBG action plan
41. Utility assistance
42. HPC, more signage
43. Returning to in person meetings!!
44. Study occupancy rates of both Purpose Built Student Housing and traditional student apartments

Note to self

by The San Marxist, posted in Blog notes

When this eventually goes public – roughly Spring 2022 – I should go begin a practice of going back and adding links to the meeting minutes, after they’re approved. It would be nice to have the minutes alongside my write ups.

Having the minutes was incredibly helpful in the write up of April 20th. If only it didn’t take several weeks for them to appear and be approved, I’d happily use them heavily.

April 20th City Council meeting, (Part 3)

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

Miscellaneous items? Several policy threads got their start in this meeting, which we later heard more about.

  • Miniature goats were first floated here. (There was a bit of one-up-man-ship over who most grew up on a farm and can chuckle the most knowingly over the folly of anyone who might want to raise goats. I was annoyed.)
  • This was the last of the regular Covid updates. They decided it could be resumed later if things looked more critical, but otherwise it was sufficient for the information to be available on the Covid dashboard. This also gave rise to the first talk of a Covid committee, which was later established.
  • Low income tax credits were approved for apartments to be built between the outlet malls and the Kissing Tree. They run along just west of the railroad tracks. I formed a positive opinion of the developer, who gave thoughtful answers about wraparound services and seemed to represent a nonprofit organization that plans out really livable spaces. Time will tell, of course.
  • The first twinkle of discussion over the annexation of land that will become a Senior Living complex over the next few meetings, down on Red/wood and Old Bas/trop.
  • Some CARES act distributions
  • Airport Master Plan, with Councilmember Bak/er being a bit of a squeaky wheel on health issues – he wants a study conducted, or research to be done, or something, on the health impacts of living near the airport. Is he wrong? no, not exactly. Is it wildly impractical and out of step with regional airport norms? Sounds like it, yes. Is it bad to be wildly impractical? Not necessarily. Overton Windows get shifted inch by inch.
  • Denial of an apartment complex on Chuck Nash Road. They weren’t able to overturn the P&Z denial. Mostly P&Z denied it because of flooding along the Blanco River.
  • Finally, some CBDG things. Auditing the city based on how we handled post-flood repairs: we are doing a good job.

I think that’s all! April 20th, 2021 should consider itself all wrapped up!

What’s next?

Tuesday, June 29th is a 5th Tuesday. No meeting. I decided not to add an archive meeting and just enjoy the 5th Tuesday.

Tuesday, July 6th is a council meeting, I believe.

Tuesday, July 20th is a second skipped meeting for vacation, I think. So for that one, maybe I’ll hit up the archives again.

April 20th City Council meeting, (Part 2)

by The San Marxist, posted in Uncategorized

The other item that got some citizen interest was Item 26, approving rules to govern Council committees. In other words, there are Affordable Housing committees, Covid Oversight committees, Criminal Justice Reform committees, etc. Generally these only have two council members, so they don’t trigger quorum rules, and then relevant community members or staff or representation from interested parties. So the city has not formalized rules for these committees regarding agendas, minutes, points of order, etc, and the Mayor decided it was time to do so.

Five people spoke on Item 26 during the Citizen Comment period, all from Mano Am/iga, about transparency of committee meetings. Since Mano Am/iga is very concerned with the criminal justice in general, it gave me the impression that the subtext of these reforms was something to do with the disagreements and feuding over the CJR committee. (In fact, using my crystal ball, it will be the very next May 4th meeting where the CJR committee defends its existence and creates its new mission statement.)

The speakers are all concerned that there is no requirement that committee meetings be open to the public. It’s required to take minutes and make those publicly available, but they can be just the bare minimum of what is being voted on and how it shakes out.

It comes up for discussion at 12:20 am. Everyone is tired. Max Bak/er has a list of amendments. All meetings must be available over zoom, the public must always be invited to participate, that sort of thing.

Melissa Der/rick gives the pivotal speech, roughly “Look, I really support transparency and citizen participation. But we can’t get anything done if we’re never able to speak frankly and compromise. And if we’re always in danger of getting flayed on social media, we can’t speak frankly.” That speech probably didn’t change anyone’s vote, but it gave cover for the centrist position to vote no.

It’s a problem. Councilmembers operating in good faith can be hamstrung by citizens operating in bad faith. In that case, there’s a defensible position for closed committee meetings. Councilmembers operating in bad faith need citizen oversight to mitigate the damage. There’s a reasonable argument for open committee meetings.

Baker’s amendments were all voted down 5-2, and the original proposal passed.

I’m glad Mano Am/iga is scrutinizing these things, and I’m glad Max Bak/er is a squeaky wheel, but it’s probably fine that his amendments didn’t pass. All committees can do is pass policy proposals up to Council, and Council is governed by TOMA, the Texas Open Meetings Act. Bad councilmembers can get voted out of office. Good councilmembers can opt to have open meetings when appropriate. Citizens have to stay engaged and informed. Good governance is hard.

April 20th City Council meeting, (Part 1)

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

(As a reminder, Council was off last Tuesday, and so I subbed in a previous meeting from a few months ago. I believe Council will be meeting next week, but then taking the subsequent meeting off again.)

Nothing earth-shattering happened at the meeting, in part because it’s anti-climactic to hear the beginning of a public policy debate after you’ve already heard the end of the story. But here goes:

Item 15, rezoning 15 acres on the northern tip of LBJ to SF6. Hugely unpopular: there were 21 people who took the time to speak out against this. P&Z also denied the rezoning, which means it takes a supermajority of Council to overturn them. A supermajority requires 6 out of 7 councilmembers to constitute a supermajority. So from where I sit, this was obviously doomed to failure.

So what was this doomed plan? A developer wants to extend the neighborhood further north. This would be behind Timber/crest. The current neighborhood residents hollered bloody murder.

Some complaints are justified: LBJ really does have a hideous blind turn right there, and can’t be widened due to property lines, and truly can’t handle extra traffic.

Some of the complaints were nebulous NIMBYism – and several of the residents mentioned how their feelings had been hurt when P&Z members had accused them of NIMBYism, in undiplomatic ways. (I don’t have the exact quote. Implying that the neighbors were classist and anti-renter? Only wanting houses just like theirs? Something with a kernel of truth, but phrased in a way that stung.)

Some of the complaints are very complex: the perennial accusation that houses will be snatched up by wealthy out-of-town parents, and then given to wealthy students to live in and throw wild parties in. Does this ever happen? Of course. Does this happen to an extent where it renders quiet neighborhoods unlivable and triggers an exodus and the entire neighborhood deteriorates into squalor? The usual narrative goes, “This happened to Sagewood! The only reason it hasn’t happened anywhere else is due to our relentless vigilance!”

Is this actually why Sagewood is a world of rental houses? Or was something else in play? Are there now new policies on the books that keep this from happening in other places? I don’t know! I’m curious, though.

From where I sit, there is a fundamental cure: code enforcement needs to be well-staffed and carry meaningful penalties, enforced on landlords. There’s no reason that college students shouldn’t be reasonable neighbors, if the penalty falls on the landlord.

It’s less obvious to me how to keep out-of-town parents and landlords from snapping up all the housing stock, when their pockets are so much deeper than local residents. This is a thing that happens. But this isn’t an argument against a new neighborhood being developed. A new neighborhood would help, by providing more shiny house-baubles for fancy out-of-town parents to buy.

Finally, the land is sensitive and probably shouldn’t be developed. This is on the Edward’s Aquifer, right on the river recharge zone. The counterargument is that this is probably the least intensive way this land would ever be developed. Is it inevitable that this land will some day be developed? If so, it’s worth taking this deal. Is it possible that this becomes park land? If so, stick to that.

In the actual meeting, deliberations were short and swift. Mayor Hug/hson recused herself, because she owns land over there, and the rezoning was voted down 6-0.

In my opinion, the wildly dangerous curve of LBJ plus the environmental concerns tips this towards denial. So I think this was correctly decided.

Oh, one footnote: P&Z denied this last fall. It went to council. Council did NOT deny it then, which would have forced the developer to wait a year before trying again. Instead, Council threw the developer a bone and told them to meet with the neighborhood, build some relationships, make some compromises, and go back to P&Z.

The developer totally ignored this explicit roadmap towards approval. He said, roughly, “I tried to meet with one resident but they were angry, and so I figured it would be a waste of everyone’s time to meet with anyone else.” So P&Z denied them a second time, and now they really are DOA.

Dude. That is not how you win hearts and minds. Meet with the damn people. Nod sagely at their concerns. Ask follow up questions and feign polite curiosity. Gently modify your plans in ways that show you were listening. Even if it’s mostly symbolic, you’ll mollify your opponents and they’ll feel like they had some say in their changing neighborhood.

Sheesh

by The San Marxist, posted in Blog notes

The April 20th meeting was 6 hours and 46 minutes long. With a few 10 minute breaks (with some funny euphemism – nature breaks? body breaks? can’t remember), it lasted until 1:15 am.

WHY are we subjecting anyone to 7 hour meetings regularly?! This is nonsense. Why not meet weekly, for 3-4 hours?

Also, it’s a bit anti-climactic to watch a meeting which serves as a prequel to other recent meetings. We know how things end up turning out. On the other hand, it’s very handy to have the minutes available to refer to.

It took me a week to get through just listening to the dang thing, but I suppose no one is waiting with bated breath for a blog post on an April council meeting, in June, on a n unpublicized website with an extremely tiny audience. I’ll get to it in the next day or two.

Previewing the Agenda: April 20th, 2021

by The San Marxist, posted in Uncategorized

Note: City Council is on vacation for the second meeting of June (and the first meeting in July? I think.) Since my goals right now are to 1) establish this habit and 2) build up the archives, I thought I could work backwards and attend some meetings from this past April.

(My schedule is most flexible in the summer, so it doesn’t really help me to take a break right now. Too bad I can’t borrow from later this year, when my schedule is a mess.)

So what did they cover, way back in April?

Presentations

  1. Covid-19 update
  2. Deloitte & Touche is giving a presentation on CBDG grants? Quarterly Internal Audit Report.

Consent Agenda

3. Approval of the minutes
4-5. Annexing and re-zoning Gregson’s Bend/Commercial Loop 64 acres, across I-35 from the Outlet Mall.
6. Utilities water contract
7. Conveyance of city-owned land to build affordable housing
8. Airport master plan
9. County property, along Guadalupe St, at Courthouse, to be used for cycle track
10. Data archiving contract, $285K for five years
11. Environmental Systems Institute change in contract, $96K/year for three years
12. 133K for cemetary improvements
13. Changing police construction contract +$200K

Public Hearings

14. Extending Holt Tract PDD for 5 years (sure)
15. Rezoning 14 acres at North LBJ (terrible idea!)
16-17. Rezone 21 acres, then 15 more at Chuck Nash Loop, up towards Yarrington Road
18. CBDG matters

Non-Consent Agenda

19. Allocating CARES funds
20. Residential Wastewater rates
21. Amendment to CBDG action plan
22. More on CARES funds
23. Low Income Tax Credits for apartment complex on Centerpoint, just west of railroad tracks, towards Kissing Tree.
24. Annexation of 23 acres on Old Bastrop and Redwood (will become Senior Housing because I can see the future)
25. Fill vacancy on Board of Directors for Alliance regional water authority
26. Approve council rules
27. Fill vacancies for five different boards: Construction Board of Appeals, Convention and Visitor Bureau, Econ Development Board, Historic Preservation, Neighborhood Commission, and SM Industrial Development Corporation.
28. Bitty goats discussion!

Work Session that Afternoon:

  1. 3 month update on Resource Recovery Request for Proposals
  2. Status reports and updates on Snowvid Winter Storm

June 1st City Council meeting (Part 2)

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

Next most important items:

Citizen Comment period: several people came to talk about the case of Jennifer Miller. This was not an agenda item so much as a way of generating awareness in the community. Miller was killed a year ago in a car crash in Lockhart. The other driver was a San Marcos police officer, Ryan Hartman.

This is taken from a SM Record article, which I would link if this site were live:

According to Hartman’s deposition, police reports and forensic evidence, Hartman was driving 16 mph over the 30 mph speed limit on a partially gravel road with an open container of alcohol that was ¾ empty, talking on the phone, and he failed to stop at two stop signs before colliding with Watts’ vehicle. Forensic evidence showed that Hartman was not attempting to brake the vehicle when the collision occurred.

According to the incident report, Hartman denied consuming any alcoholic beverages when asked and refused to take a blood alcohol test on scene; he was detained until a search warrant could be obtained on suspicion of driving while intoxicated due to the open container. Hours later no alcohol was detected.

(I’ll slowly go back and put links in over time, once the site is public. Source)

A grand jury only gave him a citation for running a stop sign, and did not find probable cause for criminally negligent homicide. Miller’s spouse is filing a civil suit.

People are basically upset that Hartman is back on the force, and want Council to do something. It’s a horrible tragedy, for sure, and I can see why it looks like a miscarriage of justice.

Item 28: Mexican American and Indigenous Heritage and Cultural District

These will be districts honoring very old neighborhoods – some which have been destroyed – where Mexican-Americans have lived for generations. I imagine some other part besides neighborhoods will be noted to honor the local Indigenous heritage. It doesn’t come with Historical Preservation status, so it’s mostly to raise awareness to the community about the heritage of these areas around town. (Everyone was in favor of this.)

Item 29: Light’s Out, Texas!

Central Texas is a funnel to Mexico for migratory birds, and the lights mess them up. I gather we’re already a Dark Sky city, which means angling lights down and putting shades over them? This would include some additional measures during migratory periods. (Everyone was in favor of this.)

Boring but Important, but Not Controversial

There are several items which are surely important, but didn’t generate much conversation and so I’m unable to evaluate which parts are notable. Maybe these are hiding things I would strongly disagree with! Time will tell.

Items 1 and 2: First quarter financial report and investment report.


Item 23. Texas General Obligation Refunding Bonds up to $75 million
I gather that we regularly issue bonds? The only amendment was to remove a category of $1 million for Cape’s Dam. Apparently it was originally set maybe in 2017 or so, and had been deferred ever since. City Staff made it sound just routine to eventually move things from “deferred” to “happening”.


Item 24. $73.6 million for twelve different infrastructure categories

I’m sure this is important. It was also a slide presentation and I was just listening to audio.

That’s a wrap for this week!