Just one citizen comment, from a community member about the Dunbar Heritage buildings that are under renovation.
…
Item 12: The good people of Riverside Drive want to ban parking on their street.
The issue is that the street fills up with river-goers in the summer. Since there is not enough proper parking around the falls, people park on Riverside Drive during the summer, and walk over.
Look, I’m not in a great mood. I didn’t like it last month on Sturgeon, and I don’t like it now.
This is exclusionary. The street does not belong to you.
It’s counter-productive! Street parking is a traffic-calming measure. It makes drivers go more slowly, instead of tearing through your neighborhood at 40 mph.
I might be sympathetic if local residents did not have driveways, and were forced to park away from their houses and walk to get home. But that is not what is happening. The residents of this street put out orange traffic cones to block river-users from parking in front of their houses. They’re not putting their own cars out on the street.
The parking ban is year round. (Holidays and weekends.) There is no reason for the ban to exist during the winter. Does it matter? No, but it’s overreach.
Living near the river is a privilege. The streets belong to the public, and that includes those who want to visit the river. I’m just not in the mood for territoriality and exclusion at the moment.
The Vote:
Yes, parking bans are great: everybody No, parking bans are the worst: nobody
Oh well. At least I can rant on the blog.
…
Item 4: The new HEB.
Everyone cheered and quickly voted on this, in about 30 seconds.
Those seven alleys with names in white are getting officially named.
The remaining alleys are driving Jane crazy. She wants to pair them up with movies or anything, and get them named. No one else seems to be in that big a hurry.
…
Item 14: Municipal Court
I guess we’re getting a new spot for our municipal court?
I don’t know if this is where the public will go for court, or if it’s administrative type stuff.
Here’s the building, according to Google Maps:
We signed a 20 year lease.
…
Item 17: River Bridge Ranch is this giant future subdivision:
It’s located here:
(That bit above is actually two closely related developments: River Bend Ranch and River Bridge Ranch. But the details are murky to me.)
This development makes me cranky:
In 2022, they wanted to put an industrial plant on the southern corner, which would have required an insane cut-and-fill. This would have increased flooding in Redwood. Huge numbers of residents from Redwood turned out to argue against it, given the flooding and infrastructure. The permit was denied.
Originally, River Bridge Ranch was approved to be both housing and commerce. After all, it’s huge! And we have this long-standing issue where there isn’t any commerce on the east. They waited for a polite amount of time to pass. Then they came back and asked if Council would just forget about the pesky commerce bit.
Council said “You betcha! This way you’ll make more money!” And lo, no more commerce.
This meeting, Council forms a subcommittee on it: Saul Gonzales, Matthew Mendoza, and Jane Hughson.
So this means it’s going to be coming back around again. Fingers crossed!
…
Items 16 and 18: The New City Hall
We’re designing a new city hall.
Council has this grand idea that the new city hall should replace the dog park and skate park, and the current location should be housing:
I am not convinced! Why should we develop our parks? Why not re-build where you are?
Anyway, Council appointed a 23-person steering committee: – The mayor and two councilmembers – These groups all get to pick a member: P&Z, Library, Downtown Association, River Foundation, University representative, Chamber of Commerce – Each councilmember picked two community members. In total there are 23 people.
SO! After multiple meetings and lots of discussion, what did the DEI Coordinator say about the end result? Did we achieve diversity, equity, and inclusion? Moment of truth!
…Nothing. The DEI coordinator wasn’t there. Status quo was upheld.
This would have been the moment to verify that “business as usual” had produced a diverse committee that matches San Marcos. We did not verify this!
Texas Disposal Systems is the trash/recycling company. They’re up for a five year contract renewal tonight. This topic had the most speakers. – There were people saying what an amazing job TDS has done, and how we must renew with them. – There were people from other waste systems saying that they can also do a great job, and if we’d just open up bids, they could show us.
One speaker made an interesting point about HEB: as long as we’re getting a new HEB, why don’t we revisit the almost-HEB, and see if we can acquire that land?
Here’s what he means:
There was almost an HEB here, back in 2016:
That is when HEB was the controversy of the day. HEB applied for a rezoning to put a grocery store on that corner.
The community was furious. Purgatory Creek had flooded just one year earlier, and it’s very environmentally sensitive. Traffic is already mess at that intersection. The WonderWorld extension was new, and part of the deal struck was that no new curb cuts would occur on WonderWorld. People were worried that HEB would close Little HEB.
But Council approved the rezoning anyway. (Jane Hughson and Jude Prather were two of the yeses.)
Zipping along to 2024: clearly HEB never built the grocery store there. This week’s big announcement is the new HEB on McCarty and I35 instead. (See item 10.)
So… can we buy this old land from them? Can we at least approach them for this land? It’s right there, where we’re putting all these trails down. Why don’t we at least ask?
Great question!
….
Onto the meeting!
Item 12: Rezoning a little over an acre, out on Hunter Road:
in other words, just to the right of this Shell station:
as you’re headed south on Hunter.
It got zoned Neighborhood Commercial, so it will definitely not be apartments. Some kind of office or store.
…
Item 2: After four years, we have a new Comprehensive Plan! VisionSMTX is now officially approved.
Backstory here. There are lots of big thank yous, and no major changes.
So how exactly did the committee thread the needle? If I had to summarize, they:
Added back in the language about walking, biking, and transit. How close are you to parks, schools, and stores, without needing to drive?
Added ADUs, duplexes, and triplexes back into low intensity areas.
But kept one of the major P&Z changes, which was to split “Neighborhood Low” place types into two sub-types: Neighborhood Low-Existing and Neighborhood Low-New.
They did a great job of carving out a compromise position.
…
Item 4: We lease land to the Chamber of Commerce for $1/year:
On CM Allen, on the edge of the river parks.
They’ve been there since 1977. They are raising money to build an extension, but for the time being, they want to extend this contract until 2031.
Here’s what Jane says at 58:00 minutes in:
“Whenever the Chamber got ready to expand, the city discovered that there were a lot of back lease payments that we had never advised the Chamber to pay. And the Chamber didn’t know they needed to pay, and the Chamber president came to me and said, ‘If you add all this up, and the penalties and interest, the money that we just raised for the expansion kinda goes up in smoke.’ So I brought it to the council and we forgave all of that, so that the Chamber could use the dollars they’d raised for the expansion.”
I can’t find any Council discussion of this, so I assume it happened in top secret executive session?
This bit was boxed red in the packet, so I assume this is the Forgotten Lease Payments:
Look how cute that 1978 typewriter font is.
Here’s the thing: Sure, forgive Chamber’s debt – it got lost to the sands of time. Just be sure that we are equally charitable to other nonprofit organizations that may need a bit of grace.
(We did cover a bunch of debt from Togetherfor a Cause a few years ago. One of the Place 5 candidates is involved, at that link.)
…
Just for funsies: Remember the time that we rented that land to Chamber of Commerce for $1/year, and they turned around and rented office space back to us for $28,760/year? And everyone – besides Alyssa Garza and Max Baker – voted to approve this!
…
Item 5: We finalized the gateway signs business. It’s going to look like this:
Staff did a pretty good job writing up the backstory, so I’m just going to cut-and-paste from the packet:
Council is kind of split. Everyone definitely loves TDS.
Jane, Shane, Jude and Alyssa are all fine with going with TDS now, and opening up bids for the 2030 contract.
Matthew, Saul, and Mark are all a little more uneasy about not going through the process of soliciting bids, and seeing what other companies can put out there.
Item 13: Remember that time we didn’t have any commerce on the east side?
Will anybody save us from this food desert??
OH YEAH! It’s all very exciting.
Back in May, Council approved a call for bids, saying “hey Grocery stores! We’ll work with you on tax breaks if you hit up the east side!” HEB was listening loud and clear, and reached out to us in August.
Here’s where it will be:
So right next to Embassy Suites, on NB I-35.
They’ve owned this land for a long time, but HEB likes to do that: purchase potential land and then just chill with it for awhile.
It’s a pretty ideal location: Between McCarty and I-35, you can zip pretty much all over the place.
(This would be a great time to connect the two Leah Drives! Which are disconnected for reasons that are still murky to me:
Idk!)
So what are the terms?
Those rebates are pretty much exactly what Council proposed last May.
What kind of dollar amounts are we talking about?
I’m mildly skeptical about these sales tax numbers. Or rather, it’s not all new tax revenue to the city. Some of that money would have been spent at the existing Big and Little HEBs, and is just being diverted to the 3rd HEB. Now, a lot of folks on the east side currently drive down to HEB in New Braunfels, and so that will bring in new tax dollars if they switch to this new store. But not everyone!
What about jobs and such?
Ok, but what kind of pay and benefits? When we negotiated with Buccee’s, the company specified that they will pay $18/hour and get full benefits.
As far as I can tell, we entirely skipped this part of the negotiation. HEB will have to abide by the 2016 San Marcos law requiring companies to pay $15/hour, in exchange for tax breaks. Does this mean that all HEB stores have to pay at least $15 an hour?
I believe HEB is pretty good to their employees, but this is poor work by Council and staff. We should always be negotiating on behalf of employees.
Hey council: Let’s update the 2016 ordinance and include automatic inflation adjustments! Like we do for so many things?
…
Back to HEB. What did Council say? Mostly everyone gave a victory lap of thank yous.
Mark Gleason added: “To other grocery stores, our economic incentive offer still stands! The east side can have more than just one grocery store!” That’s great to hear.
Also: Mark is hearing from the community that lots of people are worried that Little HEB will close. During the meeting, councilmembers say “It’s great that they’ll keep Little HEB open” but I can’t find this actually written down anywhere. It would be good to have that in writing.
So here are my questions:
Would all HEB employees get the $15/hour as required by local ordinance, even at the existing stores?
Language about elevated minimum wage and benefits should always automatically be in these agreements.
Is it in writing that Little HEB will stay open for a certain number of years?
Will Council please update the 2016 ordinance to peg the minimum wage to inflation???
Can we ask HEB about purchasing that little triangle of land next to Purgatory Creek?
The vote: 6-0. Everyone hams it up in really cheesy ways: “Absolutely yes!” “Finally…yes!” Fist pump. Etc.
…
Item 14: Alliance Regional Water Authority (ARWA)
ARWA is our big plan to shore up our water supply for the next 50 years. We originally signed onto it in 2008. Instead of getting our water from Canyon Lake and the Edwards Aquifer, we’re piping it in from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer.
It’s just about time to start drinking that sweet, sweet Carrizo-Wilcox water!
These are slides from the packet, but no one actually gave a presentation on it.
so I’m just winging it here.
Tonight is about extending a bond for the next part of the project. Everyone celebrated it, but I’m not sure what the special significance was.
…
Item 16: Renaming downtown alleys
A couple years ago, Council dipped its toe in the exciting world of naming downtown alleys. First up was Kissing Alley, in 2017. It came with a whole revitalization effort – Kissing Alley concerts, etc. It’s been great!
Next up came Boyhood Alley, to commemorate the movie Boyhood, which has an iconic scene shot there. This council conversation was kinda hilarious, because some councilmembers thought it sounded like Pervert Alley.
In order to dilute the pervy-sounding Boyhood Alley, Jane proposed that the rest of the unnamed alleys to be named after other movies.
So the Convention and Visitor Bureau Advisory Board and the Main Street Advisory Board took up the charge. Tonight they’re back with their recommendations:
Four of the alleys have names already used:
That’s kinda cute about the dog.
A few others have informal names:
Music Alley
Imagine Alley
Railroad Alley
The committee is proposing two new ones:
Getaway Alley, because some scenes from The Getaway were filmed near there:
Clockwise from top left: Sewell Park (upstream of Aquarena Drive), Texaco at 205 West Hopkins Street, intersection at West Hopkins Street & Moore Street, tire shop at 141 West Hopkins Street. Via this now-defunct website.
Steve McQueen! Ali McGraw! Haven’t seen it, but it seems like a fun romp.
2. Telephone Alley, after the old Telephone building that got torn down in 2019:
Isn’t that a very cute building? I was bummed that it got torn down. (Photo from here.) It was demolished to make room for The Parlor apartments.
That’s on San Antonio. Here’s a before and after, according to Google Maps:
I’m not actually opposed to the apartments, but I wish we could have spared the cute Telephone building.
…
There are still more alleys without names. Jane wants to pair up the rest of the unnamed alleys with old movies, but other councilmembers want to roll it out more slowly – maybe Main Street can pick one or two per year, and figure out a good name for it. Sounds like that’s how it will go.
Only one speaker! Max Baker, representing the San Marcos Civics Club. They held their “Reasons Why NOT to Vote”* rally last weekend.
At the rally, they had a “Worst Issues in San Marcos” ballot. Here’s how the votes shook out: -6 for public safety -9 for economy -13 for transit -30 for environment -40 for housing
Max highlighted those results for City Council: 137 people turned out for this rally, and they definitely care about housing and the environment!
Is this rally – and these votes – representative of San Marcos? Yes and no. It’s not a statistically random sample, no. However, it’s definitely a new and different outreach pathway, so it’s probably capturing a different set of folks than the same people who always fill out the city surveys.
*The name of this rally makes my stomach hurt a little bit. Here’s the Civics Club blurb: “The San Marcos Civics Club has talked a lot about local politics since we’ve formed and we wanna recognize the very real reasons people have to not vote each election cycle with this event.”
I get that they want to amplify the voices of people that are frustrated. The problem is that these two things can both be true: 1. People have real reasons that they don’t vote. 2. Republicans in Texas spend A LOT of time and energy trying to increase the number of people that feel that way. Apathy, hopelessness, and a sense of futility work in favor of Republicans.
It’s so hard to get people to show up and vote! And so important! This whole topic gives me an ulcer. Please vote.
For the record, they did have voter registration at the event! I just feel conflicted about promoting a message of resignation and hopelessness.
….
Item 10: VisionSMTX is inching towards the finish line!
Background
VisionSMTX is the new city comprehensive plan. Think of this as a master plan for planning & zoning: “We want this kind of development over here, but that kind of development over there.”
In 2020, Council appointed a gigantic 30 person steering committee. They met with consultants for two years, and produced the first draft of VisionSMTX.
In January 2023, it got handed off to P&Z. They looked at it and had a heart attack. “What’s all this stuff about affordable housing?! What’s all this stuff about bike trails and walkability and things besides cars?!” It was really kinda a self-satire. They clutched pearls, got the vapors, etc. “The historic district will be destroyed!” they cried.
“No no!” said the steering committee and city staff. “We want the rest of San Marcos to be more like the historic district!”
The committee has hammered out a compromise position. They threw out some of the P&Z revisions, but also upheld a lot of them.
Two community members spoke during public comment: Gaby Moore and Diana Baker. (Usually I don’t put private citizen names on the blog, but I think it’s instructive this time.) What you need to know is that Moore is solidly in the camp of the original draft, and Baker is solidly in the camp of the P&Z revision.
They both praised the new, committee version! This is kind of wild. I was prepared to hate the current draft, but it seems like the Council Committee managed to thread the needle and carve out a compromise position. I don’t hate it!
Council still has to vote on it one more time, at the October 15th meeting. Then – after four long years – we might have a new comp plan.
…
Item 5: The library is commissioning some stained glass windows:
(That’s a mock up on the right – it’s not made yet.)
But isn’t that going to be lovely? Everyone likes it.
Jane Hughson has a question: how come sometimes, Council allocates money for art and gets to see the design, and how come sometimes they allocate money without seeing the design?
Answer: It’s not one single process. There’s a dozen different processes, depending on where the artwork will be and who is funding it.
Jane: I’m really talking about the new mural on LBJ. We didn’t preview the design for that one.
She means this one, as you’re heading from I-35 towards downtown:
Answer: [mumbo-jumbo about that specific funding process.]
Jane: Look, if I’d seen the design, I would have pointed out that there’s a bobcat, but there’s no rattler. That’s a pretty big omission. We should have had more eyes looking at the design so that someone would catch that.
She is totally right:
It is totally gorgeous! But it says “Welcome to the land of arrowheads, Texas State, Downtown, and the River, and that about sums up San Marcos!”
It should have had a rattler, and probably also some nod to Hispanic culture. Maybe on the far left, near the purple flowers.
But the golfers of yore have all wandered off to graze in greener pastures. Golf on, my preppy brothers! Golf with the wind.
Anyway!
Now we’re hiring some engineers to draft some plans for what we might do with it. There will be lots of opportunities for community input, etc.
Mark Gleason: It would be nice to have some trails and connectivity! It’s actually very close to Walmart.
This is a great point. In other words, Quail Creek is a total pain in the ass to drive to:
But it’s not actually so far if you could bike:
Staff replied: TWINSIES! We have been thinking the same thing.
San Marcos is so carved up by rivers and railroad tracks. Both are hard for cars, but easier for bikes. Once this place gets path-connected, bikers will be able to really sail around town.
Item 15: We’re filling vacancies for three committees: – Animal Shelter Advisory Committee – Citizen Utility Advisory Board – Parks and Rec Advisory Board
Last meeting, they had one applicant for the Animal Shelter committee, but they wouldn’t put that person on the committee because they’d only lived in San Marcos for two months. (I scolded Matthew Mendoza and Jane Hughson for being unwelcoming.)
They postponed so that more people could apply.
So we’re back tonight! And… no one new applied. They were in the exact same situation with the same applicant, all over again. Alyssa pointed out that the “two months” was written back in June. Now that it’s October, they’ve actually been here six months.
But Jane argues that this person hadn’t written anything about why they wanted to save the pups.
The thing is, this is the prompt on the application:
This applicant checked off three possible commissions they would be willing to serve on. So they answered that questions generally: “I want to serve the community, etc.” They didn’t give three separate answers, for each possible commission.
(Furthermore, I’ve never ever seen council nitpick the answers that people give on the application form. This is a weird time to get out the microscope.)
Anyway! It turns out they ALSO only had one applicant for the Utility Advisory board. And this person also didn’t give any detail. So in the name of fairness, they kicked both of these vacancies down the road. (I still disapprove! Give these people a chance unless you have an actual reason to look askance at them.)
If YOU would like to be on a board or commission – or the future City Hall Steering Committee – you can apply here. It’s pretty short and not too painful.
Parks and Rec has a new board member, though. That vacancy got filled.
Five people spoke against the SMART/Axis road annexation.
A guy from the airport asked about his lease rate for his hangar
That was about it.
…
Items 2-3: Quarterly financial and investment report.
This is the official report for Jan 1st – March 31st went. Back in May, we got a sneak preview: sales tax was tanking below projections and we were scrambling to reign in spending.
This is more re-hashing of that same news. Sales tax was down, so everything got pulled back.
…
Item 19: It takes two public hearings to approve the budget. This is the first, and then final approval will be on September 17th.
Here’s the big picture:
With highlights:
For me, the highlights are only somewhat helpful. I need context in order to makes sense of these notes. What helps me most is a breakdown of the general fund, by department.
Last year’s breakdown of the General Fund, by department:
I got that by submitting a FOIA request last year. I’ve requested this year’s General Fund breakdown, but haven’t yet gotten it.
[Let me put on my tinfoil hat for just a moment. Indulge me in the dullest conspiracy theory of all times:
– The 2024 draft budget has the General Fund breakdown by department, starting on page 82. – But the 2024 adopted budget has no General Fund breakdown anywhere! – the 2023 draft budget has the General Fund breakdown by department, starting on page 88. – But 2023 adopted budget also has no General Fund breakdown anywhere!
For the past two years, it’s disappeared from the actual budget, once it was approved. What on earth.
Finally, even the 2025 proposed budget does NOT have the General Fund breakdown included. This annoys me, hence the FOIA request mentioned above.
I submitted the request back on August 22nd, so we’re past the normal FOIA response time. The information is in the budget, but it’s scattered. It would take hours of work for a layperson to extract it from the online budget, one department at a time.
END OF MY MILDLY EXASPERATING CONSPIRACY THEORY!]
…
Back to budget discussions. Utility rates are going up:
The average home-owner will pay $13.46 more per month. There’s a big discussion in the workshops about utility assistance, so I’ll cover some details later on.
We’re using the same tax rate as last year, 60.3¢.
…
Listen: I cannot stress enough how little conversation there is about any of this. Partly this is because there have been a lot of budget workshops already. Partly this is because the community didn’t show up to complain. (Although they have one more chance.) But mostly because this council is so used to each other that they all know exactly where they all stand. There’s nothing left to say.
…
Matthew Mendoza asks a great question. During the section on the Water and Wastewater Fund, he asks: “These contract costs keep increasing every year. Why do we keep contracting out? There’s like 4 water and wastewater contracts. Why not do these things internally?”
The answer has a few parts:
Some contracts are management contracts, others are infrastructure and CIP
The contracts for the surface water plant and the wastewater treatment plant both have automatic inflation adjustments built in
On the wastewater treatment plant, we’re at the end of a 20 year contract. We’re putting a provision in the new contract to have an exit clause, so we could convert staffing to in-house in a few years if we want. When it was built in the 90s, it actually was operated by city staff. We started contracting it out in the 2000s.
This is SUPER interesting! Let’s highlight some things:
It’s so common for contracts to have built-in, automatic inflation adjustments! You know what doesn’t? The minimum wage. Failure to peg the minimum wage to inflation is one of the most underappreciated policy failures of the 20th century.
The wastewater treatment plan used to be city-run! We privatized it in the 2000s! What. Privatization is not your friend. Let’s get that back.
Mark Gleason asks if trash and recycling contracts also have automatic inflation adjustment?
Answer: Yes on refuse collection.
Alyssa still votes no on the utility fund votes, because of the rate increases. But she acknowledges the workshop on emergency utility assistance. (We will cover this below.) If it were working as it should, she says she’d be able to vote for the regular rate increases.
Backstory. The giant Axis Logistics/SMART company:
wants Council to annex city land for a road:
However, the company has made total enemies of the surrounding community, by always being super secretive about their plans. In this case, the road has jumped locations. Originally it was further from houses and now it’s closer to them.
At the August 5th meeting, there was a fair amount of discussion. Everyone seemed concerned. Nothing was resolved.
Time for the exciting conclusion! So much drama! Buckle up for…
…zip, zero, zilch. Literally, Council spends four minutes total on this item.
The vote:
No one ever asked in public about whether the road could be moved back to the original location. No one explained whatever Mark needed more time to research since the last meeting.
This is what I mean when I say this council is stale. Everyone knows where everyone stands on everything, and so no one bothers to say anything outloud.
…
Item 24: School Resource Officers are back, baby! (School Resource Officers = SROs)
The SRO contract should be two years instead of one
The contract can be renewed administratively, without Council approval.
Council renewed the contract, but nixed those two changes. They wanted to see the contract, in person, every year.
Since then, the school board met: they really want the two year contract and admin renewal. So they held the line on those two details, and punted it back over here.
Remember last time how I pointed out that Jude Prather should really recuse himself, because his wife is the director of the organization that oversees all SROs, statewide?
He didn’t recuse himself this time, either.
He actually was the one who made the motion to approve
Superintendent Cardona even mentioned that Prather’s wife wrote the officer training.
At Q&A at the end, a community member (LMC) asked about this conflict of interest.
By that point, Prather had gone home. LMC said it was a question for the city lawyer, but Jane Hughson ended the meeting without giving the lawyer a chance to answer the question.
This is getting into more egregious territory! Jude certainly knows better. He recuses himself over absurdly flimsy pretexts all the time.
ANYWAY. Chief Standridge says he could include SROs in his yearly update to Council. Superintendent Cardona talks about how closely everyone meets and supervises the SROs.
Mark Gleason politely says “I told you so! Stability. Safety. Etc.”
The vote: Should we switch to two year SRO contracts and administrative renewal?
…
Item 25: This was a little confusing.
Gather ‘round, children. Once upon a time, there was a little Municipal Utility District, on the north end of town:
That’s east of I35, on Yarrington road. The year was 2014.
It was actually kind of gigantic if you zoomed out:
But none of the townspeople ever did.
Here’s what the developers pretended it would look like, some day:
Look at all that water! What the hell is going on here. Here’s the satellite photo of this area:
So much less water!
(Were those lunatics planning on a great new lake? Were they going to tap the Blanco, where it runs underground, to create a watery playground for rich people? Maybe!)
Back to our story.
The village council elders put a weird clause in the development agreement that allowed landowners to opt out. Usually council elders wouldn’t do such a thing, but in this case they did.
By 2023, these owners had opted out:
The red parts had opted out.
In 2023, the rest of the land owners opted out:
So at Tuesday’s council meeting, the little village dissolved the Municipal Utility District altogether. There’s no development agreement. There’s no lake.
THE END!
The moral of the story is: there is no moral.
…
Item 26: New City Hall and Hopkins Redevelopment project
Back in July, we saw some pretty pictures about what the new City Hall could look like, and what Hopkins could look like, maybe someday:
Today’s task: we’re going to form a steering committee, to help shape the vision.
Who does Council want to be on the steering committee?
Jane: We could have each councilmember pick a person, and then have a representative from some key constituents – Texas State, River Foundation, Downtown Association.
Alyssa: Before we have this conversation, we need the DEI coordinator. Otherwise we’ll do what we always do. That leads to the status quo, and the same old people still have the same old power.
Mark Gleason: I like each councilmember picking two people, plus the key organizations should all have representatives.
Alyssa: Hey! You guys. We need to stop and get input from the DEI person, before we have this conversation.
Jane: And councilmembers themselves. What about the mayor?
Alyssa: Listen. Stop. The DEI coordinator is not here.
Matthew Mendoza: Why should Texas State get a seat on the committee?
Jane Hughson: It’s just part of being good neighbors. They also have a representative on the downtown committee.
Alyssa: Hello? Anyone? Bueller?
Shane Scott: You know how councilmembers get their names in the building? I think we should have little bobbleheads of ourselves, instead.*
Alyssa: LALALALALALA AM I SHOUTING INTO THE VOID HERE?
Matthew: We should require that members have lived in San Marcos for at least five years!
Alyssa: [mumbles to self about DEI coordinator]
Jane: How about a P&Z representative? How about a library representative?
Alyssa: [draws pictures of a council consulting the DEI coordinator, and holds them overhead, in the style of Lloyd from Say Anything.]
Saul: Should we require that they be caught up on their taxes?
Jane, dryly: We don’t require that for elected officials.
Alyssa: [Launches little confetti cannons. Sends in carrier pigeons with tiny notes tied to their legs, which read “Let’s consult with the DEI coordinator”. Does an interpretive dance for the letters “D”, “E”, and “I”.]
In the end, everyone agrees to come back next time with their final ideas for the composition of the steering committee. City staff is going to talk with the DEI coordinator and get best practices from her, and they’ll share those next meeting.
Here’s the thing: You have to get the DEI coordinator to talk to everyone before the brainstorming. Otherwise the brainstorming will perpetuate the same old power imbalances as always. The point of the DEI coordinator is to gently get everyone to cut that shit out, and redirect them into new territory.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
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!”
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.
A solid hour of citizen comments to kick things off!
Nearly everyone – 17 speakers – spoke about the issues of Malachi Williams’ death at the hands of SMPD, and calling for a ceasefire resolution for Gaza.
The family and activists are calling for three things:
Release the name and badge ID number of the officer that killed Malachi Williams
The officer should be placed on leave while the investigation is ongoing.
The family should be able to view all officer and storefront footage, with a lawyer present.
It sounds like the chief has offered to let the family watch some of the footage, but not all, and is denying the request to have their lawyer present. That’s pretty goddamn outrageous that you would ever require someone to forgo a lawyer in a legal context. (They don’t have a right to a lawyer, because nobody is under arrest or anything, but plainly it’s what’s fair.)
A lawyer would be able to inform the family about what Chief Standridge is legally able to do, and what he can’t, and a lawyer can advise the family – on the spot – on what’s in their best interests. If a lawyer isn’t there, then Chief Standridge is the authority on what Chief Standridge is legally able to say and do. See the problem?
One guy from Outsiders Anonymous shows up to advocate for their gym/treatment center during the CDBG grants item. (We ended up funding them at about 80% of what they asked.)
One speaker talks about her adult child with disabilities. There’s no day center in San Marcos anymore, and he commutes to New Braunfels.
We absolutely should have a day center for adults with special needs. I’m super uninformed on this topic, but it’s definitely part of serving the needs of your community.
But let’s talk about the other part: there’s no public transportation to get back and forth between San Marcos and New Braunfels.
And the two systems don’t overlap or coordinate on their boundaries, so there’s just this cliff dividing San Marcos from its neighbors:
Puzzle pieces! (I had fun making that picture.)
Suppose you use the shuttle service because of your physical disability. How are you supposed to get from Redwood to San Marcos? There are a lot more mental health resources in New Braunfels than in San Marcos, but only if you’ve got the means to get yourself there and back.
Listen: Seguin, New Braunfels, and San Marcos need to triangulate on some shared public transit along I-35 and 123. Austin Metro is not meeting our needs here.
…
Item 9: Community Development Block Grant applications, 2024-25
HUD gave us $766K this year to give away, and we’ve got $639K rolling over from last year. So total, we’ve got about $1.4 million to give away.
First off: we have $639K leftover? Out of $712K that we were awarded last year? What on earth happened?!
It turns out that it rolls over from year to year, and there are project delays. It’s spelled out in the report here:
So the first two categories – Housing Programs and Public Facilities – are really falling short.
Alyssa Garza asks about the Housing Rehab program?
Answer: Housing Rehab had $800K from CDBG and $800K from ARPA, for a total of $1.6 million. They are running seriously behind. Currently there are 30 houses with bids in place. Five are under construction and 25 are pending, and that will use up the funding.
Alyssa also asks: Can we hire lawyers to help homeowners with title problems? (This is mentioned under the Home Demo program above – “Properties with sub-standard structures also tend to have ownership issues”.)
Alyssa: There are free legal aid programs at St. Mary’s and UT-Austin that have offered to help.
The staff is vaguely friendly about this suggestion, but not in an “omg I’ll do that tomorrow” kind of way.
In the end, they decide to put “paying for a lawyer” on the list of side-projects that can be consulted when there’s a loose bit of money that suddenly becomes available.
Onto 2024! Here’s the criteria that we use:
(For what it’s worth, I don’t love the Council Priorities. I think they risk creating perverse incentives.)
Moving on! There was one ineligible application and 11 eligible applications. Here are the recommended funding amounts from staff:
Anyway: Council does not make any changes.
I believe this is just a first reading, so if you’ve got advice for Council, you’ve got another chance at the July meeting.
…
Items 10-11: Kissing Tree
Kissing Tree was approved in 2010. It’s a PDD – “Planned Development District”. This means the city got to micromanage every last detail of the whole project, and put it in writing, in a contract.
[Quick primer on PDDs: They’re a mixed bag. You can spell out exactly what will be built, but you can also waive a lot of regulations that the developer doesn’t like. In general, PDDs are only as good as the Council that negotiates them.
We got rid of them in 2016, which was an unforced error and I’ve complained about it a lot. Then recently we brought them back again. So now the city has the ability to lock things down again.]
Here’s where it is:
You know, this thing, out on Hunter Road and Centerpoint:
That map has not been updated since 2010, so I have no idea how much has been built out already.
Kissing Tree wants to modify their PDD, so they have to go back to Council. Here’s what Kissing Tree wants to do:
“Active Adult Units” means senior housing.
In other words: The original plan is for 3,450 units: – 2,850 were senior housing – 600 were available for everyone else.
Now they want build 3,150 total units: – 3,150 for seniors – 0 available for everyone else.
It’s not that big a deal – I’m sure this is more profitable for them now – but I’m irritated that no one provided an explanation or talked about consequences. In fact, Council talked about it for roughly 30 seconds, and this was the entire exchange:
Shane Scott: “This is a great example of why PDDs are so useful. We got rid of them, and we should bring them back.”
Jane Hughson: “We are bringing them back. We’ve discussed this.”
Shane: “Was I here for that?”
Jane: “I think so?”
SMCISD gets kind of affected by this kind of decision. The problem is that San Marcos is lopsided – we need more families to balance out all the non-family tax base (ie the university, the outlet malls, and things like Kissing Tree.) From time to time, we get dinged under the state’s Robin Hood law and have to send money back to the state for poorer districts, despite being a Title 1 school district ourself. It’s a complicated mess.
But just remember: Texas squandered a $32 BILLION dollar surplus last legislative session. This was sales tax money – from all Texans – which got sent back to property owners. We literally took money from renters and gave it to home owners.
There is plenty of money in this state to fund all schools properly. We just need to elect a governor and legislature that wants to do so.
….
Item 12: Good news on the Water-Wastewater Treatment Plant front!
We’re getting a new centrifuge:
and a diffuser replacement in aeration basin:
We promise not to spend more than $6,716,477.45.
And a very special San Marxist shout-out to the kind soul on city staff who put these photos in the powerpoint presentation!
These slides didn’t even get shown during the meeting. I see you, I appreciate you.
…
Item 16: We are meekly opening the door for the possibility of maybe someday, beginning a conversation about paid parking downtown.
This is such a tentative baby step that there are no details or decision points yet. We’re just strapping on our sun bonnets, lacing up our sneakers, and sizing up the path ahead of us.
I did think this heat map was interesting:
That map is pretty unintelligible; here’s my attempt to improve:
This is only measuring parking – not traffic congestion or anything.
Here’s what the colors mean: 20 red blocks: street parking is generally over 90% full. Three orange blocks: street parking is usually 85-90% full. Twelve yellow blocks: street parking is usually 75-85% full. Eight green blocks: street parking is usually 50-75% full. Four light blue blocks: street parking is usually 25-50% full. Three dark blue blocks: street parking is usually under 25% full.
The San Marxist 