Category: Meetings

November 3rd City Council Meeting

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

Trying out a new format here! I will update this with links as I watch the meeting.

Hour 1

Citizen Comment Period

Flood Mitigation Presentation

Lobbyist Ordinance

Hour 2:

Just doesn’t warrant a standalone post. There was a discussion about supporting the animal shelter, and noises were made to appropriately respond to all the citizen comments on that subject. There was discussion of the 2022 meeting schedule. They specifically opened the door to shorter, weekly meetings, which I am a huge fan of.

And finally, it was Councilmember Derrick’s last meeting. She will be sorely missed.

The whole meeting was only an hour and forty minutes long! Unheard of.

Hour 1 – 11/3/21

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

Citizen Comment Period

Several people from the Animal Shelter are super fed up. It sounds like it’s been a catastrophe over the past year, since their last director left. I couldn’t infer quite who was running the show in the interim, but the speakers are furious. Transparency has clouded over, advocates and volunteers are being shut out, animals are being euthanized instead of exhausting all options. It sounded pretty bad.

(Apparently they’ve recently posted the job opening for a new director, so hopefully someone good will turn up.)

Flood Mitigation

The presentation was fascinating. It sounds like long winding trenches have been dug along the Blanco river, to keep it from flooding into Blanco Gardens. Then there’s a relief channel that’s going to be built to meet up with the river, downstream. In addition, there’s storm water drainage repairs and more projects being done in Blanco Gardens itself.

The presenter seemed very competent and clear-headed, but what do I know?

Max Baker asked about archaeological remains, should they turn up (which they often do). The answer seemed reasonable and non-evasive: everything would shut down and proper authorities called in. Basically, this is being carried out with federal funds, and so standards are much stricter than Texas for the engineering, environment, archaeology, and so on.

Sounds good to me.

Lobbyist Registration Ordinance

Tell me this isn’t fishy as hell: this was on the docket last July. It was postponed until November 3rd, in order to involve the new council (which already seemed shady). Since the new member hasn’t been seated yet, Mayor Hughson called for anyone to make a motion to table it for a week or two.

Mark Gleason immediately moved to table it until the end of January. Three months? In order to let one councilmember get up to speed? One councilmember who has been on council before, and who had six months advance notice that this issue was coming? It was so over the top that I concluded that Gleason is personally scared of this ordinance. Or someone who is scared of it is leaning on him. Whatever the root, this was bullshit.

Max Baker called them out for sandbagging the ordinance and dragging it out through as many elections as possible. He is correct, and this is really overt crap.

October 4th City Council Meeting

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

Well sheesh, this took me ten days to get through. And it was a miraculously short meeting, clocking in at just two hours. It was so unremarkable that I kept putting off watching the last 30 minutes.

Contracts for utilities were approved. A new HPC member was voted in.

Commissioner Scott had a few eccentric items:

1. City property should be auctioned off instead of thrown away when the city is done using it. And that the auction ought to favor San Marcos residents.

Which, fine. That is uncontroversial. The city’s response was, “Yes. We do this already.”

All the councilmembers competed to be the most enthusiastic and come up with more and more ideas. The staff patiently explained that all these thoughtful measures are already in place.

Finally it ended up that the only non-pre-existing part was the exclusivity of the auction for only San Marcos residents. Staff will look into it.

2. The second weird item from Commissioner Scott was a general discussion about work sessions and packet meetings. Apparently there used to be packet meetings, on Fridays, where council could hear presentations about the agenda and ask questions, prior to a Tuesday meeting. But no longer.

Commissioner Scott said that the constituents miss the packet meetings and want them back.

Mayor Hughson and Commissioner Derrick explained that they didn’t work very well. Councilmembers stopped showing up. It was impossible sometimes to finish reading the packet that quickly.

Bert Lumbreras chimed in that it didn’t allow councilmembers a chance to shape solutions, because they only saw the item a few days before the meeting. So Lumbreras had been the one to introduce work sessions in the first place, where staff can fully educate the council on an issue, and council can give direction before something is presented at a meeting for a vote.

Everyone agrees they love the work sessions.

Commissioner Derrick points out that there will be a new council after November, and how about letting them decide?

Commissioner Baker wants to be allowed to solicit experts to weigh in at work sessions. (This seems like a good idea to me.)

Commissioner Gleason frets tunelessly about competing experts and how much he trusts staff. (This seemed a tad directionless and meaningless.)

Mayor Hughson starts responding to every comment with, “We could put that on the list for after November.”

In the end, there is a nice long list waiting for the new council, in November.

3. The last item was about Short Term Rentals and how noisy and unpleasant they are. (This did not come from Commissioner Scott.) Everyone agrees to a work session to revisit the short term rental policy. See, they do love a work session.

That’s all! It was a Texas Miracle!

September 21st City Council Meeting

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

The big ticket item of the day was clearly Item 44: Hold discussion on not allowing the homeless to camp out or panhandle in San Marcos or in ETJ.  This was brought by Commissioner Scott, who came off looking pretty terrible.

First of all, nearly 20 people turned out to speak forcefully against this item.  They basically all said some version of, “Are you crazy? We’re trying to help homeless people gain access to social services and get out of this vicious cycle, and you’re trying to arrest them for existing. That is cruel and exacerbates all the problems these people face already.”  (Especially since a criminal record can make you ineligible for some of the housing programs, so it can directly sabotage the efforts towards transitional housing.)  And so on.

However, there was one speaker in favor: Gre/en Guy Recycling. I was kinda dismayed, because I like to see them as a progressive ally. They plainly believe that much of the property damage and vandalism they deal with is from the homeless community.

Sidenote: Clearly we are in transition from saying “homeless” to “houseless” but no one has explained why. Maybe there’s a good reason?  Idk.

The item came up for discussion roughly three hours into the meeting. Commissioner Scott spoke first. Annnnnd ….he backpedaled so hard that he nearly bulldozed his way right out of the council chambers, reverse-Kool-aid-man style.   I cannot do his mumbo-jumbo justice, but it roughly went: “Homelessness is a huge problem and we need to think outside of the box! Our current strategies aren’t working! We need a new plan.  I don’t know, maybe some sort of dormitory? Maybe some federal funding? It’s too big for one city. Have I said that we need to think outside the box yet?”

Of course, the problem is that Scott has no idea what’s actually in the box of tools for dealing with homelessness. We don’t need to think outside the box. We need to fund the solutions that are documented to work.

Furthermore, there is already an October 4th work session scheduled, where council will talk through different models for addressing homelessness, and decide how to direct the $400K from the American Rescue Funds. So the idea that Scott put “ban camps and panhandling” on the agenda in order to begin a conversation about building transitional housing is just disingenuous bullshit at its finest.  Truly a “Shane Scott, don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining” moment. 

Furthermore, there is a city council committee on homelessness. It’s chaired by Councilmember Derrick, and Councilmembers Garza and Gonzalez are also on it. 

If you want to hear the full ridiculousness of the about-face, it starts at 3:13:59 on the video. I can’t do it justice.

Anyway, at that point, all the allies of homeless people – Commissioner Baker, Garza, Derrick, and Hughson – said all the normal things.  Baker called for staff and the PD to deprioritize citing and arresting homeless people.

Chief Dandridge said that he’d like to draw a distinction between citations for homeless camps and those for solicitation, since getting out into the I-35 lanes of traffic is a safety issue to both the panhandler and the drivers. He also said that so far in 2021, there have been 88 calls for service involving homeless people and only 3 arrests. Two arrests were for outstanding warrants and one for public intoxication.  So they’re not in the habit of arresting homeless people.  There have been six citations for panhandling, but that includes church groups from Austin who come down and panhandle.  So he provides evidence that the PD doesn’t automatically escalate things, and he outlined the steps that get taken before a citation would be issued.

Commissioners Gleason, Scott, and Gonzalez all say things along the lines of how much they trust and admire the police and how they don’t want to get in their way, but of COURSE they also don’t want to see anyone arrested. Of course.

In sum: “Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Nothing comes of this whole thing. The October 4th work session was already on the books. If anything, this mobilized the network of advocates to be on high alert and to provide data, resources, and information to shape the conversation during the October 4th session.

September 7th City Council Meeting (Part 2)

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

The other two most-important items are Items 14 and 34.

Item 14: Interlocal Agreement with SMCISD on School Resource Officers

Commissioner Baker has a list of concerns about SROs.

  • They are reassigned to different schools for failure to do their job, instead of being removed as SROs all together
  • While training is required to be an SRO, officers get placed on campuses that are not trained as SROs
  • There is language about how SROs will “promote the concept of punishment for criminal acts”. How is this useful in our schools? Some people extend this concept to undocumented community members. This is destructive.
  • “Increase students’ knowledge and respect of the law” – what about when officers aren’t due that respect?
  • May we identify the funding sources of this study?
  • Why are we putting protection of property above protection of students?
  • Why aren’t we surveying students to see how the officers are doing and if they feel safer?
  • We put a pro-SRO video on YouTube featuring an officer whose actions have raised concerns.

Commissioner Derrick weighs in with points about SROs needing mental health training. She’s had particularly negative eperienc

Broadly, I agree with all of Baker’s points. However: Chief Dandridge is consistently great when he talks to City Council. I don’t know what he’s like on the job, and I know that there are community members who are frustrated with our police. All I am saying is that Dandridge’s performance at council meetings is very good. So far, this is what I’ve seen:

  • He generally does not respond adversarily to aggressive questions from Baker.
  • He often agrees partially or completely.
  • He backs up his statements with information and data,
  • He admits when he doesn’t know something, and offers to find the information.
  • He does not offer pat solutions and does not reduce the complexity of issues.

Again, maybe he’s a jerk on the force! I don’t know! But he’s good at council meetings.

Chief Dandridge responds to all of these points, one by one. On the questions about statistics and data, he pledges to write a memorandum compiling his data and that he will send it out to council. He lists the classes that the SROs are trained in. It includes restorative justice, mental health, developmental psychology, suicide prevention, and many more. He doesn’t try to dispute Baker’s points per se, but provides context for how these things play out in San Marcos. And he’s supportive of ideas like surveying students.

In the end, they vote to postpone and have work session. So nothing is resolved here, but I’m glad to see these issues discussed.

Item 34: Greater San Marcos Partnership, GSMP

GSMP is a pro-business organization that works across the entire county to bring business in and support existing businesses. San Marcos kicks in $400k/year. Several issues are raised:

Does GSMP make life better for San Marcos residents? Commissioner Baker wants GSMP to conduct a survey to quantify the impact of GSMP on San Marcos residents.

Mayor Hughson seems rather obtuse on this one, repeating several times that San Marcos already conducts a detailed quality of life survey and there is no need for GSMP to duplicate this. The difference is that the city survey is attempting to ascertain the benefits brought by the city, and the GSMP survey would attempt to measure benefits brought by GSMP. One does not substitute for the other.

Amendment for a mandatory survey passes, 4-3.
In favor: Derrick, Gonzalez, Garza, and Baker
Opposed: Hughson, Scott, Gleason

Next issue up is the Environmental Social Grievance reports, or ESG. These are third party reports compiled on the externalities that a business imposes on the community. City Council has asked for information from GSMP on wages, environmental impact, and other externalities. GSMP says that for $10K, they’ll buy an ESG from a third party company.

Baker would like to read one before agreeing that this suffices. But there isn’t one to read, because they cost money and they’re proprietary. It’s a very frustrating business-y solution. “We’ve contracted out with a niche business, and obviously they aren’t motivated by the public good. What’s the problem?” It’s not exactly corrupt, but it’s annoying and full of middlemen.

Baker moves to postpone until they can see a sample ESG report and see if it is satisfactory, but the motion fails.

In favor: Derrick, Garza, Baker
Opposed: Hughson, Scott, Gleason, Gonzalez

Councilmember Derrick makes an amendment to add mental health providers as a targeted industry. This passes 6-1, with Scott voting no, like a dillweed.

A representative speaks up about how intractable the problem of attracting mental health providers is. He promises that they’ll target, but not that they’ll be successful.

This last part is the BEST. Now, Councilmember Baker has been furious since he was at the GSMP Summit last spring, and nobody was wearing masks. Baker makes an amendment to the agreement that the GSMP will have to follow CDC guidelines on safety.

This passes 5-2:
For: Mayor Hughson, Derrick, Garza, Gonzalez, and Baker
Opposed: Just Gleason and Scott.

The whole discussion takes FOREVER, but the poetic justice of Max getting to force GSMP to wear masks is so sweet and worth every last bit.

(Finally, the actual agreement with GSMP passes unanimously.)

September 7th City Council Meeting (Part 1)

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

This was a big, important meeting. Here are the items I’m categorizing as Top Tier Importance:

  • The 21-22 budget
  • Rate increases for various utilities and setting the property tax rate for the next year
  • School Resource Officers
  • GSMP

I’ll start tackling these, and split it into separate posts if need be.

As an aside: this meeting ran until 1:05 AM on Wednesday morning. Wouldn’t it be nice if they adjourned at 10 pm, and reconvened on Wednesday evening for the last three hours? A well-rested councilmember is a happy councilmember, maybe?

  1. Item 21: Proposed Fiscal Year 21-22 Budget

The budget is one of these items which is very difficult for me to weigh in on and analyze. I don’t have years experience to compare this to. I did not watch the workshop in August where they sliced and diced it more finely.  So for now, I’m mostly observing and not analyzing.  The total city budget is $259 million.

There not many substantial questions. Shall we make the budget available to the public in infographic form?   Should departments notify council for budget adjustments? Sure, sure. Controversial details were hashed out already.  Aside from one: there are a number of rate increases which will be voted on in the next few items, however.

2. Items 22-25: Rate hikes for waterwastewater, electric, drainage, and solid waste.

Several rate increases for the utility funds: water, electric,  drainage utility solid waste. All votes passed the hikes with a 4-3 vote, with Commissioners Scott, Garza, and Gonzalez voting against the hikes.

The total rates average $100/year increase per household. Commissioner Scott made the case that this is a pandemic year and we should wait and double the rate increase next year. Gleason sensibly points out that these projects desperately need funding. Mayor Hughson also pointed out that saving the hike for a year and having to hit households with a doubly large hike isn’t necessarily best for anyone, either.

In my opinion, this is an “ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” situation. Keep your utilities maintained and running smoothly, lest ye run up a boatload of catastrophic expenses when a disaster strikes.

Of course I’m sympathetic to people in poverty being asked to contribute an extra $10/month. I would much prefer it if we had a progressive tax code instead of regressive one. But with utilities, it is scaled by usage, and it is worthwhile to incentivize reduction of water and electricity. Let’s keep utilities solvent via rate hikes, and then be generous with a social safety net. (Granted, we are depressingly stingy with the social safety net. But still. This is not the place to make up the difference.)

Item 26: Overall property tax rate for the coming year.

So, this is a bit math-heavy. Let’s see if I can keep it simple. The state of Texas caps how much a city can raise it’s property tax rate. By that, our upper bound tax rate is $0.7554 per $100 of property value. We are staying well below that, no worries.

Next up is the No New Revenue rate, where the city brings in the same amount as last year. This is set at $0.603 per $100. Now, the city has a bunch of properties that weren’t taxed last year. Those new properties will bring in $1.4 million under this tax rate, and so all existing properties actually get a tax break, which totals about $300K less than last year.

Finally there’s a penny deduction, which is discussed at length. Can we run the city on a tax rate of $0.593, instead of $0.603? On average, this will save each household $17. It costs the city about $600K to drop down.

They’ve prepared both a $0.593 and a $0.603 budget. So what gets cut? Six new positions for the police department. The city tells us that the extra $600K will pay for three traffic officers and three 911 dispatchers. So there’s the rub: lower taxes or fund the police? (As a dedicated lefty, I took a moment to relish the sheer poetry of making conservative commissioners pick between these choices.)

Commissioner Gleason was the first to wring his hands over this. He tries to find the $600K out of the CIP budget, but those projects aren’t actually paid for out of the current year, and so next year’s budget doesn’t do us any good right now. Commissioner Gonzalez tries to raid development impact fees, but that also can’t be redistributed for this use.

Commissioner Scott suggests that we use traffic ticket revenue, which pisses me off. That is exactly the kind of counter-incentive that leads to aggressive over-policing of minority communities. (Commissioner Baker makes that point in rebuttal.)

Chief Dandridge is invited to weigh in. I find him to be measured and thoughtful at these meetings. He says that we have 3200 car crashes per year, and a high number of young drivers, and every crash is time-consuming. Most cities have dedicated traffic officers to deal with accidents. As to the 911 dispatchers, we are covering a larger area than just the city and the staffing hasn’t increased since 2013, but our calls have gone up a lot.

Commissioner Baker weighs in. He’s okay with the 911 dispatchers but questions the need for more police officers, and points out that this is not the best way to reduce car crashes. He advocates for redesigning dangerous intersections and implementing a Slow Streets project, where streets are designed in a way that drivers automatically reduce their speed. (I am also a fan of these solutions.)

Commissioner Gleason again wrings his hand over this choice: Safety! But lower taxes! But safety! But lower taxes! You can see the smoke coming out his ears.

Commissioner Derrick speaks up. She agrees with Baker on the alternate solutions for safety, but points out that those take years, and we need to provide health, safety, and welfare now. (This is basically where I land, too. Traffic cops can be abusive or they can be a benefit to society. I don’t know which they will be, but the solution is not necessarily not to have officers available for car crashes.)

Finally it’s time. Mayor Hughson makes a motion to lower the tax rate to $0.593 …and no one seconds it! I was not expecting that! Exciting times.

So they vote on the original proposal of $0.603, which would fund the traffic cops and dispatchers.

For: Baker, Derrick, Gonzalez, Gleason, and Mayor Hughson.
Against: Garza, Scott.

……..

Let’s stop here, and we can save SROs and GSMP for the next post.

August 17th City Council meeting (Part 2)

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

Third most interesting item:

Item 20: Project Robot! Great name, right? Project Robot is a three year property tax break that we’re giving to a giant laundry service that will go in next to the new Amazon facility, on the north side of town. It sounds like it’s mass laundering of hotel sheets and towels.

A lot of attention was paid to requiring the facility to maintain its Clean Green standing for ten years. This is good, but I am not an environmental engineer and can’t really weigh in on what’s greenwashing and what’s substantial.

Supposedly the facility will create 100 jobs at average salary of $44k, with full benefits from day 1. This sound suspect. To me, that sounds like 90 jobs at $25K and ten jobs at $500K. “Average” is not necessarily what you want to know about that situation.

What else was discussed?

  • Universal utility forgiveness passed unanimously, although Commissioner Derrick allowed herself a small “SURE I GUESS” through gritted teeth. Total price tag comes in at $581K.

(There was a hilariously petty exchange between Commissioner Scott and Mayor Hughson that basically descended into “am not” “are too”, like my kids do, over whether or not it is a sure thing that this won’t affect our budget score. Technically the bickering when “We’ll be fine” “We don’t know that” “I know that” “We’ll see” ad nauseum. I enjoyed it immensely.)

  • 390 acres of Whisper South were annexed, with only Commissioner Baker dissenting. There was no discussion and I have no opinion.
  • Electric Cab Bus Proposal was postponed for a month. I grokked that the entire council is mad about an extremely shitty proposal that was put forward, although I don’t know what went wrong. The proposers have a month to fix it, or they will go back to the pool of proposals to reassess.
  • Max tax rate was set, although the actual tax rate will come under that.
  • Some vacancies were filled. Amy Meeks will join P&Z.
  • Spear guns will come back around as an ordinance
  • P&Z and Council will be required to undergo CodeSMTX trainings

And while there were some other fiddly details, I’m declaring that to be a wrap! Thanks, folks, and see you in September!

August 17th City Council meeting (Part 1)

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

Miracle of miracles, this week’s meeting was over by 10 pm! I watched the whole thing in one setting! (I was remiss and failed to post a Previewing the Agenda post.) Let’s dive in!

I’ll say that the most significant items are Item 1 and Item 30, taken together.

Both of these are focused on Covid. Item 1 was a local Covid update, given by the newly hired Emergency Response Coordinator, Rob Finch. It was good to see him up and running in that capacity. He did a great job painting a dire picture of our current Delta surge.

Item 30 was a plea from the Christus Hospital (ie formerly CTMC) for $500K to help them hire nurses during this surge. We currently have exceeded our ICU beds and have ICU patients in the PICU, but so does everyone else regionally (although it fluctuates constantly.) The nursing burnout and shortstaffing sounded dreadful, and in addition nurses can now command significant salaries nationwide, and it all combined with the current surge to put the hospital in this desperate position. The $500K is a stopgap while the hospital pursues other funding from the state and county and wherever else.

The whole thing was very compelling and all the commissioners were very compassionate.  The $500K comes from other line items on the American Rescue Funds, and those projects will see part of their funding deferred (but not eliminated) until the next $9 million.

Highlights include Commissioner Scott asking two questions: does the hospital require its staff to be vaccinated? and does the hospital provide alternative medicines, like this Ivermectin stuff his friend got from his doctor? It healed him very quickly.

The representative from the hospital neatly disposed of both of these questions. For the first, he basically said, “We are strongly pro-vaccine but also in a staffing shortage, and we can’t afford to pit these ideals against each other. We’re working with a combination of incentives and encouragements and education campaigns.” For the latter, he said, “I am not a doctor, but we’re totally happy to use all scientifically supported therapies.” (Again, I paraphrase.)

Note: the Ivermectin stuff is the voodoo horse pills, I believe. So maybe his friend is a horse.

Christus guy: 2, Commissioner Scott: 0.

Item 2 gets my vote for next-most-significant:  TxDOT presentation on I-35 and SH 123.

Oh god, this will be a nightmare. TxDOT will be destroying and rebuilding various parts of I-35 from now until 2025. As my grandmother advised, multiply all time estimates by 3, and so we should be in a sorry state all the way until 2033.

The first chunk is focused on the access roads. Those will be closed down (allegedly) for up to 18 months, in various reconfigurations. And I’ll be damned if the Southbound access road wasn’t partially closed this morning! Fast work, TxDOT.

During this time, the northbound access bridge over the river will be raised to the same level as I-35, so that it won’t flood when the river floods. As a consequence, the underpass at River Road will be eliminated. (More on that in a moment.)

They’re also switching the on-ramps and exit-ramps. The idea is that if you have an on-ramp closely followed by an off-ramp, then the merging and lane-changing happens on the highway. Whereas if you have an off-ramp closely followed by an on-ramp, then the merging and jockeying for position happens on the access road.

In my opinion, this is lame. Or at least this location is not a great use of that principle. The problem is that the intersections under I-35 are in very close proximity, and each light gets an on-ramp and an off-ramp. So the ramps are all spaced evenly and there’s no clear “close pairing” of on-ramps and off-ramps. It just alternates. Merging and jockeying happens in both the highway and access road, in an alternating pattern. And so if you switch the ramps, you’re spending a whole lot of money just to shift the alternating pattern along by one unit.

The next chunk will be widening the I-35 main lanes themselves, including the bridge over SH123. And then at the end, they’re going to tinker with SH123 itself. The whole thing sounds like a 4-12 year headache. I feel sorry for myself.

The most controversial part is the closure of the underpass at River Road, and how that disconnects Blanco Gardens from the other half of the city. Commissioner Gleason lives in that neighborhood and is furious that TxDOT has decided to do this.

The underpass itself will be converted to bike lanes and pedestrian walkways, which actually sounds very lovely, but Gleason is 100% right about the negative impact on the neighborhood.

I understand that the access road will be lifted up, and therefore can’t connect with the underpass anymore. What I don’t understand is why the underpass can’t just go under the access road and connect with River Road? It can be a thoroughfare without involving I-35.

(I assume the answer is because TxDOT doesn’t actually care, and that would be more expensive.)

August 3rd City Council Meeting, (Part 4)

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

Anything else of note?

  • Some housing developments are moving forward:
    • a block of condominiums buried back by the Hays County Government Center. Good location – infill without threatening any neighborhoods. Close to schools, parks, and businesses. The drawback is that it’s near Purgatory Creek, and it’s not great to develop that close to it, but the entire plat is already mostly developed. There was some conversation about making sure that they do an archeological survey first, which is also good.
    • More on that Whisper Tract, northeast of town. That whole area is a little bit sprawl-y for my tastes, but at least it’s not environmentally sensitive.
  • The funding opportunities that were discussed in July were finalized. Important but not controversial
  • Mr. Exotic’s Steakhouse. Oh lord, these guys. Here is my best speculation: a couple dudes said, “We want to open a nightclub on the square! But we’ll never get permits. Let’s open as a restaurant and then run it like a bar!”
    “Yes, yes, this will be great!” they all congratulated themselves.
    “We need a name that straddles both a plausible restaurant and a plausible nightclub. How about Mr. Exotic’s?”
    “yes, yes, great! It can masquerade as an exotic game steakhouse.”

    So they trotted off for an alcohol CUP to P&Z, where they got swatted down HARD. The kitchen was way too small to be a restaurant, the menu was laughable, they’d gotten in trouble for starting renovations on a historical building without work permits, and then they’d violated the stop work orders and gotten busted doing so.

    Now they were appealing the decision to Council. They came, quite contrite, apologetic and asked for more time to get their act together. Commissioner Derrick pointed out that the one dude who now claimed to live in San Marcos was staying at a short-term rental with a long history of disturbing the peace. It seems he owns the rental, but has been a crappy landlord?

    In my opinion, this was all the flimsiest of facades. “Oh, we have to play hangdog to get the alcohol permit? Look at our sad, sad faces!”

    A guy from Code Enforcement basically said these guys were truly unusual in how many violations they’d racked up in short order.

    Commissioner Scott went on the dumbest of rants, first accusing the Code Enforcement guy of having an axe to grind, and then about how the people need restaurant choices! A steakhouse would be great on the square! (Yes, but if you think this will actually result in a steakhouse, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.)

    It was pointed out that you can run a steakhouse without a CUP. Have it be BYOB for a year, and then they can re-apply.

    In the end, the vote to postpone passed.
    In favor: Scott, Gleason, Garza, and Hughson
    Opposed: Baker, Gonzalez, and Derrick

    Garza did her extreme naivete thing, where she appeared to genuinely feel that both Derrick and Scott were equally sincere in their rants.

    So this item will come back around in another month or so. Amusing but ultimately doomed and not important, in my opinion.
  • A discussion on raises for four city employees, who were individually named. I guess these four are hired directly by council. Commissioner Baker sparked a long discussion by asking for reports on their SMART outcomes from the year before.

    Hughson was literally like, “I’ve never heard this acronym before and I’m confused and suspicious.”

    The discussion was very unclear to me: did they set these goals only in May 2021, or did they set goals both in May 2020 and in May 2021? Baker’s request to see outcomes only makes sense if there were SMART goals set in May 2020, which could then be measured, etc, a year later. But Hughson et al were clearly acting like they were brand new to this topic and hadn’t heard these terms before, and were acting like it Baker was proposing to evaluate the employees on their brand new goals. The whole thing was a mess.

    Finally they settled on having a workshop to explain what SMART goals are. Hughson seriously needs this – she was saying things like, “It’s not fair to make them accountable for measurable goals that they don’t have control over! If they say they’re going to process 20 applications and then 10 come in, that’s not THEIR fault!” (To be explicit, that would never be a SMART goal. You’d make it something like, “If there are fewer than 10 applications in a week, they will be processed within 7 days.” Or whatever.)
  • A discussion on reducing the number of false alarms for residents before fines kicked in. To be clear, this has nothing to do with 911 calls, which was my concern. This is home alarm systems that automatically call the police when they go off. Furthermore, it was just aligning a discrepancy between two ordinances. Truly nbd.
  • Mexican-American and Indigenous Heritage and Cultural District was postponed.
  • The Dunbar School Building. This is the small, currently shuttered building behind the Dunbar building. It is very old, and served as the African-American school historically. Clearly it should be renovated and given its proper historical accolades.

    At some point, a city form implied that it might be converted into bathrooms. The city maintains that this was a straight up clerical error. It could be, or it could have been someone who was ignorant, or racist, or both, and sincerely thought it was a great location for bathrooms for the playground.

    There was a heartfelt letter from a citizen whose name I recognized but couldn’t quite make out, who was deeply offended by the implication of converting the building to bathrooms. She is a long-standing member of the African-American community, I believe, and likely either attended or knew people who attended the school.

    City council members, for their part, are falling all over themselves trying to really, really make sure that NOWHERE is the suggestion that it should be bathrooms. The error has been long since corrected, and they are GRAVELY sorry for the mix-up.

    LMC, for her part, is fanning the flames on this, and citing the issue in nearly every comment she gives, which is generally ~3-5 per meeting.

    Anyway: There was actually an agenda item on the Dunbar School Building. Everyone enthusiastically voted to support the restoration of the building.

And that’s a wrap! The August 3rd meeting is on the books!