Bonus! Even more 3 pm workshops! 11/19/24

by The San Marxist, posted in 3 pm Workshops

Workshop #2: LIHTC projects: This stands for Low Income Housing Tax Credits.

There are two kinds:

  • Developers can get tax credits from the state
  • Sometimes they get tax credits from both the city and the state.

Both kinds have to get approved by Council.

Backstory:

Blue are the developments that get just state tax breaks. Green gets both state and local:

This past spring we approved five developments (2 blue, 3 green) and Mark Gleason panicked that we were being too generous. We can’t help this many people! It’s fiscally irresponsible!

Hence this workshop! Let’s find out if we can afford to help vulnerable residents. (Spoiler: we can.)

More Background:

San Marcos is booming!

So we’ll end up somewhere between the purple and the orange, most likely.

You can look at it this way:

The blue parts are our new sprawl.

San Marcos has a good employment rate, but high poverty rate:

This means that our jobs are not good jobs. The cure for this is raising the minimum wage. (Raising the minimum wage does not cause inflation. Paying a living wage turns a bad job into a good one!)

Anyway!

Here’s where the jobs are:

This is fascinating:

In other words:

  • Only 6700 of us actually live and work in San Marcos
  • 18K of us live in San Marcos, but we work outside of town.
  • 28K people commute into San Marcos, but live elsewhere.

In my humble opinion, this is two things:

  • people who live here can’t find good jobs here, and
  • the University has good jobs, but parents who work for Tx state are scared of SMCISD for problematic reasons. (I have lots of opinions on that. Support SMCISD!)

Anyway, those are my own conclusions. City staff did not lob those accusations.

…

So are LIHTC projects breaking our budget?

The city gets both sales tax and property tax.

When it comes to property tax, there’s a lot of tax-exempt property:

So some LIHTC projects don’t pay city taxes, but neither does city land, Texas State land, SMCISD, County land, Churches, Housing Authority, and others.

(One difference is that most of those are nonprofits. LIHTC developments aren’t necessarily nonprofits.)

So how bad is the dent in our budget??

Not very bad!

You are allowed to ask for a lump sum payout. (Payment In Lieu of Taxes = PILOT). So we do this sometimes:

LIHTC apartments are still full of people, so you still have some fire and SMPD costs. But not particularly different than any other apartment complex.

In general, apartments are much cheaper infrastructure for the city than single family housing.

This is a great illustration of why:

I want to love this graphic, but I can’t. The scale is all off.

  • A 3-4 story apartment building is about 20-30 units per acre. The diagram on the left should be 7-10 acres.
  • Single Family (ND-3/CD-3) are things like town homes and smaller lots – at most 10 units per acre. So that middle diagram is 20 acres big.
  • Single Family (SF-6/SF-4.5) are big traditional lots – at most 7 houses per acre. So that right hand diagram is over 28 acres big. That’s three times as big as the one on the left!

Fixed it:

(I am so smug and insufferable. It’s a miracle you all put up with me.)

Anyway: there are also some city costs for things like libraries and transit. Same as for any residents.

…

How much need is there in San Marcos?

More than elsewhere:

…

Onto the state requirements for their tax credits.

The state organization is TDHCA. (Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.)

They care about:

  • Location. You can’t put your low income housing in a crappy location.
  • Clustering – you can’t put them too close together
  • Flood plain – nope
  • They must have at least 15 hours each week of an after-school learning center
  • They must supply a shuttle if they’re not on a bus route
  • Free support services, a mix of amenities
  • ADA apartments

How cheap are these apartments?

First off, “AMI” is Area Median Income. We’re in the Austin Metropolitan area, so we use Austin incomes, even though San Marcos incomes are roughly half of Austin’s. (San Marcos median household income is $47K, whereas Austin median household income is $86K.)

Here’s the key feature:

The state also monitors the complexes:

San Marcos does not get those reports, currently. It would be nice if we did.

…

If you’ll recall, we did a big Housing Needs Assessment back in 2019, and came up with a housing plan to work on housing affordability. This is great! And…. council then buried it six feet underground.

Housing affordability has not been a major priority of this council for the past five years. (Except Alyssa Garza.) In the budget we passed in October – two months ago! – our Strategic Plan Goals were:

None of those are affordable housing.

Council did not care until this election cycle, when it became clear that you could lose your election if you didn’t hear the clamor for affordable housing. It was suddenly the #1 issue.

Anyway: We’re finally doing it, five years late. The first step is updating the data for the Housing Needs Assessment, which is almost ten years out of date.

Listen: this workshop was fascinating, and councilmembers asked good questions. I’m not doing it justice. But it was a 5 hour meeting and a 2 hour workshop, and your poor little marxist is tired.

November 6th City Council Meeting

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

Hoo-boy. We’ve had a big election and a little council meeting.  Let’s dig in.

The Little Meeting: It was only 50 minutes long.

Hours 0:00 – 0:50: Parking bans by the river, the new HEB, and more.

Bonus! 3 pm workshops: We’ve got $250K of Covid money left, and time is running out.

The Big Election:

Nationally: I’ve got the same grim despair as you do.  There are a lot of people whose lives will be harder, sicker, poorer, and more abused because of this shit-for-brains president-elect. 

I feel hopeless, but not helpless.  American voters have revealed what they are, but there’s still work to be done. So as shitty as it is out there, we can compartmentalize and work on San Marcos. 

Onto the local scene: 

  • Mayor: As you’ve probably heard, Jane Hughson won re-election.  This will be her 4th term – she’s won in 2018, 2020, 2022, and now in 2024.  This means she’s term-limited, and the mayor will be an open seat in 2026.
  • Place 6: Amanda Rodriguez won Place 6!  I’m so glad.  We’re starting to get a progressive bloc up there that can actually win votes.
  • Place 5: Lorenzo Gonzalez and Roland Saucedo are headed to a run-off. Here’s how it shook out: 

That is extremely close. All you can conclude is:
– Lorenzo did a little better than the rest, and Atom did a little worse.
– Roland got a little lucky. and Griffin got a little unlucky.

The run-off: Saturday, December 14th.

I’m backing Lorenzo Gonzalez in the run-off election! His main message has been to be available and responsive to people, redirect more money towards mental health, and focus on housing.

Listen: After I posted my candidate write-up, people came out of the woodwork to warn me that Roland Saucedo is super problematic.  The formal documentation is limited – mostly this and this – but sufficiently many people are telling me a consistent story about his disregard for others. It’s troubling.

If you ever wanted your vote to count extra, a local runoff election is your sweet spot. Barely anyone will show up, and it can easily be decided by 50 votes. Or 15 votes. Or even 5!

Hours 0:00 – 0:50, 11/6/24

by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

Onto the little meeting!   

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.

  1. This is exclusionary.  The street does not belong to you.  

  2. 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.

  3. 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. 

  4. 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.

Here were my concerns last time:

  • Would all HEB employees get the $15/hour as required by local ordinance, even at the existing stores?
  • Can we include something about wage and benefits, to make sure our workers are given good jobs?
  • Is it in writing that Little HEB will stay open for a certain number of years? 
  • Can we ask HEB about purchasing that little triangle of land next to Purgatory Creek from them?

Here’s what council said about these questions:

[Nothing.] 

I know, we were all consumed with the election. But I still wish we’d fought on behalf of employees.

The vote:

YAY HEB 4-EVAH: Everybody, unanimous, etc. 
I hate everyone’s favorite grocery store:  nobody.

…

Item 10: The Mitchell Center

We mentioned this last time at the workshop: it’s being handed over to the Calaboose African American History Museum. 

It’s located here, tucked in the back corner of Dunbar park:

Apparently there is a covenant that runs with the land that requires the land be used for a public, non-profit purpose.   This seems like a good choice.

…

Item 13:  Naming the alleys

This also came up last time:

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:

  1.  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.

  2. 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!

Bonus! 3 pm workshops, 11/6/24

by The San Marxist, posted in 3 pm Workshops

We got $18 million dollars from the federal government during Covid. This is called ARPA money. It all has to be obligated by December 31st, 2024.  Not spent, but under contract.

Here’s how we spent our ARPA money:

Some of the projects have come in under budget:

The can ban came in $89K under budget?! But… but we didn’t get rid of the cans…

Anyway, we’ve rounded up all the scraps and put them back in the pot to hand out.  

(True story: my mom would collect all the slivers of bar soaps, and put them in a mesh bag to use as one big bag of bar soap.  It’s gross! You should try it some time! The connection being that we are putting all the last little ARPA slivers into a mesh bag to use as one final ARPA slushfund.)

So what should we do with this last $246K?

Here’s what City staff recommends:

Every time this comes up, over the past four years, Alyssa Garza argues for direct aid to neighbors. We should use covid money on things like rental assistance, utility assistance, emergency grants for car repairs, etc. But somehow these things never materialize.

The conversation gets bogged down.
– Is it because council doesn’t agree on the direction they give staff?
– Is it because it’s very hard to implement these direct aid measures?
– Is it because the federal restrictions make it really hard for residents to find all the correct paperwork and documentation?

It goes in circles for awhile.

Eventually Alyssa convinces everyone to try to redirect the Dunbar bathroom money towards emergency rental assistance. If staff can’t make that work, Plan B is still the Dunbar bathrooms. B is for Bathrooms.

TSM Official Take on City Council Candidates, Fall ’24

by The San Marxist, posted in City Council Elections

We’ve got three big races this year! Voting starts tomorrow! (Never forget: San Marcos Elections are Problematic.)

Voting details: Early Voting Hours and Locations.
More voting info: League of Women Voters and Vote411.

Extremely short take: 

  • Amanda Rodriguez is the best candidate of any race.  Vote for her, Place 6.
  • Mayor: I’ll be voting for Juan Miguel Arredondo.
  • Place 5: It’s complicated! Details below.

Longer take:

Quick background: There have been a lot of different forums:

So what are the major issues?

#1 issue: Housing affordability. Every candidate said that housing affordability is the most important issue facing San Marcos. Everyone got that same memo, loud and clear. This makes it a little hard to distinguish the candidates.

Other issues: the river, the business community, bringing in good jobs, public safety, renter protection, Cape’s Dam.

Mayoral Race:  Juan Miguel Arredondo is the progressive candidate. I’ll be voting for him.

  • Jane Hughson is the current mayor. She is the status quo candidate. Her strengths are her attention to detail and general conscientiousness. She always seems to read documents thoroughly. She is a strong centrist and generally beholden to NIMBY types.
  • Juan Miguel Arredondo is the change candidate.  He’s an odd mix of progressive and conservative policies, but he does want to shake things up.  More progressive than not!

Housing Affordability: Miguel wins on this issue. Jane was mayor when the SMTX Housing 4 All plan came up for a vote in 2019. Instead of working to address the issue, Council deep-sixed it, and never actually implemented the plan. Staff even gave a workshop on reviving the plan, and nothing came of it. (Instead, Council prioritized using extra money to hire extra police officers and firefighters. That wasn’t my favorite. If they’d been more mindful about sprawl, we wouldn’t have needed as many extra PD and firefighters.)

Jane will probably prioritize affordable housing now that it’s become everyone’s favorite buzzword. But she will be more NIMBY about it than Miguel.

(Miguel makes me squirm when he starts talking about how property taxes are too high and bringing good jobs to San Marcos. Why not raise the minimum wage? All jobs would be good jobs if they paid a living wage! But there’s no difference between him and Jane on this issue.)

Place 6: I’m doing this one before Place 5, because it’s easier.

  • Amanda Rodriguez:  Just exactly what we need. She has a strong vision, a strong sense of justice, and she answered questions with a depth of knowledge.  She’s here to fight for the most vulnerable people in San Marcos, and she is straight-forwardly honest about this mission. It’s electric.

    Look, Amanda is basically the Johnny Cash of San Marcos. She’s intense, she’ll speak straight to your soul, and you can practically hear her sing: 

I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down
Livin’ in the hopeless, hungry side of town
I wear it for the prisoner, who has long paid for his crime
But is there because he’s a victim of the times

How can you not vote for Johnny Cash?!  We need her on Council.

🎵 Till things are brighter, she’s the candidate in black.   🎶

  • Maraya Dunn:  She’s been on P&Z for about 5 months, but she has not said much during the meetings.  During the debates, she is Team Business, and says things like, “If you make it easier on businesses, that will help solve the other problems, like housing.” She loves businesses of all sizes, and wants to reduce red tape.

There’s a kernel of truth to that – we do need to revisit our Land Development Code and see where we’re impeding the kind of growth we want. But her language is problematic – she is prioritizing making life easier for businesses, not prioritizing how to get the best results for San Marcos. It’s very conservative, business-friendly, and Texan.

(At the same time, she clearly has a soft spot for animals! She owns the Stinky Dawg Dog Spa downtown, and put Animal Welfare as one of her top three priorities. But I’m sure Amanda is pro-puppy as well, like any good person.)

Place 5: Ugh, this is the hardest one to write about. I would not be upset about any of them being in office.

  • Roland Saucedo: Seems to have a good heart.  His answers are mushy and low on detail, but his heart is generally in the right place.   [Updated to add: “Bad with details” is an understatement. More here, and it’s not good.]
  • Griffin Spell:  He has been on P&Z for years, and so there is a lot of data to go on here. He has been great on P&Z.  Thinks for himself, explains his reasoning, open to arguments from others.  Politically, he is a centrist, but his process is high quality.  He easily has the most experience of anyone here. He’ll govern as a thoughtful centrist.
  • Atom Von Arndt: He is fighting for the tenants. He uses the phrase, “Let’s make it hard in San Marcos for bad landlords.” This is a great fight for Council to take on!

    His thinking is a bit muddled when it comes to the University and opposing Rent-by-the-Bedroom, in that he thinks there are simple answers to complex problems.

    But overall, he seems smart, and a bit of a live wire. If you want to make life interesting on this blog, he’s your guy.
  • Lorenzo Garza: He’s the one candidate that I’d never heard of before he filed, so he’s at a disadvantage. That said, he gave reasonably good answers to the questions.

    He wants to be responsive to the people, and he also wants to redirect some of the police department budget towards things like mental health. He comes across as a progressive who is pretty new to San Marcos.

Bottom line: I think you’ve gotta look in your own heart for Place 5. Are you a Roland, a Griffin, an Atom, or a Lorenzo? Someone write a Buzzfeed quiz for me!

October 15th City Council Meeting

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

I’ve got your Council election candidate recs, fresh off the presses! Plus: VisionSMTX, the exciting new 3rd HEB, TDS, ARWA and some old timey photos of San Marcos. So many acronyms. What a week.

TSM Official Take on City Council Candidates, Fall ’24: Let’s dish about your favorite candidates, and I’ll spill who I’m voting for.

Hours 0:00 – 1:24:  VisionSMTX is done, and we discuss contracts with the Chamber of Commerce and Texas Disposal Systems.

Hours 1:24 – 2:07:  All the exciting details on the new HEB!  Plus ARWA water and naming the downtown alleys.

Bonus! 3 pm workshops: The Mitchell Center gets a new family. 

This is the last post before the election! (A wave of anxiety crashes over me.)

For the love of god, please go vote. And tell your friends and family: you can vote with an expired license. You know how backed up the DMV is right now.

Hours 0:00 – 1:24, 10/15/24

by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

Citizen Comment:

  • 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 Together for 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:

And go here:

and

This was not discussed. I just wanted to wrap up the topic.

….

Item 10: Texas Disposal Systems

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. 

The vote:

TDS it is!

.

Hours 1:24 – 2:05, 10/15/24

by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

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.

…

Sidebar: When we passed the 2016 (partial) minimum wage law, we did not include automatic inflation adjustments, the way we do for other contracts. If we had, $15/hour in 2016 would have automatically risen to $19.96 in 2024.

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. 

(image via)

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:

  1. 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.

Bonus! 3 pm Workshops, 10/15/24

by The San Marxist, posted in 3 pm Workshops

This is the Mitchell Center:

It’s kind of tucked away in the Dunbar Neighborhood:

It’s got deep historical roots:

Since the 30 year lease is coming to an end, the City decided to open up for bids to nonprofits:

In the end, staff recommended the Calaboose African American History as the best choice.

I’m not exactly sure where the $400K is going to come from for the estimated repairs, but certainly the Calaboose folks will be good stewards of this property.

…

Workshop #2 was about the Utility Billing Assistance program. It’s still being hashed out; I’m going to leave this alone for now.

October 2nd City Council Meeting

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

Extremely short meeting this week! VisionSMTX, some art talk, and Quail Creek park. You’ll zip through the blog post in no time flat.

City Council Elections: Here’s what I’ve heard about:
– Realtors debate (on September 19th)
– SMRF Questionnaire (in their newsletter and online this week)
– League of Women Voters debate (not until Thursday, October 19th)

I’ll write up my thoughts and endorsements after the LWV debate. It’ll come out Sunday, October 20th. Stay tuned!

Onto this tiny little meeting:

Hours 0:00-1:00:  We discuss VisionSMTX, the new downtown mural, and Quail Creek park.  

That was it. There wasn’t even a workshop!