Tag: fees

Citizen Comment:

8 speakers. Assorted topics:

• San Marcos River Foundation: The Sinai Church proposal on Hopkins is in very sensitive land. We’re okay with 30% impervious cover, but not 80% impervious cover.
• The Sinai Pentecostal Church is beloved and serves the people of San Marcos. Please approve the rezoning for the new sanctuary.
• We have too many contracts with Axon. (three speakers)
• The new Veterans Clinic will be great for area vets.
• The VFW floods easily, and it’s right next to the proposed Sinai sanctuary. (two speakers)
• Some council candidates are delinquent on their campaign finance reports
• We banned Flock, but why haven’t we brought in some other license plate reader company?

Moving along!

….

Item 15: New VA Clinic

Here’s how it works for veterans in San Marcos: the southern part of town is in the San Antonio district, and the northern part of town is in the Austin district.

This makes it very hard to get to doctor’s appointments! Some vets can just go to New Braunfels, but others have to go up to Austin, or even Temple. Arranging transportation is a big, ongoing problem.

But now, we’re getting our own VA clinic here in San Marcos. This is great!

Here’s where it will be:

Here’s another view:

There’s not much to say here. It only came to council on something of a technicality: they wanted the parking lot in front, instead of the back of the building. You want vets to have easy access to the front door, because many have mobility impairments. So now it’s been rezoned and the parking lot can go in front.

Everyone is very excited for the new VA clinic.

….

Item 16: Sinai Church Lot

This is a big, dicey item, and it’s confusing how it played out. Bear with me here.

Sinai Pentecostal Church is in Barrio Pescado, on Laredo St:

They have super deep roots in the San Marcos community. Everyone loves them.

They also own this land, right where Hopkins road switches over to being Hunter Road:

On Hopkins/Hunter, it looks like this:

That’s pretty hard to see…. here’s just the field:

Anyway.

They want to build a santuary here. Sanctuaries are very expensive, though.

This brings us to Pennington Funeral Home!

Pennington used to be here:

right by Little HEB.

It just got demolished recently, to build some apartments. They’re looking to build their new home.

Pennington reached out to Sinai Pentecostal and offered build a joint sanctuary-funeral home on the field on Hopkins. This sounds like a great partnership!

Here’s the problem:

San Marcos gets two kinds of floods. In 2015, the Blanco river flooded. Since the Blanco and the San Marcos river converge, the San Marcos river backed up. Between these two rivers, there was a lot of flooding around Highway 80 and Blanco Gardens.

But back in 1998, it was Purgatory Creek that flooded. Across central Texas, 31 people died. I’ve heard that there were apartment complexes near the river where the second story flooded.

I couldn’t find photos specific to San Marcos – everything refers to it as the Central Texas Floods. But here’s footage of Purgatory Creek flooding during normal-ish minor flood in 2018.

The Sinai property is the most sensitive possible land for flooding – it’s not just a flood zone, it’s a floodway. Building there will make flooding worse.

The P&Z Meeting, September 22

The church and Pennington Funeral Home asked for a rezoning. Right now, the church can build a sanctuary, but they can’t have any commercial businesses, like Pennington.

This affects the amount of impervious cover: currently the church is allowed to build up to 30% impervious cover. If they get commercial zoning, they can up to 80% impervious cover.

P&Z took both sides very seriously:

• the mission of the church, their decades of service to San Marcos, and this opportunity that they’ve prayed for
• the risk of increased flooding to Dunbar neighborhood, directly behind the church.

One commissioner grew up in Dunbar, and recalled a little boy who died in a flood in the 1980s. She said that she could not, in good conscience, possibly approve something that could make the flooding worse.

P&Z denied the rezoning request.

(I literally emailed them afterwards to tell them I was impressed by how gracefully they handled this item.)

This week: Sinai and Pennington appeal to Council

A few facts to keep track of:

1. Since P&Z denied the request, Council has to get 6 votes to overturn it. Otherwise the P&Z denial stays.
2. Right now, the church is allowed to build a sanctuary, and they are allowed 30% impervious cover. It’s only Pennington that can’t join in, because they are a commercial business.

Finally: since the P&Z meeting, a new deal was struck – what if Sinai and Pennington agree to stay at the 30% impervious cover, instead of going up to 80%?

My reaction: this is great! This addresses the flooding, while allowing Sinai to partner with Pennington to build the sanctuary/funeral home. Win-win!

It did not go so neatly.

What does Council say?

Josh: They haven’t drawn up plans yet, right? It’s possible that the floodway may still prove to be impossible to build on?
Answer: That’s right. Getting the re-zoning is the first step, but this would still be a very tricky process.

Matthew: I’m really concerned about the VFW next door. They really are basically on a river bottom. I’m worried about toxic chemicals in the case of a flood. I’m willing to have faith and vote for this, but I ask them to think about the VFW.

Amanda: I’ve known Pastor Montoya since I was a child. This is tough.

• I don’t like overriding the Comprehensive Plan
• I’m worried the deal that is being proposed is not as enforceable as I’d like.
• I’d feel better if it were a Restrictive Covenant.

I’m sorry, but I’m a no, under the current proposal.

Lorenzo: P&Z never saw the new proposal. They only voted on the proposal for 80% impervious cover. Why don’t we send it back to them? If they approve it, then we only need a simple majority, instead of a supermajority.

Everyone likes this idea. This seems to solve everything!

Sending it back to P&Z would delay the rezoning by about 5-8 weeks. Council asks Pennington: is that kind of delay okay with you guys?

Pennington: Actually, no. We’re terribly sorry. We’re renting temporary space and we absolutely have to move forward now, or else we’ll bail on this partnership altogether.

Well shit. Back to square one.

Amanda: I’d like to rescind my 2nd on the motion to send it back to P&Z. I don’t believe in jerking people around. If that will force Pennington out, then let’s not do it. Let’s make a decision tonight.

She then asks for a brief recess so that she can wrestle with her decision.

…

I have thoughts!

• Maybe it’s okay – maybe there are six votes on Council, and Amanda can be the sole NO vote.
• Amanda did say that she’d be okay with a restrictive covenant, instead of the current deal. Maybe that can be proposed tonight, and that’s how they get to six votes.
• If Penningtons can’t handle a five week delay, how on earth will they make it through an entire construction process? There’s no way. As my grandmother used to say, “Double the costs and triple the time.” A five week delay is nothing.

Council goes in an entirely different direction.

…..

Back from recess, nobody seems to remember that Amanda had rescinded her 2nd on the motion to send it back to P&Z.

They go in circles for awhile longer:

• Is Penningtons super duper sure that they can’t wait even five weeks? (Yes, they are super duper sure. No, they will not wait.)
• Is the time schedule urgent for Sinai? (Yes, they need to plant trees in their prayer garden.)
• Can we add teeth to the deal, and make it stricter? (Yes, but nobody actually proposes anything.)

So it’s time for Council to vote.

This is where we went off the rails: Council voted on… whether to postpone and send it back to P&Z?! Up until this moment, I thought it had been rescinded.

I was so baffled that I went back and double-checked, a day later. But yes:

Here is the outcome of the vote:

Knowing that Penningtons would bail on the deal, Council sent the rezoning back to P&Z anyway. I feel like I must have misunderstood something! This makes no sense.

Either:

1. we killed the deal, by forcing Pennington out, or
2. we called their bluff, rudely, and they’ll figure out a way to stick around, or
3. I totally misunderstood the last few minutes of this item.

It’s a bizarre and unsatisfying outcome!

….

Item 9: SMPD Contract with Axon

This is the next strange and complicated item! This originally came up at the September 1st meeting.

Axon Enterprise is the Taser company:

Its initial product and former namesake is the Taser, a line of electroshock weapons. The company has since diversified into technology products for military and law enforcement, including body-worn cameras, dashcams, computer-aided dispatch software, and Evidence.com, a cloud-based digital evidence platform. As of 2017, body-worn cameras and associated services comprised a quarter of Axon’s overall business.[3]

They do not have anything to do with Flock or license plate reader cameras. But the kind of person who doesn’t like Flock is often also the kind of person who doesn’t like Axon. Axon is cop-adjacent. Also Axon does a lot of maybe-controversial business with the county.

More background:

Every time SMPD seizes a phone or a computer, they have to deal with all the data, files, and video. All that digital evidence need to be stored. It’s a wild amount of data. SMPD has a contract with Axon to buy cloud storage for digital evidence. They want to renew it for another year.

This first came up in September. Here’s what I wrote about it, back then:

Alyssa: there’s a bit in the contract about using data for product enhancement. Can we opt out of that?
Answer: Yes we can!

This will come back around with that provision.

Council postponed signing the contract, because of data privacy concerns. Now it’s back.

This meeting:

Alyssa and Amanda dig in:

• We’re concerned that we contract with Axon for such a wide range of services.
  Answer: This is tied to the body camera footage. We’re already uploading that footage to them. Also the county uses Axon, which makes it easier to coordinate with them.
• Is the data ours?
  Answer: Yes, we retain all control, etc.
• What about the metadata?
  Answer: these guys are as secure as any of the other hundred online vendors that San Marcos uses. They may all have problems, but this is no worse?
• What was the thing from last time, about using our data for product enhancement?

This last question is where things went off the rails.

Here’s the issue: in the contract it says, “Axon may retain data for purposes of improving the customer experience, unless you opt out.” Like I mentioned above, back in September, Council was like, “This is terrible. Please opt out.”

So Alyssa asks if we’ve opted out?
Answer: I think so!

Alyssa: I’m sorry. Could you point me to where we opted out? I just can’t find it.

It turns out that you have to click a link – https://www.axon.com/sales-terms-and-conditions – and then go to page 17, section 1.3, on their website, to get to this paragraph:

Opt Out
Customer may opt out of ACEIP Basic at any time via aceip@axon.com. Axon endeavors to implement opt outs within fifteen (15) calendar days. Transformations of Customer Content cease when Axon implements the opt out. Axon may retain Transformed Content created before it implemented the opt out request.

So we have absolutely not opted out. This is just a generic paragraph with instructions on how to do so.

Chief Standridge gets very defensive and says, “You didn’t tell me to opt out. You told us to come back with information. Which we did.”

Alyssa: Come off it. You didn’t come back with information. I had to pry it out of you. You know our constituents are mad about this. We’re trying to build trust here! You guys could have put this information in the presentation, instead of burying it.

Chief Standridge: the constituents could go back and listen to the first presentation and read the review form in the council packet.

Alyssa: The council packet is a billion pages long! Why wouldn’t you just make it easier for them?

Assistant City Manager Anderson: We’re very sorry.

Lorenzo: Don’t we have a current contract? It looks like we’re 10.5 months deep into one already. Why didn’t we ask you guys to go opt out of the current one?

Nobody has a good answer.

They discuss a few more things:

• What happens if Axon goes out of business or we terminate the contract? (we have 90 days to download our data)
• Do we really have 128 people who need access to the data? (yes)
• What is the policy that governs how officers interact with Axon? (sort of in their manual)

Amanda makes a motion: As soon as possible:

• Opt out of data retention for the current contract
• Opt out of it for the new contract
• Ask if we can reclaim old data from the past 10.5 months

The vote: should we opt out of letting Axon use our data and see if we can reclaim old data?

Shane Scott feels strongly that your data should be used for improving the customer experience!

Goddamnit, you know how he loves improving the customer experience. Don’t make him choose.

…

The overall vote: should we sign this contract with Axon for cloud storage of digital evidence?

So there you have it.

…

Item 21: Library and Parks and Rec Fees

The next thorny issue!

All fees automatically adjust yearly with inflation. But they’re also reviewed every three years to see if they make sense. Library and Parks and Rec fees are being reviewed.

There are a billion Library and Parks fees:

The proposed fees (in red) are based on a comparison study. The study tried to figure out:

• What do our peer cities charge users for libraries and activity centers?
• Can we recoup some of the cost to the General Fund?

Last time, Amanda asked that we postpone this item, and see if we could take the poverty statistics of San Marcos into account.

City staff brought back some information on the poverty rates of the comparison cities:

(But they did not go back and propose different rates.)

Amanda: I’m really struggling with this. Is there no way we can review the fee increases in light of the poverty rate, compared to our comparison cities?

City staff: I mean, you all haven’t been willing to raise taxes in years.

Amanda: I’ve taken a lot of unpopular votes on taxes! I’m not willing to make up revenue by passing the costs on in the form of fees.

Amanda specifically calls out the Activity Center yearly membership fees:

“These rates are going up almost 50%!” she exclaims. “This is really going to hurt our residents!”

“Technically 41%,” says Lorenzo.

Amanda: How would you all feel about raising rates 5%?

Josh: Yikes. And we’d eat the other 36%?

Amanda: Ok, what if we split the difference, then? Go halfway between the adopted fee and the proposed fee?

Lorenzo: This works out to:

• $111 for resident adults (for 1 year)
  $ 72 for resident seniors
  $ 55.50 for resident youth
  $ 180 for a resident family

Josh: Will this make or break the city budget if we do this?
Answer: No, not at all.

The Vote: Raise resident memberships by half as much as proposed?

Matthew was present, but chose to abstain. (He didn’t say why.)

Shane Scott really wants you to pay the MAX for your Activity Center membership. He’ll vote for lower taxes, lower impact fees for businesses, lower utility rates, but goddamnit, he’s got to draw the line somewhere: ACTIVITY CENTER!

Anything else?

Lorenzo: Are we really charging 20¢ for a black and white copy? The university charges a penny.
Answer: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The vote on the entire package of fee hikes:

I have no idea why Matthew voted no. He was entirely silent during the discussion.

…

Item 21: The Olympic Torch

The Olympics are coming to Los Angeles in 2028!

Whoops, that’s Paris. Anyway, the torch will go from Paris to Los Angeles.

Are we interested in being one of the cities along the way? Are we curious to learn more?

Josh: Hell yeah! I love the Olympics.

Amanda: Hell no! I’m lukewarm on the Olympics.

Jane: Seems like everyone agrees! So we’ll find out more.

….

Item 22: Centerpoint Road

There are two Centerpoint Roads. Some day they will connect, but right now they don’t.

Jane: It’s a problem for EMS when you have confusing names for roads. You don’t want emergency services to go to the wrong one.

• I tried to get everyone to change the name back in 2022, before people lived on Centerpoint, but it didn’t happen.
• Now there’s a whole apartment complex of people living out there. You have to get 50% of residents to agree, if you want to change someone’s address.
• We really need to change the name now, before more people move there!

Amanda: Do we? Really?

Jane: Yes! If you have two roads with the same name, it’s a safety issue.

Amanda: I’m just thinking about staff time, determining if 50% of the residents want to change their address. And then all the residents would have a huge hassle: change their addresses on their license, all their bills, all their contacts, etc. What did EMS say?

Answer: EMS said they weren’t worried about it.

Lorenzo: What if we left the main Centerpoint as “Centerpoint”, and just re-named the La Cima one “West Centerpoint”? That way fewer people have to change their address.

Jane: That’s how it is, currently.

Lorenzo: Then what’s the problem?

Jane: I want to call the main one “East Centerpoint” and the new one “West Centerpoint”.

Nobody is following Jane on this.

Jane: When I google 1600 Centerpoint, it sends me to 1600 West Centerpoint.

City Staff: Why don’t we reach out to Google Maps, and get that fixed?

Everybody is on board with this.

Jane: Also do Apple Maps and Mapquest.

Staff: You got it, boss.

…

And with that, Jane closes out her last meeting as mayor.