Tag: Parks

Bonus! 3 pm workshops, 9/6/26

by The San Marxist, posted in 3 pm Workshops

Two workshops this week:

  • CIP Projects for 2027 and
  • The next draft of the River Parks and Quail Creek Park plans.

Let’s go!

…

Workshop 1: CIP Projects

CIP stands for “Capital Improvement Projects”.

These are the major construction projects that need planning over 5-15 years.

These are SLOW. These are the projects where everyone asks, “Why does it take so long?!”

They get planned 10-20 years out, but the funding comes one year at at time.

So in September, 2026, we are approving the projects that we’ll work on during 2027, and we’ll start paying the debt on this starting next fall.

Here’s some of our biggest projects right now:

They are constantly trying to figure out how to fund these projects:

  • Sunset acres stormwater
  • Wallace Addition stormwater
  • Bishop/Belvin
  • The new water reclamation facility by Redwood

Also construction costs have roughly tripled since 2018. In 2018, a $33 piece of PVC pipe might cost $100 now. If something has been planned for a decade, this is going to mess up your plans.

….

We can – and do – apply for grant funding:

Grants help a LOT with the costs.

However, grants slow down construction. You might get awarded $5 million, and told that it will be available in 2029. So this is the tradeoff – cheaper for tax payers, but slower for people who need the project completed.

…

Just for funsies, have we been doing a lot of these projects?

Yessir! These are just the big projects from the past 3 years.

…

They stop to focus on those four big projects in a little more detail:

Each of these is phased in over time:

Sunset Acres has had awful flooding for years and years.

Wallace Addition:

Historic District is mostly done:

This is to deal with all the sprawl we were talking about, and why we need impact fees.

great.

…

What does Council say?

Amanda: Highway 123 is super dangerous, especially to pedestrians. What can we do?

Answer: It’s hard because it’s a highway. We have to work with TxDOT. We meet quarterly and tell them our concerns. Eventually we want to put in sidewalks and put in a median. We’re having trouble with TxDOT because they’re so focused on I35.

Everyone is happy with all the grant funding, although the tradeoff is that it slows things down.

….

Workshop 2: River Parks and Quail Creek Park

We’ve discussed these parks before, back in July. If we were to overhaul these parks, what would we want to do?

City staff has met with more community members and implemented Council opinions, and come back with the next draft.

First up is the parks along the river, in the center of town.

Starting at the Children’s Park:

The Children’s Park playscape would stay put. They’d change the parking lots all around, and add a bunch of spaces.

Over by the dirt bike trails in the woods, they’d add some “natural play”, which I think means this kind of thing:

via

Council talks about adding game tables? And connecting some of the paths to the parking lot, for accessibility?
Answer: No problem!

Amanda: What about volleyball courts?
Answer: Maybe! We’ll price them out.

Moving on to Rio Vista park:

They’d add a concession stand. They’d get rid of the pool, but keep the splash pad. The pool would go way out east, to Quail Creek park.

Everyone hates this idea!

Amanda: Keep the pool.

Jane: We should keep the fun pool centrally located. Don’t put it out at Quail Creek.

What should we do with the pool?

Jane is right: move the pool, but keep it central.

The current location is a terrible location for the pool! Nobody swims in both the river and the pool in the same visit. The current location is competing with the river, instead of complementing it. But it should stay in the center of the city!

Here’s where it should go:

  • If City Hall ends up moving, move the pool to the current City Hall location.
  • If City Hall stays put, move the pool next to the dog park and skate park, across from City Hall.

Both of these places have plenty of parking, are big and central, and the pool would be very heavily used.

Other stray comments:

Amanda: Can we add more water refill stations? And trees?
Answer: Yes!

Amanda: What about cool concrete, to reduce the heat island effect in the parking lots?
Answer: Maybe!

…

Onto Quail Creek Park, which is way out east:

It used to be a golf course.

It wouldn’t have a pool anymore, since we’re keeping a pool in town. But it would have a splash pad. (Maybe someday we’d add in a pool there, too.)

They also discuss moving the baseball fields and parking lots further away from residential areas.

Virginia Parker, the director of SMRF, requested that we keep baseball fields out of the flood retention zone, and put grass fields there, instead.

There will be river access, though. Apparently the Blanco does have water here, as opposed to how it’s underground at Five Mile Dam.

Here you could swim in it:

…

All of this is a fantastic, amazing plan, with no funding! None of this will happen soon.

Eventually, we’ll probably need a bond election. If it passes and this all gets funding, it will slowly get built, in phases.

Bonus! 3 pm workshops, 4/16/25

by The San Marxist, posted in 3 pm Workshops

Workshop: Location of the New City Hall

We need a new city hall. Ours was built back in the 1970s, when San Marcos had 25K people. It’s falling apart and tiny. (Discussed in 2022 and in 2024.)

Last fall, we picked an advisory committee of community members. They’ve been meeting over the spring.

…

The big decision for today: should we build it on the north side or south side of Hopkins?

And here’s where the controversy kicks in. Here’s the city’s versions of those two spots:

Zooming in on the north parcel:

So this is the crux of the controversy – what happens to the skate park and dog park? The city posted about this to Facebook, where it blew up.

…

Citizen Comment: About 12 people show up to defend the parks. This is actually a huge number – both because this is a workshop, and because it’s at 3 pm on a Tuesday.

About halfway through, City Manager Stephanie Reyes breaks in and says:

Early on, consultants talked about maybe moving the skate park and dog park. But listen: We are NOT recommending moving the skate park! We really are not. The dog park, maybe. But definitely not the skate park!

I don’t know how this grew legs – it was just a committee discussion. This wasn’t concrete plans to move the skate park! Anyway, we hear you loud and clear. No one is moving the skate park.

(I’m paraphrasing – that is not a direct quote.)

Anyway, I got you Ms. Reyes! Here’s where people got the impression:

And in all the drawings – like above – and even in this very presentation:

So anyway, the community uses the skate park really heavily. City staff heard many, many comments about how much everyone loves the skate park.

The skate park will NOT be moved. Great!

…

Confidential to council: Seeing how heavily it is used, you could even expand the skate park! That would be pretty popular. Add some bathrooms and shade?

…

Ok, now that the skate park is safe, what is the presentation about?

The steering committee has been meeting over the spring. They’re inspired to bring the old razzle-dazzle:

Sugarland, Wylie, Southlake, and Frisco are all bringing it.

…

So back to the two parcels:

This area has the river, lots of railroads, and Hopkins running through it:

So there are some challenges. Like flooding:

And finicky rules, like this purple part:

The purple part is dedicated park land. In order to build a razzle-dazzle City Hall, you have to have a Public-Private-Partnership. In other words, it’s a city hall with some stores, or coffee shops, or sell some city land to a developer to do whatever.

But the city needs voter approval on the purple part. Since it’s parkland, it stays public unless the voters approve letting private companies use it.

See that little blue square in the middle? It is not dedicated parkland. It’s more flexible.

It used to be the Armory Building:

That’s Google Maps, from June 2013.

Here’s April 2014:

And here’s June 2015:

Going, going, gone!

So that little field already has voter approval – that was dedicated back in 1959. We could put a private company there, without voter approval.

(I don’t like that option.)

….

How much will all this cost, anyway?

So the cost is the same, either way.

There are still plenty of decisions for the future:

  • Surface parking or underground parking?
  • Public-Private-Partnership or go it alone?
  • Where would Council temporarily relocate, if we went with the south side?
  • Would it be a beautiful gateway on the North Side?

Here’s what the Advisory Committee said:

Here’s the summary of pros and cons:

The Advisory Committee settled on the North Parcel, but still felt good about the South Parcel:

…

So what does Council think?

Matthew: North side!

  • I’m a neighborhood man! My main concern is drainage. Water runs into Rio Vista neighborhood. Put City Hall in the north side, and install a state of the art drainage system in.
  • I like the idea of a Civic Corridor, with City Hall, the library, the activity center, and the parks all in a row.

Staff clearly states that the drainage will be all new, on either side.

Jane: South side!

  • I do like the idea of a big Northside Gateway.
  • Let’s do two uses: Keep all the business uses on the south side. The public only comes here for birth certificates and developers. On the north side, add some more recreational uses that complement the dog park and the skate park. Restrooms, improvements, etc.
  • Make the south side entrance more prominent, though.
  • The north side really does flood, too. Do we want our new City Hall to get flooded? The railroad forms a dam on the back side.

Note: I agree with Jane!

Lorenzo: Is structured parking going to drive up the cost?
Answer: Yes, but it’s probably off the table either way. Underground parking will flood. Parking garages are expensive.

Amanda: I’m freaked out by the price tag, and prices are only going to go up. I’m with the Mayor, here.

Shane: I like the North Side because I like new construction! The old one looks dreary and old.

Amanda: The north side loses the dog park, unless you pay a huge price tag for a parking garage.
City Manager: We have options for relocating the dog park . This will free up the Parks and Rec building and possibly the land near the Veteran’s Memorial. So the dog park would stay in this same corridor.

Saul: Are the structural problems of the current building caused by the train? That’s my concern with the South side.
Answer: Yes, but current architecture would be built to deal with that.

Lorenzo: If we build on the South Side, would we actually improve the north side?
Answer: Depends what kind of partnerships we can build. That’s Phase II.

Alyssa: I’m voting for the North Side.

Lorenzo and Matthew are really determined to make an economic argument that really isn’t there. They keep guessing about demolition costs or whatever. City staff keep gently correcting them – no, those costs are very small, relative to all the design decisions yet to come.

…

My two cents: The north side is a terrible idea. Really.

First: You don’t get more park land in town. This is it. Don’t use it up.

Second: a massive number of people turned up to defend the skate park. A giant, razzle-dazzle building will loom over it, literally. It will change the vibe. A skate park is not going to feel the same if it is nestled in the backside of a flashy new business park.

Build up the park side for the people! Add bathrooms, add water refill stations. Rebuild the business half of City Hall on the south side.

…

The vote

North Side: Shane, Matthew, Lorenzo, Alyssa

South Side: Saul, Jane, Amanda

Honestly, I was surprised by this! The steering committee was lukewarm in their recommendation. Their decision reads as “Both options are good, but I guess we tip towards the north.”

The public, then, said cried out, “We feel STRONGLY about keeping the north side as park land.”

And council went with the advisory committee??

…

Q&A from the press and public:

Even knowing the skate park will stay, people are pretty angry! No one seems to like this decision.

  • I love the skate park. Why was there no representation of the dog park or skate park on the steering committee?
  • Time line? And will you still push for recreation?
  • A big building with concrete and fountains is not usable by the public the way the current corridor is.
  • I have thoughts but not a formal question
  • I don’t buy the economic argument and I don’t like going with the decision that doesn’t inconvenience you personally.
  • How does having a flashy new building benefit the citizens of San Marcos?
  • Why not have the Gateway be beautiful parkland over a flashy parkland? The foundations and drainage, why not address that?
  • How do we get on this committee? What’s up with this committee?

Hours 3:21 – 5:07, 11/19/24

by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

Item 10:  LIHTC Housing (LIHTC = Low Income Housing Tax Credits)

Back in May, we approved this LIHTC Complex:

It’s for senior citizens. Right around the corner from Target.

How affordable will these units be? The developer agreed to set aside a certain number of affordable units:

AMI means the Austin Area Median Income. So 30% AMI means your family’s yearly income is 30% of the median Austin income. But the Austin median income is $86K, whereas the San Marcos median household income is $47K.

So the categories are a little weird. Those 188 units at 51-60% AMI? That’s low income for Austin, but pretty normal for San Marcos.

….

The developer is back, and wants permission to change some things.  First, they want to loosen the ranges of incomes:

So he wants to take the 188 units for families earning $63-$75K, and spread them out for incomes earning $63K-$100K.

Side note: You can live in an apartment intended for a higher income than yours. However, you would not get a fully reduced rent:

The guy also changed his mind on BBQ grills and picnic tables, due to space concerns.  He wants to swap them out for two horseshoe pits.

Jane, Alyssa, and Amanda are all not happy about this. 

The developer says he’s got a market study. There’s just not demand for the under 60% AMI group! If he can extend to the 80% range, he’ll be able to find more residents. 

Jane is open to this, but she doesn’t like the unspecified numbers.  She proposes this:

0-30% AMI: 34 units
51-60% AMI: 86 units
61-80 % AMI: 102 units

Her reasoning goes like this: Seniors get a yearly 3% cost of living increase on Social Security. If you were earning 60% AMI and you get that bump, you could get priced out. Suddenly you’re making 61% of the AMI.  You don’t qualify for your apartment anymore. If there’s not a tier above you, you have to pay market rate, or move.

Alyssa and Amanda call bullshit on the whole market study.  (ME TOO.)  It just doesn’t pass the sniff test that San Marcos has run out of families earning less than $75K, and you have to subsidize families earning up to $100K.  Our median household income is $47K, for pete’s sake! 

The developer does not have the actual market study on hand, to show council.

Amanda calls him out on this: Does this market study even reflect the people we’re trying to help? We don’t know, because we haven’t seen it.

The vote on Jane’s amendment: (86 units under 60%, 102 units under 80%)

Yes:  Jane Hughson, Saul Gonzales, Mark Gleason
No:  Alyssa Garza, Amanda Rodriguez

But!! It takes four votes to pass.  Since Matthew and Shane are absent, this fails. 

The developer pleads that it’s not a complete blank check! The subsidized apartments still have to average out to 60%! 

The final vote:

Should the developer get to split up the Under 60% category however he wants?

Sorry, dude! 

…

Item 7:  We’re down to the final dregs of Covid money.

Last time, we discussed this funding:

Alyssa Garza basically chewed everyone out for never, ever prioritizing rental assistance. I mean, she was nice about it. But she has said this one million times.

And lo! They made it work! New funding plan:

Staff thinks we can give this rental assistance out with fewer strings attached than CDBG money.   This is very good, too.

…

Item 12:  Getting ticketed at the Lion’s Club.

Paid Parking is coming next summer to the City Park parking lot.  (Ie the Lions Club parking lot.)  Instead of paying someone to write tickets, they want to use cameras and mail the tickets out.  

Some extra details:

  • The lot will free for San Marcos residents, but you have to go online and sign up somehow.
  • If you pay within 14 days, you get a discount.

Council asks good questions:

Amanda: How does the 14 days work? From the day of the ticket? What if they’ve got some situation and their mail isn’t coming promptly?
Answer: We could change that. What about if it’s 14 days from when the ticket arrives at the house?
Amanda: ?? How would you know?  Let’s just make it 30 days.

Saul: Is there a warrant if this isn’t paid?
Answer: San Marcos parking tickets are a civil offense, so no.  Hays County, though: those are criminal offenses. They’ll getcha.

Amanda: What happens if someone’s car breaks down?
Answer: There is an appeals process.

Amanda: What’s the resident registry process like?
Answer: It’s online.  We are also going to do some library outreach to help people sign up. 

Alyssa: I can’t actually find the appeals process online. 
Answer: Yep.  We’re going to put the link on the actual citation that you get in the mail.

The vote: 5-0

…

Item 13: NEW FIRE TRUCK!

We’re getting an ERV010 Star Side Mount Pumper Truck with a 500-gallon tank and 1500 GPM pump.

I’m guessing that it looks something like this: 

…

Item 14:  Five Mile Dam

If you know the youth soccer league, you know that it all happens at Five Mile Dam:

image source

Which is located here:

The soccer fields opened in 2010.  They’re owned by the county, but maintained by the city.  So the city pays for the lighting, playground, sprinklers, etc.

This photo makes it look like maybe the sprinklers aren’t working? Idk.

Surge Soccer uses the fields for free.  (Surge used to be called SMAYSO, changed their name, missed their opportunity to call themselves Smoccer.)  This helps keep prices cheap for San Marcos families. Surge is good about this.

…

Hays County is selling us the Five Mile Dam parks. But Hays County doesn’t actually care about the soccer fields.

What Hays County cares about are these two other parks:

  1. Dudley Johnson Park:

2. Randall Wade Vetter Park:

Let’s zoom in on that sign:

Yep! That’s the right place!

Those are here:

At least, that’s my best guess.

So these three properties are a package deal. You want the soccer fields? You have to take Dudley Johnson and Randall Wade Vetter.

How much is Hays charging us? 

Zero! It’s free!   Wow, they must really want to get rid of those parks. 

The last dam report was in 2016, and at that point, the dam was in good condition.   And the county will help with maintenance on the parks for the next year.

Is this good for us? 

Yes. We want those soccer fields, or else Surge Soccer won’t stay cheap for local kids.

The danger is that Kyle or some private company would buy the fields.  They can make a lot of money renting them out.  But it would end Surge soccer.  Or at least, the affordable, community-focused version of Surge. 

Soccer is the biggest youth sport in San Marcos, by far. It’s important to secure these fields. 

Council votes unanimously for this deal.

….

Item 16: Blanco Vista Water Tower

Same neighborhood as Five Mile Dam! They’re getting a water tower, as part of all this ARWA stuff.  There is $50K in the ARWA budget set aside to paint the water towers. 

How would we like to paint it?

Here’s what our other towers look like:

Here’s what some neighbors do:

Here’s what some fancier cities do:

We could either keep it simple, or pay $100K+ to go all out. 

Council: keep it simple. 

…

Item 17:  The Deer

Deer are a big problem.  Mostly they cause a lot of car crashes, but they can also get impaled on your fences. (Ewwwwww.)  

A speaker came from Texas Parks & Wildlife, and talked to the neighborhood commission.  Basically, the first step is to get people to stop feeding the deer.  

Should we ban feeding the deer?

  • Pros: deer are a big problem.  
  • Cons: have you seen how cute they are, with their big eyes and fluffy tails???

The Neighborhood Commission decides on an education campaign, instead of an outright ban, because of all those people who love the big-eyed-fluffy-tailed-deer.

What does Council think?

MARK GLEASON HAS VERY STRONG FEELINGS! 

  • First, even if you ban feeding, it won’t help.  Too much available food.
  • Deer have no natural predators.
  • You must hunt! Open up the parks to hunting!
  • We could make a whole weekend of it! Have drawn hunts! 

This is a thing – see here and here.  And Texas does allow hunting at its state parks.

The problem is that Mark is bringing a huge energy here – It must be discussed! It works! Cutting people off. It’s the only thing that works! – and everyone is a little taken aback. 

Jane: They’ve been hunting on my land for 20 years, and it doesn’t keep the deer away.

Mark: IT WORKS! You just need to hunt a few. After a few generations, the mothers keep their babies away!

Alyssa: I dunno, doesn’t work on my dad’s ranch either.

Eventually Jane shushes him, and everyone goes back to talking about corn. 

 Don’t feed the deer, everyone, but really don’t feed them corn.

…

Item 18: Animal Shelter Vacancy

We finally got it filled.  The new person talks about how much they love animals, and how they’ve fostered and volunteered before. 

(I still have a lingering weird feeling about the other person who was jerked around by Council for months, but this person seems fine.)

May 4th, 2021 City Council meeting (Part 2)

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

The second most interesting item of the night was Item 32: Paid Parking in the City Parks.

This came from the Parks and Rec Board as a recommendation. It was basically swatted down hard. The conversation was handled very well.

First off, everyone was against charging in Rio Vista parks. There’s barely any parking there already. It would push cars to park in the neighborhood. So the conversation was quickly restricted to the parking lots right by the Lion’s Club.

Second, everyone was strongly against charging residents to park there. It was basically just a conversation about whether or not to charge tourists to park.

Jane Hughson made all the sane points against this:

  • it would be a giant mess to implement a city parking permit program and get the word out to residents. Residents would constantly be showing up and either get charged or turned away to do some paperwork, or their pass would be in their other car, or they’d be riding in the car with their out-of-town guest, and so on. A million headaches.
  • Furthermore, it’s not even clear that we have enough of a tourist industry to pay for the headaches caused.

Melissa Derrick made the best points in favor, namely that the river is overused and we risk eating our own tail if we can’t find a way to protect it. Many cities with important natural resources seem to use a permit system just fine, like Florida beach towns or whatever. Why can’t we?

I hear what she’s saying, but somehow there’s a much steeper obstacle here in terms of awareness. Maybe just because every Florida beach town grapples with that same issue, and here it’s spotty. But it would be a huge mess.

Hughson puts a plug in for us to charge for football parking, though. That seems like low-hanging fruit.