City Council - Regular Meeting

order. It is six o'clock. Mr. Vino, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Bissell, Ms. Garza, Mary Houston. I'm here. Mr. Scott, Mr. Mendoza and Mr. Gonzalez.

We have a corn present. Okay. And we've got several others that, um, they're in the building. They'll be here shortly. So we will begin with our invocation is the pastor here. I don't see him. Okay, then we will move on to the pledges of allegiance to the United States and Texas. It is now time for our citizen comment. City Council will hear citizen comments at regular meetings, work sessions, and workshops. There is a sign-up process. For those of you, if you are Nobody is, okay. Speakers may speak once during the citizen comment time period, may not yield time to others. If you speak now about a public hearing topic on tonight's agenda, I ask simply that you not repeat exactly the same comments during the public hearing item. When it is your turn to speak, state your name for the record. Even though I just said it, I need you to state your name and your voice. You'll have three minutes. When you begin speaking, the timer will be in the green. When you have 20 seconds left, you will see only yellow and there's a little ping sound. And when your time to speak is up, the timer will be red and a bell will ring. If you hear a popping sound, step back a little from the microphone. The mayor and council will endeavor to ensure that meetings are conducted in a courteous manner and in an atmosphere free of defamation, intimidation, personal insults, profanity, or threats of violence. If you do any of those, this is your warning. So at that time, you will hear the gavel, and I will ask you to leave the chambers. Tonight we have three. We have Jessica Cain, Sam Young, and Lisa Pruitt in that order. So Jessica Cain, you are first.

Thank you, Mayor Houston and City Council members. My name is Jessica Cain, and I serve as the Director of Neighborhood Engagement at Southside Community Center. I'd like to applaud the fact that our city provides almost as much human services funding as the Hayes County Commissioner Court and far more than any other city in the county. However, the need far exceeds the allocation. In fact, it's less than half of the funding that local organizations need. Most of the agencies providing housing-related services are receiving less than the minimum amount required, including Southside. Only 36.8% of housing needs are fulfilled by the Human Services Board recommendations. Southside's Housing Stability Program, which was launched thanks to this council's investment of pass-through funding, is receiving no Human Services funding. Yet this program represents over 50% of Southside's budget. More than half of that provides direct payments to our neighbors for rental and utility needs. The rest supports our staff, a team on which many other organizations rely to do the in-depth work of client eligibility, case management, and follow through. Without the Housing Stability Program staff, many other organizations will not be able to keep serving the community at their current level. Couple this with reduced housing assistance, and we are setting up many San Marcos residents for homelessness, including young children, single moms, and seniors. This month is Homeless Awareness Month. I was happy to see Councilmember Rodriguez at the Homelessness Lived Experience panel yesterday, and I trust that her time was well spent in hearing our neighbors' stories. I encourage you all to attend the poverty simulation on October 8th to experience what many of our neighbors do daily. We've all felt the burden of rising costs, For those for whom there was already no wiggle room in the budget, these rising costs present an impossible calculation. Do I eat today? Pay my rent? Put gas in my car? I bring these concerns today to ask that city leadership take action in two ways. First, develop a plan to improve the human services granting process to bring more funding to the organizations in this city that provide essential services. Second, to invest $150,000 non-human service dollars in Southside's housing stability program for fiscal year 2027. You've received a letter from the McCoy family about their interest in a multi-year investment to fund over one-third of this work, but only if that money is matched by the county and the cities within it. San Marcos residents comprise approximately 60% of all our clients and so we are asking the city to invest $150,000 into this program preferably in a multi-year budgeted commitment The city helped Southside build this program now. We are asking you to help us sustain it for the good of our entire community Thank you for your time Our next speaker is Sam young

Good evening, council. I'm Sam Young. The new budget for fiscal year 2027 is almost done pending council approval. The budget is in excess of $406 million and is money from taxpayers, and we are interested in how it is spent. You began work on the budget in March and had several budget workshops. The staff prepared the budget based on council guidance. Upon the first reading of the budget, The mayor pointed out that some council members pointed changes to items that had been agreed to in the workshops. And then one complaint from the diocese this year has been the length of meetings. There are issues that do require public discussion, but having given staff, given the staff council guidance, writing policy from the diocese drawn out meetings, y'all have communication before meetings that don't violate open meeting rules. So council members ought to have an idea of how they want to vote before meeting. And then I have grades for the staff and council for the fiscal year 2026. The staff gets an A plus. And using language from old report cards from when I was a teacher, council talks too much. When flock was eliminated, it was proposed that a different license plate reader company be located. Question is, what is the status of that proposal? In recent talks with police officers, the LPRs were proven to be crucial in leading to arrest. And that leads us to the upcoming meet and confer. I've been surprised by the vitriol aimed at the San Marcos Police Department by some in the city. All the force is made up of people, and none are perfect. In my experience with law enforcement, I've called 911 many times when I lived in Dallas and had great response. I've had speeding tickets. I have been in the custody of one police department and I was questioned as a possible perpetrator about what would have been a major felony. I have had contact with law enforcement and have always been treated with respect. My boomer response, if questioned by law enforcement, you give respect and you get respect. And as this regards me to confer, don't attempt to draw work rules so tight that it hinders officers. Chief Standridge has done an exemplary job and is doing all within his power to improve the department and to provide innovative training programs for all officers. Thank you for your attention.

Our next speaker is Lisa Pruitt.

Good evening, Council. I'm Lisa Pruitt, 619 Maury Street. here in San Marcos. I'm here to speak on agenda item number six, seven, and eight, which are the transit agenda items. I believe that's on the consent agenda. So my first ask is would one of you guys pull those off just so staff could give a presentation On those, they're very interesting. I was kind of a mobility geek when I was on city council back in the day, so I'd love to see where we are on that now. A couple of questions and comments I have are, my last term on city council, we were able to make some big moves in the right direction to expand our public transportation. We acquired direct recipient status with our federal funding which came with a lot of effort because Texas State wanted that one too. So what we did is we decided we would become the direct recipients and at the time they would eventually be sub-recipients of that. The intention of that was to create a bigger network, more ridership that would allow us to expand both systems so it could serve both Texas State students and our permanent residents. One reason why we worked so hard to become the direct recipients is we knew that eventually San Marcos would outgrow Texas State University and we wanted to be in control of the destiny of our mobility and our transit options. Also, during the mobility efforts that we made back in the day, we created a hub on Hutchinson, which was our mobility hub. So I kind of would like that to, at some point in time, come back into discussion. The idea at that point was to move carts off of Hopkins through town and jump it over to Hutchinson, where we could create more synergy and more options for people with multimobility. So this past Friday, I was lucky enough to go up to Austin and spend an entire day with all the mobility geeks across Texas and beyond and talk about mobility. One of the biggest catch phrases that kept coming up that day was connectivity, connectivity, connectivity, connecting us to medical needs, to food, to employment centers, but also connecting people to people. And beyond our communities, connecting us again from Austin down to San Antonio. At the end of the meeting, I will say that Henry Cisneros was there, and the judge of Travis County, and they talked about rail coming back, which was pretty exciting, because TxDOT has finally said, we cannot keep expanding IH35. It's not... Cost productive is the more we expand it, the more cars that will come in. So that's actually going to be a really serious conversation, hopefully in the next few years. And again, what we're doing now, we're planting seeds for the next generation. All these things we might not see right away. It might get frustrating, but we got to hang in there and wait till it happens. One thing, too, to just kind of remind people with transportation, I know our community gets very frustrated about not being able to expand routes and service everybody. And your time is up. But that takes 12 months to do so. So if one of y'all would pull it, that'd be great. Thank you.

And that concludes our citizen comment time period. So now we are to the consent agenda. And items 113 can be acted on by one motion. However, council members can pull items. I'm pulling item four. Staff, do we need to do anything with item 11, Elise? 11. We're good with that? Okay. Council, do you all have anything you wish to pull?

Six, seven, and eight for presentation.

All right.

Any others?

Okay, so we're pulling four, six, seven, and eight. I would entertain a motion for the rest of them. Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Paselk. And we're push button voting, yay. And what we're gonna do is folks who are in the chambers will be voting. Those will be locked in. And then Ms. Garza can give votes Did you push the wrong? Oh, you voted on the wrong one. Oops.

I voted for Alyssa. You're welcome. Wrong button.

Thank you, John. Are you going to reset us, Ms. Torino? Yes. People do take screenshots of these. You're welcome.

And I'm going to be your guest, so. Two, three, and four.

Two, three, and four.

I'm going to go on two, three, and five.

I'm sorry, Mr. Gonzalez.

Two, three, and five.

Two, three, and five.

Four got pulled, didn't it, Mayor?

I'm sorry?

Four got pulled?

Yes. Okay. Yeah, four is pulled, so you'll have to do it again.

Ms. Garza? I'm sorry.

Not now. Which one? Sorry, four got pulled in. Which ones? Yes, ma'am.

Four and six and seven and eight. Stormwater fees and the three related to transit were pulled.

Okay, so then I'm a no on two and three. Everything else is fine.

Are we recording you as a no on some of them, Ms. Garza? I didn't quite hear what you said.

Oh, sorry, Mayor. Let me adjust the settings here. I said, can you hear me better now?

Yes, that's good.

Okay, a no on two and three.

All right, so the motion passes seven to zero with Councilmember Garza voting no on two and three. Councilmember... Oh, and five, sorry. I'm sorry, two, three, and five?

Yeah, because we pulled four. Yeah, sorry.

Thank you. And Councilmember Scott voting no on two, three, and four. Mr. Gonzalez voting no on two, three, and five.

And Mr. Scott's no on four. We pulled four, so... Okay, so as our usual practice, we have those set aside, they are not yet approved, and we will go to our public hearing item, first one, item 14.

receive a side presentation, hold a public hearing to receive comments for or against Ordinance 2026-43, temporarily renaming the new connection of El Camino Way at its intersection with State Highway 123 to either Owen Johnson Farm Road or Crescent Park Highway until the roadway section connects to the existing El Camino Way and declaring effective date and consider approval of Ordinance 2026-43 on the first of two readings.

Presentation.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Terry Floyd, Director of Planning and Development Services. bringing to you an item that actually was in front of you for discussion back in June for the renaming of a portion of El Camino Way. And that's really what this item is today, is to make a decision on two names for this portion of El Camino Way to rename it temporarily until the construction of El Camino Way is completed in the future. So next slide, please. So a couple of things about this project. Of course, this particular section of El Camino Way does not have any other projects or any other sites that are addressed off of it. So changing this particular section won't mean someone will have to change an address or anything on their business. What you're seeing in front of you here is that platted portion of the driveway, which largely extends by the apartment complex there at Cottonwood Creek. Next slide, please. Again, this roadway dedication is gonna be required in the future, potentially for the remaining section that doesn't connect El Camino Way today. So as you know, part of that road's not completely connected. So when that does happen, again, the entirety of El Camino Way will be renamed back from that section that you're approving tonight back to El Camino Way. And so it doesn't directly connect and there's a small turnaround. Next slide, please. Of course, in June, as I mentioned, the council directed staff to look at a temporary renaming. That street name change would now, if approved tonight, in the name that's selected, would actually just apply to that section, and in the other sections would remain El Camino Way. So the rest of the road that's in the county and other areas won't be renamed, just that section. Next slide, please. So kind of going back over some of the names that were mentioned by council, and we had to go back because there were about six of them. When it comes to street name changing, a few of the things that we do, we speak to the NCOG, we speak to the county, largely because the names we have to work together to ensure a lot of things about street names. As you probably know here, similar names happen to similar streets. And so we checked actually with this, and this has to get back to 9-1-1, actually to 9-1-1 responses, and when a street name's called in, how close are the names to other names of streets? And that's one of the big driving factors when we think about names of streets and how they get named. Of course, they're named in the platting process. But we actually went over all these names with county, with NCOG, and two names were selected as being eligible based on a number of criteria, mostly because, and as you can see from the chart here, there are similar names for some of the other streets. So when we think about a name like Wild Wind Way, well there's a Wild Wind Cove. And if someone had an emergency response and they were trying to call and get the address out and it was just Wild Wind, if we have two or three or four streets named that or similar, it might be difficult to identify where they're at. That's the impetus behind getting to the two names that were advertised and that qualify under these criteria. And those two were Acrested Caracara Way and Old Johnson Farm Road. Just as a side note, I was not real sure what a Caracara was, but in the presentation, we do have a picture of one. So, and actually one landed out by the office not too long back, one of my staff showed me. So anyway, but those are the two names that were advertised because they met those criteria. Next slide, please. There it is. There is a crested caracara, which, by the way, they can fly, but they generally don't. I did a lot of research on this bird. So that's what a crested caracara looks like. We did not have a picture of Old Johnson Farm, but that was the name of it. We did look, honestly, in the area. So in looking at some of the criteria you can see there that talk about our street names and how they're named, and the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews those and the pertinent criteria related to that. Next slide, please. Yeah, so Planning and Zoning Commission considers the last meeting, they recommended approval of Old Johnson Farm Road. Interestingly enough, one of our commissioners had to recuse herself because that's her family. She's related to the Johnson, Lucy Johnson is related to the, yeah, we had that Mr. Aguirre helped us out with that too, recused herself on the naming, but it was recommended for Old Johnson Farm Road with a vote of seven to one. And really it was, the discussion really revolved around whether Cara Caraway was something that could easily be translated in a 911 situation versus Old Johnson Farm Road. So all that presentation to say staff recommends still either name Cara Caraway or Old Johnson Farm Road, but the recommendation carried from Planning and Zoning Commission is for Old Johnson Farm Road. With that, I'll be happy to answer any additional questions, but tonight we will need a motion for which of the two names you'd like to name the street.

Okay, I will open the public hearing and ask is there anyone who wishes to speak for, against, or about this particular item? Going once, twice, three times, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I AWAIT A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE IT. YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE ONE. PND'S RECOMMENDATION.

CONCUR WITH PND. MOTION TO APPROVE.

MAKE A MOTION TO CONCUR WITH PND'S RECOMMENDATION. BUT THEY SAID THERE'S TWO OF THEM. OLD JOHNSON. THEY PICKED OLD JOHNSON.

STAFF SAID EITHER ONE. PND SAID OLD JOHNSON. Yeah, PNZ recommended Old Johnson Farmland.

Okay. When I was watching the meeting, I thought they had said, oh, we'll let council decide.

They recommended 71 Old Johnson Farmland.

They finally got to Old Johnson? Yes, ma'am. They did.

It took them a little bit. We got there.

Okay. So I have a motion. I'll call it for Mr. Mendoza and seconded by Ms. Rodriguez. And... and that is for Old Johnson Farm Road. Any questions, concerns, thoughts? If not, we'll vote, Mr. Vigneault.

Mr. Posaki, you voted for Ms. Garza again.

Just unplug her machine.

I want to clear it. I want to clear it so we can do it again.

Sometimes if you push it too soon, it doesn't register.

So the motion passes 7-0.

Okay. Now...

Item 15, please, Ms. Trevino.

Receive a start presentation, hold a public hearing to receive comments for or against Ordinance 2026-37, adopting an operating budget in the amount $406,561,553 for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2027. Authorizing certain adjustments to the budget with the approval of the city manager or designee approving the fiscal year 2026-2027 capital improvements program projects in the amount of $60,925,000 including procedural provisions that declare an effective date and consider approval of ordinance 2026-37 on the second of two readings.

To comply with the law, I need to read the following text at this point in time. This is an announcement. State law requires that the city hold a public hearing on the city's budget. City Council considered the budget during several work sessions and council meetings starting in February of 2026. This is the second public hearing on the city's proposed fiscal year 2026-2027 annual budget, which begins on October 1 of 2026 and extends through September 30th of 2027. The first public hearing on the budget was held on September 1st, 2026. The proposed budget has been on file in the city clerk's office as required by state law and on the city's website since August 12th of 2026 with notice of the second public hearing being published in the San Marcos daily record on September 9th of 2026 presentation.

And Mayor, if I could quickly, before Mr. Locke begins, we do have a new director with us this evening. Iketarina Pitos is our new director of utilities, and so she is with us tonight. Welcome her. Very excited to welcome her. Thank you. So Catarina brings more than 20 years of experience in executive leadership, utility planning and development, project delivery, and data analytics. She comes to the city of San Marcos from Houston Public Works, where she served as assistant director, and she led long-term utility development for Houston Water, which provides drinking water and wastewater services to approximately 5.5 million people. Y Catarina brings extensive experience managing complex utility systems and planning for the long-term needs of growing communities. Her strong background in strategic planning, infrastructure development, regional partnerships, and innovation will be an asset as we work to ensure reliable and sustainable utility services for San Marcos. We are thrilled to welcome her to our team. Thank you.

Yay, welcome, welcome.

I also would like to give a special shout out and thank you to Mr. Robert Good. He has served amazingly well and been such a unicorn coming in with both water, wastewater, and also electric service. He's staying on with us for a little bit longer to help make sure that we transition and give the community and the best transition possible. But I didn't want to, to go without thanking him for his, dedicated service and really, really appreciate having him step in and help us.

Thank you.

Mr. Locke.

Mr. Locke. Thank you, Mayor and City Council. We'll begin by looking at the budget calendar for fiscal year 27 and We are at the end. Today is the last day. If we hold all three public hearings this evening, and there were six at the last city council meeting, and there was one at budget policy. So in total, we will have held 10 public hearings on the FY27 budget. There were also six town hall meetings that were held during the year. There were three at visioning and three over the budget. And finance met with the neighborhood commission to discuss the budget at two of their meetings. So there's been a lot of public engagement or outreach this year with the fiscal year 27 budget. Next slide, please. Next slide. This is a look at the fiscal year 27 budget. This is broke down by all the major operating funds You see, in total, if you look at the third column over, the proposed revenues are $402 million and proposed expenses, $406 million. The only item on this that has changed since the original budget was submitted to City Council in August is stormwater. The revenues and expenses increased by $561,000, and that was to allow up to a 5.8% increase in the stormwater rate. Next slide, please. Just beginning with an overview of the general fund, we have discussed this along the way. The forecast for the general fund began with a $4 million shortfall. That did not include $1.4 million that was needed to set up an emergency medical service department. So in total, there was $5.4 million that needed to be identified to balance the fiscal year 27 budget. Through multiple strategic decisions, including a retirement incentive that eliminated 20 positions in the general fund and saved $2 million in the fiscal year 27 budget and ongoing, holding department's operation budgets flat, saved $540,000, and an ongoing mandatory program has saved $2 million this year alone. The city's budget is balanced with an improved financial outlook. We also received a better than expected certified roll due to less protest and the additional funding from this was directed to one-time needs rather than ongoing commitments. This reduces debt service payments in future years and also creates capacity in future years. This next slide provides an overview of the major increases in the general fund. Personnel is a big cost in the general fund. The personnel cost will increase $2.6 million. There's non-civil service for a 3% increase is one million. And then civil service will receive their increases for their meet and confer agreements. That's 1.6 million. We already touched on the increase to stand up the emergency medical services department. That included adding a total of 54 positions. There's the expiring federal funding at the end of this calendar year. The remainder of that that the general fund needed to absorb is $775,000. Some increases related to social services that are in addition to the Human Services Advisory Board, a total of $230,000, and that includes the eviction prevention services, mental health clinician, and preventative letter. And there's some new software for the community support and resource navigation department for $24,000. This next slide provides an overview of all the one-time expenses. The two I wanted to point out on the list are the cash-funded radio replacements and the ambulances. Together, those two will save $640,000 in annual debt service beginning in fiscal year 27 and then for the next five to seven years. And it will also create a total of $3 million in capacity in future budget years, since we're cash funding these needs. Next slide, please. There are some legislative considerations with the new session scheduled to begin in January of 27. There's already been numerous proposals submitted for property tax reform. and changes that could result in expenditure caps. Governor Abbott did also, does plan to open competition and markets with city owned utilities. This would have an impact on both the electric and general fund because the electric fund does pay the general fund a franchise fee and that annual amount is $6 million. Next slide please. Now transitioning from the general fund to look at the utility bill. This utility bill provides an overview of what the impact would be to a typical residential rate payer. It has all the different utilities and what is currently being paid by that rate payer. Beside of that, it shows what will be paid after the proposed adjustments are approved and whether they are approved and then what that total change is. So you can tell in total, this particular rate payer currently is paying $297. After the proposed changes, they would be paying $305. So that would be an increase of just under $8 a month. From a percent perspective, that's 2.6%. And when you factor in inflation, the cost that it is increasing to be able to provide these services are running above 4% right now. So this increase is well below the cost that is increased to the city to provide those services. This next slide is actually a slide that city council requested. They asked for a look. This shows is the electric increase for east of I-35 and west of I-35. So on the left hand side is east of I-35. I know this farm could be small, especially for the west of I-35. Just to point out a couple, this is broke out by neighborhood. So a larger neighborhood is Blanco Gardens. You have 1600 residential household and the estimated bill impact for that residential neighborhood is an increase of $2.45. On the lower end, you have Cottonwood Creek that has over 1900 residential meters. and that average increase is $2.17. In total, for those neighborhoods that are east of I-35, the average increase is $2.29. On the right-hand side is the west of I-35, and just to pick a total, you have Millview, or a couple, Millview East has over 2,900 residential meters, and the increase there is $2.49 a month. and Millview West has over 1,300 residential meters, and the increase there is $2.09. So the average of all of the west of I-35 is $2.56. Next slide, please. The next couple slides speak to the Water and Wastewater Fund. This first slide provides the infrastructure lifecycle and water and wastewater. And it begins with identifying the need for a future water supply. And then as you move through the chart, the example shown here is that the city did secure water supply, and that was with the Alliance for Regional Water Authority. And going to the right of that, you have the operating that regional supply. The city's share of the operating and maintenance and debt of that regional system is 35%. So you might be able to see on the slide there, for operating expenses annually, that's $3.4 million. The annual debt service is $11 million. So that's the city's portion of the ARWA annual expenses. Then we treat the water, we deliver the water, Then that water has to be collected, treated, and or reclaimed and reinvested. And then we have to reinvest in the system to maintain the integrity of the system. What you'll see right below that on the right-hand side is who pays. So on the left-hand side of that box, you have the rate payers are supporting operations, maintenance, debt, and compliance for the system serving customers today. And on the right hand side, you also have impact fees and developer contributions. And that supports eligible capital capacity needed for future growth so that the current customers aren't bearing the total weight of all of the new growth that is coming into the city. The next slide provides a similar breakdown for water and wastewater as what we looked at with electric. So on the east side of 35, the average increase would be $4.92. And as you look through some of those neighborhoods, again, looking at some of the larger ones, you have Cottonwood Creek has over 1,000 meters, and the average increase there is $5.11. And Blanco Gardens has 460, and the average increase there is $4.74. On the right hand side in green, you have the west of I-35. The average increase for those residential neighborhoods on the west side is $5 and a penny. And some of the larger ones is Blanco Vista. You have just under 1,900 meters, and the average increase is $5.34. And Southwest Hills has 500 meters, and the average increase is $4.58. Next slide, please. This slide shows some of the scenarios that were considered for stormwater. There were five different scenarios displayed. Scenario one is just staying with the current rate. Scenario two has a 1% increase, and scenario three through five have an increase and are also associated with a one-time project. You can see scenario three is 10 million, four is 17 million, and five is 24 million. included in the current budget ordinance is the 5.8% change.

And Mr. Locke, I know we're on stormwater now, but I did want to highlight on the rates. Um, you know, we provided a lot of information to Marin council in terms of the, why we were asking for the increase in the rates. One other thing that probably wasn't conveyed to mayor and council is that you may recall when we were having discussions about water, wastewater practices, electric practices, one of the things that council made a policy decision about was to no longer budget for delinquent fees. And at that time, Mr. York sat up here and said, you're taking that out of the revenue, and so that means you're going to have to ensure that that is about, give or take, a 1% increase in rates that then has to be paid for by someone. And at that time, y'all were willing to do that. So just wanted to make sure and mention, yes, it's about infrastructure, yes, it's about water, it's about all of those things, but it's also a shift in the philosophy of council in terms of how we would budget in those utilities, and y'all asked us to not budget for those hard times of people, which meant it was gonna shift rates to the rate payers, and so just wanted to name that, because that was a policy decision that was given, and that's why that was also included in that recommendation that went to CUAB, and it's coming back to y'all, and so just wanted to mention that as well.

Thank you, Ms. Ransom. I did have that noted to share as well, and there was a couple other things along with that that I wanted to share, and that beginning this fiscal year, we also reduced the late penalties from 10% to 5%. That's something else that changed this year. And as of May, we started to waive the late penalties and reconnect fees for those customers that are receiving utility assistance.

So that's part of the justification for why those rates. And we lowered a reconnect fee. Correct.

Yes.

And so those don't come without a cost. And so I know as staff, we did mention, hey, that's going to be on top of whatever is requested in terms of a rate increase. We were already anticipating a rate increase even before those decisions were made. And so just wanted to remind council that it was part of us following the policy direction that you provided in terms of why some of these rate increases were then recommended.

And continuing with the stormwater now, this is some information that city council also requested. At the previous meeting, all we had was just the average residential rate payer. This slide also shows the impact to some select businesses, ranging from small to large. Just to point out a couple, you have Chepo's as the smallest. Their current monthly bill is $52, and so with scenario five, their bill would increase by $3, so it would increase it to $55. And then if you would go to the largest, the San Marcos premium outlet, Their current bill is $16,548 monthly. And the 5.8% increase would be $959. So their monthly bill would go up to $17,500. That takes us to the next step slide. And that is to hold a public hearing on the budget and to take a record vote on the budget. And that concludes my presentation.

Okay. Mr. Geary, can I make a couple of statements now before we open the public hearing on this topic?

Sure. Yes, you can.

Okay. I just want to make note and ask a question because I pulled these stormwater rates from the consent agenda because I want to talk about them and we might change them, so What's going to happen if we finish this budget and it gets approved and then we change those rates? Are we going to need to come back to this? Yeah, that's my question.

There's a couple of things you could do. You could approve the budget as is, contingent on... the stormwater rates remaining the same or to be adjusted according accordingly based on a different rate proposed. But I would suggest revisiting it so that it's clear for the record that what the actual budget amount is.

Well, that's why I'm wondering, I'll go ahead and do the public hearing is if maybe we ought to, as we have a time or two, but this aside,

You can postpone it.

Go deal with this. And then, well, we'd actually be tabling it till later in the meeting.

Yes, that's correct. You can do that as well.

OK, we may end up doing that. OK. I'm going to go ahead and do the public hearing then. I will open the public hearing. We are on item 15, the budget. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for, against, or about the proposed budget? Anybody? Anybody in the lobby? Going once. Twice. Three times. I will close the public hearing on the budget and I await a motion. Mr. Scott, say that loudly into your microphone, please.

No move. Second.

I have a motion from Mr. Scott and seconded from Mr. Mendoza. Um, I want to make a note that on the first reading, uh, those that were looking at is, uh, we call it the RF it's agenda review form. It's like the executive summary. That's at the beginning. Uh, you saw the budget was 406,000 three zeros and then $496. It is now 406,506, I'm sorry, 406,561,553. The increase, as was noted earlier, was in the stormwater revenues that we changed at the last meeting. So I believe the budget now includes that number. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So... Council, discussion on this. I am going to move to table so we can deal with the stormwater and then bring it back. So we'll see if that motion floats, but just to let you know. Discussion on the budget at this point in time. Anybody? Anybody? Okay. Then I'm going to make a motion to table. Second. And seconded by Ms. Rodriguez. Thank you. Ms. Trevino, let's see how the motions table goes. I guess it's table pending our discussion on. Well, we're going to table it to later. We'll talk about stormwater. Then we'll bring this back.

Okay. Ms. Garza? Sorry. Okay. Motion passes 7-0.

Okay. So, Mr. Geary, that means I can move on to item 16.

Yes, ma'am.

All right. Thank you. Very much. And hold on a second. I got to say something even before you read that. All right. The next item, item 16, is not a public hearing, but we must complete item 16 before we can proceed to item 17 for which there is a public hearing.

Consider approval of resolution 2026-167 or ratifying the property tax revenue increase in the budget for the fiscal year October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027 and declare an effective date.

Okay, and to comply with the law. I need to read the following text, which is what I just said. But this is the formal one. Although item 16 is not a public hearing, we're taking it up now before the tax rate item number 17 is required by state law. State law requires a separate action to ratify the property tax revenue increase reflected in the budget when more revenue will be raised from property taxes than in the previous fiscal year. This item is not a public hearing. Presentation on item 16. Is that correct, or do we need to?

A couple things, and Mr. Locke just reminded me of something. I guess the way the sequence is that we need to deal with the budget. Before we even do this? And so one suggestion, it's a change of practice, but the – the wastewater, the storm water rates that were pulled, you could go ahead and move that out of order to just go ahead and deal with that. Then you could just stay in sequence.

Okay.

That might be with that work. Mr. Locke for yes. Yeah. And thank you for, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Locke for raising that.

So this has been read, but I don't have a motion or a second yet cause we haven't had a presentation or I've opened the public hearing. So we're just going to set this aside totally. and then we can come back to it. We'll just start over with 16?

Yes, I think that's a great way, and then we can stay in sequence.

I think that is excellent, but I was kind of afraid to ask about that.

We're lucky to have Mr. Locke.

No, I figured it would be easier. So in that case, we will go to item four, Ms. Trevino.

Considerable ordinance 2026-41, the second of two readings, amending rates for stormwater utility in accordance with section 86.505 of the San Marcos City Code, including procedural provisions and declare an effective date.

Motion to approve. We have a motion by Ms. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Peselk for approval as is. Could we go back to the page that shows the stormwater rate increases? I'm making some presumptions here in that originally the recommendation was not to have an increase. So y'all didn't prepare a sheet of what the impacts and things would be right away. And so we said we were good with it. But when we said we were good with the 5.8, we only saw residential and the impact of residential, which is more of a flat rate. We did ask about business. We now have that. Y'all, when I looked at this, I went, oh my gosh. Y'all saw that earlier. So my question, I guess, is kind of a technical one, is what can we do in this particular case? Because I am having trouble increasing a fee by almost $1,000 a month. for a business.

Yes, ma'am. For the sake of the conversation, could we pull up that?

I asked for that, and I thought maybe you're right, absolutely. I asked if we could get that, and yeah, looks like they were trying to get there. Thank you. But you're absolutely right. Everybody needs to be looking at this. So what do y'all think? I can't do this. That's not an annual increase. That's a monthly increase.

So I know mayor, we've typically stuck to the 3% every three years. Correct. Am I correct on that?

For the incremental increase or user fees and stuff. Right. Oh, activity center. That that we're going to talk about here a little bit.

So I saw your question on the message board, uh, as it related to cap a potential cap. And then I saw, obviously given it's based on impervious cover and that a cap may not necessarily be feasible. If you're interested though in entertaining perhaps I mean, while ideally I would be totally okay with a 5.8 given the capital investment that's necessary for some of these massive projects that are very critical, I can hear how given all of the other increases that we've made in terms of rates, this could be a sticker shock for some of these businesses. Are you interested in perhaps a potential one of these other scenarios with lesser amounts or? Is that where you're kind of going at this point? Because I know I made a motion to approve, but I meant to say for the sake of discussion.

Absolutely. And mine was to get this on the table so that we could even discuss it. So we're thinking alike on that one. But I'm looking at San Marcos High School. An increase monthly of $647.49. I can't do that. I could do some, but not that.

Did you say Samaritan's High School?

Just keep your microphone on, please. Yeah, it's the third from the bottom.

Just making sure I heard you right. What did you have in mind?

Well, I need to find out legally if it's a percent, does it have to be a percent? Can we put a cap? Can we say businesses are a different percent from residential? I don't know what we can do, and that was my question. There may not be much option.

Yeah, with this, there aren't a lot of options because it is based on an equivalent residential unit. And by law, it does need to be that way. So we know what that equivalent residential unit is. And it's actually shown up here on the slide. The average is 2,575 square feet. And so then you can see what each one of these businesses displayed here, how many ERUs they have. So their rate is that multiplied by that equivalent residential unit rate, which is the average rate, which right now is $14.90.

Yeah, and what's missing from this, but I made my own spreadsheet and inserted the column. was what the current fee is. You said it, but it wasn't up here. For example, for premium outlets, they've got a lot of almost 3 million square feet of impervious cover. So their bill right now, correct me if I'm wrong, is $16,547.64 a month that they're paying. So this 5.8% increase is how you get that 959 77. That's not their fee. That's the increase. So that's bringing them from 16,005 to, um, you know, 17,000 something.

So, Mayor, I know on a couple slides prior to this one, there was the rate adjustment scenarios that provided scenario one, I believe, was the 0% of what we're at, the 1%, 1.9, and 3.8. I know we have one, 1.9, 5.8.

You're right, because it gave us how much that would generate that we could do the payment and the size of the project.

Right. And I was particularly interested, you know, if, if council's not amenable to a 5.8%, I'm seeing on the previous slide, uh, the 3.8% would generate an additional $368,000 in revenue, revenue compared to the 561,000 under the 5.8%. Um, mayor, are you more amenable to a 3.8 versus a 5.8? Like, are you trying to find somewhere in the middle? Just trying to see what, you know, where the interest lies?

Yeah, for the residential where it was, you know, less than a dollar. But if it all has to be the same percent per the ERU? Yes. Equivalent residential unit. Yes. I think I'm going to have to go lower myself because I just, I can't do... the other sheet. So let me pull up my spreadsheet. Does this say how much, see this doesn't tell us, this one doesn't tell us what the total is, but it does tell us that for option three, which is 1.9%, it would generate $10 million, and up to five, the 5.8, 24 million.

Yeah, we didn't include scenario four so the font wouldn't get too small on the slide.

Yeah, that's fine. I'm looking for this. I'm trying to open my spreadsheet. So for y'all, you'll notice that the 1.9, that would increase premium $300 versus $950. For the high school, it would be $200 instead of 647. Folks, I'm going to make a motion that we change.

I just had a clarifying question. I'm sorry. Ms. Garza, jump in. Yeah, so I just want to understand. Your concern is a percentage increase rather than, like, I think you said that the residential is, like, less than, like, a dollar amount or something. Right.

for the residential was going back to in your packet page, whatever this is. because the difference in the current rate for a typical residential, $14.90, 1% was $15.05, 1.9% was $15.18, and the 5.8% was $15.76. It was $0.86 a month. And, you know, that didn't look too bad. Right, but they're...

The increase, yes, it's 86 cents, but it's also 5.8%. But you have an issue with this increase being here because why? Like, I'm just trying to understand, like, the... I mean, because there's a big difference between like a business and an individual resident, so. John, let me go back to that last slide real quick.

That's true. If we could go back to the other slide. I'm looking at, and what you did, this sample here is great. This is fine. But I'm glad you showed the premium outlets to be an increase of almost $1,000 a month. And for the high school, it would be an increase of $647 a month. And that's just for the high school.

What was the ask of just getting rid of what for the whole ISD? So I'm just confused where this energy about caring about the high school's bail is coming from. Like, did they write into, like, to be like, or like, what's, like, where is that coming from?

No, it was just on the list, and it's just one of the ones that I noticed that I went, that would be, that's a hard one for me.

Mayor? Yes, sir. My opinion is that these rates look appropriate to me. That's my opinion for the record. I know it's the high school, but given that we haven't done anything with these rates in quite a bit, I mean, it seems appropriate. I don't want to hit anybody with large fees, but when you're talking with in regards to like the San Marcos premium outlets, you know, footing a $12,000 bill per annum, just in consideration of their budget that doesn't seem out of place. So that's where I would stand on it.

So you're okay with it as is?

I am, yeah.

Yeah, and Mayor, you know, this one, as all of the other rates, like we talked about the last time, these are not easy discussions that we have. They're not easy decisions that we have. But, you know, to the point my colleague just made, but also... The critical nature of this infrastructure that this fund specifically funds is actually saving us money long term should we have a major flooding event. A major flooding event doesn't just cost a municipality considerably, it also costs businesses considerably should there be damage. And so in terms of potential return on investment or return on this decision, I'm sort of seeing it from that lens. And I do hear you. It is a shock. But I think as far as being able to articulate our decision, I think that's where I'm coming from. is those are very costly events.

But remember, they didn't propose any increase, and I'm the one that said our community knows the importance of this.

So, okay, I'm just... No disrespect, Mary, I really appreciate your sentiment about San Marcos High School, and if there was a workaround for the school district, of course.

Well, why isn't there a workaround?

Y'all don't remember the discussion we had about a year ago on this? They came in and asked for an exemption. We said no.

I said yes. I said yes. And I wasn't here.

From my colleague that wasn't here, the discussion at that time, while I think we all can understand, given especially state legislative action, the financial strain that school districts are under, I think without understanding, though, at the same time, that when Texas State chose to pull out, THAT COST US. THAT COST US SIGNIFICANTLY. THEY WERE A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS FUND. AND I WANT TO SAY, AND I KNOW SAVAS IS HERE, I THINK WE WERE PROVIDED AT THAT TIME WHERE THE DISTRICT LIED ON THE LIST OF TOP CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS FUND. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CREATING A POTENTIALLY MASSIVE HOLE IN A CRITICAL FUND THAT EVERYBODY DOES BENEFIT FROM. WELL, IT'S NOT A HOLE. IT'S JUST NOT AS MUCH. Because I'm not taking anything away. No, I was saying the previous discussion is sort of what.

OK. So I'm just going to give this a try. If it fails, it fails. But I'm going to make a motion that we go with 3% instead of the 5.8. Recall that staff had not proposed any increase. So this is kind of half. So that's my motion. And I'm going to see if I get a second.

I have a question. Is it... I don't know how I'm wording this. Is it an amendment or is your motion... If this passes, is it set at three or is there another vote afterwards?

I guess I'm making a motion to change it to three, but then that's an amendment, then we would still have to pass the motion as amended.

Okay.

Yeah. Did that...

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

I'll second it.

What that would do is that would make for San Marcos High School, basically three is a little more than half of 5.8. So that would make it $334.91 instead of $647. So if there's any more discussion on this, if there's not, let's vote. Let's see where this goes, and then we'll get back on track with budget. But thank y'all for showing us the business so that we know, and at least if we have this, it's a conscious decision that has been made to go with this increase. So thank y'all.

I'm sorry. Can you repeat what it is that we're voting on again?

To go with 3% instead of 5.8%.

And the rationale there was what?

I think this is too big a hit at once. for these businesses. I wish we had been incrementally raising this one and we could maybe even be at 5.8 now, but we didn't. So I'm concerned about the big hit. It'll help residences a little, but I mean, this is not every...

business in town that we have so that's my motion if it fails as i tell people i have been out voted in public and on television oh no i was just i was just trying to understand i'm not feeling well sometimes i'm a little slower so it's not that the rate is disproportionate it's just that it's coming to too much at once is what you're saying yes ma'am gotcha gotcha gotcha is this one of those situations where the argument is like if the

uh do smaller ratepayers subsidize the impact of larger property type of thing or is that like not relevant somebody else answered that one but that's a good question ms garza and i was just going to make the point i think all the council members have voted except ms garza so do you want to vote again after this discussion yes but normally the discussion ends and the vote occurs so we're

Yes. Well, I still had questions in order for me to have an informed decision. I'm sorry. I didn't know if everybody else was already locked in.

We had that, and we'll vote again. Thank you. I didn't realize I had not let her ask her questions yet. That's on me. So we will vote, and then Ms. Garza will vote.

So there's no more discussion?

We're not blinking.

So we're voting on the amendment again?

Yes.

I never got my question answered about is that the question of smaller ratepayers subsidize the impact of larger properties, but okay I'm not sure that I heard the question completely to be able to answer.

Can you repeat it, please?

It's like if the developers don't pay impact fees, then the utility rate payer picks up the bill. Is this scenario applied in this instance? Yeah.

I feel like every time that we're... Who is it paying for?

I apologize.

Thank you, Josh. Exactly. We keep asking this question. If we don't do this, would smaller rate payers subsidize the impact or... whatever, and so I just wanted to, I'm trying to wrap my head around whether that's what Josh said right now is applicable here as well.

In the case with stormwater, there are not impact fees, so there's not another funding source other than potentially the general fund. We have leaned on the general fund to cover some of the capital improvement projects in stormwater fund over the past couple years, and then this general fund ran into its challenges, so we weren't able to continue that. So with these stormwater projects, those are the two primary funding sources.

Let me ask this question in a little bit of a different way. So stormwater, we only can do enough projects that we have enough funding for, correct? So if any rate class gets changed, right, and we decide not to do a certain thing, then we have less money to do less projects. So it's not a matter of we still gotta cover projects regardless. We won't do those projects because we don't have enough funding unless we find an alternative funding source. And so it's not exactly with what, like with impact fees and stuff. So that's what I just wanna make sure that we're.

Remember, y'all didn't ask for an increase. Correct. We did.

Correct. And that's exactly right. And the reason that we, Mr. Condor gave a very kind of eye-opening presentation to say, because we hear quite often, hey, my neighbors feel like y'all don't do the projects in their area. And so he was just explaining why we can't always do that. Number one, We go out for a lot of grant funding and we have been able to get $48 million in grant funding to help pay for some projects, but that also means that we're not, so we're not going out to the rate payers and asking for that amount of money, but then we're also having to wait because that doesn't always come quickly. But if we don't have enough sustainable revenue, then we plan for fewer storm water related projects. Is that accurate, Mr. Condor?

Sean Condor, Director of Engineering.

Yes, that's correct. As the Mayor mentioned, this was not budgeted, so the CIP that will be approved later with the budget, this won't have impact on the 27 CIP. It's going to come in the 28 CIP, because what this does is it gives us those guardrails. Right now, we're budgeting $5 million. We know there's a greater need than $5 million stormwater-wise, but... By having that increase now, we can plan and put forward more projects and get that done quicker, knowing how much we have to work with as far as capital improvements projects go. So we're planning and saving.

Yes, and collecting. And collecting.

The other thing I'll add is the businesses supplement the stormwater fund more than the residents. That's why you see that huge shift on there.

Because they've got more impervious cover by the Many times over.

Very, very so. Yes.

Okay. So, Ms. Garza, did we have your question pretty much answered?

Yeah, that helped me solidify my vote.

All right. So now we're ready.

Okay, I had to remember what I'm doing.

You're voting on the 3% instead of 5.8%.

Ms. Garza? As she can say no. So the motion fails with four nos and three yeses with Council Member Rodriguez, Baselk, and Scott and Garza voting no.

So then unless somebody else has a motion to amend or more discussion, we will vote on this as it was presented to us with the 5.8. Everybody ready for that? Yes.

I actually had more discussion, I guess. Okay.

Now would be the time.

Yeah. So, does anyone remember what the ISD's percentage of the total was? No.

No, sir. I'm not sure what their percent of total is.

I'm shocked that we are. I don't know. I'm shocked as we are at this number. This number is also just for San Marcos High School. San Marcos has other campuses that are going to have similar increases.

Well, they don't have football stadiums.

Right.

True. All right.

I just had to work through that.

That's fine.

Cool. Thank you.

Okay. All right. So now the motion on the table is the original motion with the 5.8%.

Ms. Garza? Okay, the motion passes five to two with council members Scott and Gonzalez dissenting.

All righty, so now I believe Mr. Aguirre, the best thing to do, what we need to do is to go back to item 15. The budget?

Yes, ma'am.

OK, so I am going to make a motion to remove that from the table and hope I get a second. Thank you, Mr. Scott. And we can vote on whether or not we want to discuss this or not, which we need to.

MS.

This is for the budget? MS. This is just removing the budget from the table. MS. Oh, I see. MS. Yeah, just to get it back on for discussion. MS. Ms. Garza? MS.

Thank you. MS. Motion passes 7-0.

MS. OK. Is there anything else that anybody? Otherwise, we'll vote on the motion. I'm sorry, the budget as it was presented to us. Everybody ready to vote?

MS. Oh, I just had one quick comment.

MS. Now's the time.

Awesome. So this is going back on the charts that we had asked about the neighborhood averages. So yeah, I just wanted to say thank you for that chart, which responded to part of my question about which neighborhoods have higher average usage. And that information was helpful. But I feel like it's important to name that it still doesn't capture the full concern that I was trying to raise, which is that families are experiencing the greatest impact and how significant that impact is for them. I'm not suggesting that the averages are inaccurate at all. I'm just saying that the statistical middle is being presented as though it describes the community's experience. And every year, constituents tell me that it doesn't describe theirs. So I think going forward, I know we can't do much tonight, but I do think that we need to come up with some way to show the range of impact at different usage levels and how many households fall within each range. So that way, like we can be more clear and perhaps more honest with ourselves too about what the averages reveal and what they conceal. I just, I feel crazy when I show these charts to my neighbors and then they show me their bills and like the math isn't mathing just because we are currently limited on how to even try to capture the fullness of our constituents' experiences. But yeah, I'm saying I'm going to support the budget and everything. And I just think that in the future we have to do better. Like we can't just be comfortable with weird averages that don't capture the fullness of our neighbors' experiences.

Not seeing anyone else here ready to speak. We will vote on item 15, the budget without any amendments. This is the budget as is right. Yes.

Ms. Garza. Thank you. The motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. So are we just going to pick up as if we were doing third 16 for the first time, Mr. Gary?

Yes, mayor. And I think it may be worthwhile just to, I mean start over. Yes, I think that way it's in the record continuously.

I think that's a great idea. So I'm going to say it twice. 16 is not a public hearing, but we have to complete 16 before we go to 17, which is a public hearing. Ms. Trevino.

consider approval of resolution 2026-167R, ratifying the property tax revenue increase in the budget for the fiscal year October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027, and declare an effective date. So moved.

Second.

To comply with the law, I need to read the following text. Although 16 is not a public hearing, We're taking it up now before the tax rate item, which is number 17, as required by state law. State law requires a separate action to ratify property tax revenue increase reflected in the budget when more revenue will be raised from property taxes than in the previous fiscal year. This is not a public hearing. So we will have a motion and a second and then the presentation. So moved. Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Peselk.

Thank You mayor and council and mayor you did a great job of covering the first slide the only thing that I would add to that is that the total tax revenue increase in the budget is seven point one million dollars and of that amount one point eight million dollars is from new property that was added to the tax roll and at this time the City Council would vote to ratify the property tax revenue increase in the budget

Okay. And that's it. Okay. Any questions, concerns, comments? If not, we will vote.

All right.

The motion passes six to zero with Ms. Garza absent. Wait, she's back. She just got back. And was that a yes. Yes. All right.

Thanking you all. So now we will go back to the public hearing portion of our program, item 17.

Receive a start presentation, hold a public hearing to receive comments for or against Ordinance 2026-38, setting the tax rate for the 2026 tax year at 65.1500 cents on each 100 of taxable value of real property that is not exempt from taxation, levying taxes for the use and support for the municipal government of the city for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026, and ending September 30, 2027, providing a sinking fund for the retirement of the bonded debt of the city, including procedural provisions, and to cover an effective date and consider approval of Ordinance 2026-30 on the second of two readings.

Announcement. City Council approved the tax rate ordinance on first reading on September 1st of 2026. This agenda item is for the City Council to consider the tax rate ordinance on the second reading and actually adopt the 2026 ordinance. tax rate. First, our presentation.

Thank you again. Uh, we'll begin by just going over the definitions of the property tax rates that came into play for the fiscal year 27 budget. The no new revenue rate is the rate that will produce the same amount of money as last year on the same properties. Um, and this is so even with the property value changes, If we exceed this rate, it requires the approval of five council members. Then you have the rate that was used for the budget, the proposed rate, which is the same as the current rate. That's 6515. And since that rate is above the no new revenue rate, it will require approval from five City Council members. There's also the voter approval rate. City Council set the maximum tax rate at the proposed rate, so that is no longer an option. That voter approval rate was 68 cents. Next slide, please. This slide shows the difference in revenue between those different benchmark tax rates. The proposed rate and the current rate of 6515, when you compare it to the no new revenue rate, it would be a reduction in over $1.5 million. And we can't go any higher than that. If we would've went up to the voter approval rate, we could've received an additional $3 million in property tax revenue. This next slide shows the impact to the median home value in the city. The median taxable value in the current fiscal year in 26 is 307,000. So the annual city tax paid is $2,000. In fiscal year 27, the median taxable value was 296,000. So the annual city tax that would be paid would be $1,930. So it went down because the median value went down. So state law sets forth the following requirements if the tax rate exceeds the no new revenue rate. It must be a record vote. And again, it must be approved by five city council members. And the motion to approve the ordinance must be made with specific language. And it's I move that the property tax rate be increased by the adoption of a tax rate of 65.15 cents, which is effectively a 2.5% increase in the tax rate. And that has to be read even though the tax rate is going to stay the same. And the reason for that, the formula set by state law is to show the percent increase from the no new revenue tax rate. So that's where the 2.5% comes into play. Next slide, please. So we'll hold a public hearing on the tax rate. After the public hearing, the motion will be made with that specific language. There must be a record vote, and the motion, I'm sorry, and again, it does require a minimum of five votes. If the city council does not adopt or set a tax rate this evening, the tax rate automatically becomes that no new revenue rate, which means that we would need to cut $1.5 million from the budget. And that concludes the presentation.

And I would suggest we can leave that slide up there so somebody can make the motion. All right.

Yes, but I gotta, I got to have a, the public hearing first. So yes, excellent idea. So I will now open the public hearing on item 17, setting the tax rate. Is there anyone who wishes to speak far against or about this item? Going once, twice, three times. Close the public hearing and I await a motion.

I move that the property tax rate be increased by the adoption of a tax rate of 65.15 cents, which is effectively a 2.5% increase On the tax rate. Is it in the tax rate or just grammar? Is the state set in?

The way that the state law reads is in the tax rate. In the tax rate.

Thank you. It just feels grammatically incorrect, but okay.

Yeah. Yeah, there's been a couple of those tonight, but we're just kind of going with it. So... Discussion.

Yes.

Yes. I've got Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Perseval seconded. I mean, I've said that out loud, but I wrote it down. Any discussion?

Yes, ma'am.

Yes. Now's the time.

So I know this is going to be a hard ask, but as simply as possible, can you explain how taxable value went down? The average annual tax went down. yet revenue actually increased, and we're calling this a 2.5% increase in the tax rate. I get we're doing it because of the state, but mathematically, how did values go down, the amount of taxes that the average taxpayer is paying went down?

But we got some, we have new property.

Is it all new property, or is it property that left, like tours, or like, part of it was previously exempted in some way that is now actually going to the general fund?

I'm just talking about new stuff on the ground.

So it is 100% just new stuff on the ground?

I don't know about the 100%.

It's not all from new property. And not all values went down. In general, the residential values did go down. And so commercial values would have went up to compensate for it. And that's what's causing more of the increase in property tax revenues. The median value, as shown on that slide, though, of a residential home, that did go down, the median value went down.

So the median value was of homes, not of property in general? Correct, yes, sir. That was just a home. That makes more sense to me. Yes.

It was like 290-something thousand and then... Yeah, 296 and 307. That's it?

Yes. Yes. All right, cool. It was just like, the math wasn't mathing it. I was going to get stuck on it all night.

With this stuff, it never does. It just looks weird, but... Are y'all ready? Mr. Vino will set us up to vote. I'll hit it again.

Ms. Garza. Thank you. So motion passes seven to zero. We're breathing now, aren't we, Ms. Reyes?

Yeah.

Look at John's face. Getting out of his soul.

John and Trisha are breathing.

Thank you all. And on to, thank you to everyone who has worked on this budget in any way, which is probably pretty much everybody here. Everybody works at the city. I've said it before, I'll say it again. We know y'all are making some really tough decisions. And thank you very much. And a sacrifice. Yeah. 18.

Yes, ma'am. Receive a staff presentation, hold a public hearing to receive comments for or against Resolution 2026-168R, approving the schedule of fees for the fiscal year October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027, reauthorizing building permit fees, including procedural provisions, and declare an effective date, and consider approval of Resolution 2026-168R. Presentation.

Yes, this is for the schedule of fees and building permit fees. These fees will take effect for the fiscal year 27, so they'll begin October 1st and through September 30th of 2027. House Bill 1922 took effect January 1st of 24, and it requires City Council to hold a public hearing on the reauthorization of building permit fees and to reauthorize the fee by vote. The bill requires building permit fees to be adopted or reauthorized at least once every 10 years or be abolished. So rather than setting a every decade clock reminder, we're just doing this on an annual basis. Next slide please. So the changes to the schedule of fees, first was the city council provided guidance to increase fees by 3% annually unless they were undergoing a review. This does not apply to the emergency medical services fees. Medicare publishes the allowable annual fee adjustments each year for those fees. Emergency medical service fees have been incorporated into the city's schedule of fees. Parks and recreation and library fees were reviewed during fiscal year 26, and those changes were included and reflected in exhibit A as an attachment to this agenda item. Next slide, please. Part of the review of those fees was to determine the cost of providing that service, and the cost charged to residents were also compared against our peer cities. The average increase to the fees for parks was 15%, and library, 12%, and so the average amount of the service that is still being subsidized by the general fund for parks is 77%, and library is 73%. So the fee is not covering all of the cost of providing the service. The general fund is still covering the significant portion of it. And so the next steps would be to hold a public hearing on the schedule of the fees and reauthorizing the building permit fees and the vote to adopt the 27 schedule of fees and reauthorize the building permit fees. And that concludes the presentation.

Okay, I will open the public hearing. and ask if there is anyone who wishes to speak on item 18, which is the schedule of fees, far, against, or about. If you wonder why I ask about, in the past there have been people who said, I just said far against, and they said, I just want to talk about it. So I just say far against or about. And wait. Going once, twice, three times. I will close the public hearing and await a motion for approval. Motion to approve motion by Mr. Mendoza. I will second it, but I'll let you know now that there's amendments coming. So, um, council discussion, Mr. Scott, we, um,

we should or we did have it on building permits where if you have your own building home, you don't have to pay the building permit fees. Is that still the case?

I cannot answer that question. Mr. Gary.

I do recall before the pandemic, the council did carve out some exceptions in Chapter 14, I believe.

It was actually done in 2012.

Yeah, okay. Yeah, so it was... the council authorized sort of some waivers for your own, like your own homestead and whatnot. And I'm not aware that we've changed that since that was done.

I'm not aware that it's been changed either. I, as far as I know, that still exists. If it's certain projects that a homeowner is working on for him or herself, then you can do that without having to pull permits.

Correct.

Yes. Correct.

Does that show in this, list my thought is it would be really great if rather than thinking somebody going oh they have missed that they have omitted it let's put it in that we show that line item but we show it to be zero with the explanation that council decision was that we're not charging homeowners permit fees.

I don't think there is a permit though. So that's the difficulty. Is there a certain like permit? Because we don't make them even come in even though it's zero. Like we don't even make them file for a permit even though it's zero. So it's right.

So there's, there wouldn't be like we, I get that, but there's no notation here. at all on the list. I think we could put some text that doesn't even, you know, isn't a fee, doesn't have to go into my permit now or whatever, but on a published schedule of fees, let people know that this is what we do here, or what we don't do.

I think it can certainly be codified that way.

Yeah.

Sure.

What, Mr. Paselka, you're mumbling.

I'm just wondering, is that right?

For someone working on their own homestead, yes. On their own house. On their own house. Not a rental. Serving as their own contract.

Yeah, it's their homestead.

Doing their own work.

Mm-hmm.

Old one.

Yep.

So, you know, does, well, assuming there's gonna be a motion to add something like that, would you, would council feel comfortable with staff coming up with a notation, perhaps, for example, an asterisk, that cross references the ordinance, something like that.

I would highly recommend that because there's new people coming into our community. I assume that they will get the information they need at the, you know, planning and development services. But we, we had another issue with somebody that was exempted from a fee And when something happened and the people over here, what we don't have any record of that. And, uh, I'll tell you the details about that one later, but if we had just recorded that, uh, it would have saved somebody a weekend, a heartache with their business.

And the only reason I recommend, uh, if you could authorize staff to come up with their own to that effect, because probably difficult to come up with the exact wording, the applicable sections of the code.

And it's not a fee that we need to approve. It's just putting a notation out in the schedule of fees.

Yes, ma'am.

So it can be done after today and we don't have to vote on it.

Yes, we can just put a notation in there. Chief Henderson, did you have something to add?

Good evening. Jonathan Henderson, interim, sorry, fire chief, not fire marshal. I'm also not the building official, but I just want to clarify that a homeowner typically can't can do some of the work themselves. However, we would still require them to come in and get a permit to do certain work on their homes. There is no waiving of permits to do construction on your own home. I just want to make that clear. Now, what happens with fees? Outside my realm.

That's what I was getting at.

Okay, so I misspoke. And so they do have to get a permit.

Yes, there's a permit.

So then in that case, Mayor, then we would want to... We need it on the list. We need it on the list and just put zero by there to note it. So thanks for asking the question.

We want to perform the inspection to ensure it's done to code for a homeowner.

There you go.

That's why Mr. Peselk was going, huh, I don't know about that.

That's why it needs to be on the list.

New business model. Just kidding.

I know. I know that's near and dear to your heart, Mr. Scott, and that's fine. Okay, so... If y'all looked at the message board, y'all saw that Ms. Rodriguez had a number of questions. I did not repeat hers, but I'm going, good job. And then there were some things that I asked. And in several cases, I will not speak for Ms. Rodriguez, but the explanation of the fee, I was okay with. But in several cases, it was an oops, we reversed two numbers or something, or something was left off. And so y'all provided a schedule of fees that was updated, but what I needed was one that showed the changes so I could make a motion to amend. And I will go through them here. And I wish I had a copy I could look at on my screen, but I don't. So I'm going to make a motion to amend. all this stuff that's in yellow. The first one is activity center additional fees. They had the wrong description on one of them. And so we will be deleting the second listed staff fee outside business hours of... $500 to be if there's damage or misconduct is $500. Under the Rio Vista pool, there are a number of changes and since I can't read those from here, we'll just have to let those be in the record. Same for Gary's Softball Complex. I think there is something about the Jumping Castle fees that things got in the wrong place. So we've got one Veramendi Plaza Gazebo, Rio Vista Park Pavilion, Rio Vista Park Picnic Area 1, Ramon Lucio PARK PAVILION C THANK YOU FOR PERSON SCROLLING FOR ME THANK YOU CHILDREN'S PARK PAVILION D AND CHILDREN'S PARK PICNIC AREAS ONE AND TWO AND SO THE CORRECTIONS WERE MADE THERE WE HAD ANOTHER ONE UNDER RABY UNDER ANIMAL SHELTER RABY'S VACCINATION A CHANGE THERE And oh, this is the one that was missing. And we did this one a while back, council. You'll recall temporary vendor and a public parking space. That was to let people do a pop-up that they're not gonna be there forever and ever. It was, I think it was a daily fee. So we added that one. So my motion includes this new one. This is an addition. And There is a, uh, what is this? That's a roofs. What section is this? Well, it's a building, building and plumbing. So roofs, um, it looks like it's the description that was amended there. And then under zoning changes, conditional use permit. VARIANCE TO THE DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS. IF Y'ALL WILL REMEMBER, THIS IS WHERE YOU'VE GOT, MR. FLOYD, STOP ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT YOU'VE GOT THE ALCOHOL FEE AND THEN THE DISTANCE FEE AND IT'S THE SAME AND WE SAID WE NEED TO GIVE THEM A BREAK BECAUSE THAT WAS TWO FULL FEES. SO I BELIEVE YOU WENT WITH HALF FOR THE SECOND ONE OR SOMEWHAT LESS.

A third? By ordinance, it was 260. It was about a third.

Okay. Okay, thank you. So that's reduced, so that's helpful to business community under planning and development. I'm sorry, neighborhood enhancement fees, short-term rental. We've called it home share in a lot of places, but it's really a short-term rental because home share is something completely different. So we're changing just the name on that one. Oh, and we're raising the fee. I think it was $79 to $81. And then here are some changes. And we put these in place a while back by ordinance, but they were not on this list, which is a hotel occupancy tax and short-term rental permits. We've got those show a percent as opposed to a dollar amount for the first two. And this is the ACH. Is that automated clearinghouse? Yes, ma'am. Processing fees. for paying. these fees that are required.

Yes.

And it's at the end of our list. I see a lot of white space on the page. So that is my amendment, uh, to take care of those things. And Ms. Rodriguez, I'm going to conclude this one and then anything else you have, uh, I'll turn it over to you for any additional amendments. Is that good?

Uh, yes, ma'am.

All right. Thank you.

And just for, so I'll second, thank you for the sake of discussion. Um, I believe it was all encompassing of the things that were inverse and that I had flagged. Right. Um, but this isn't necessarily a substantive in the sense of you're changing the amount and it's just fixing the formatting. Am I correct?

Well, in a couple of cases, remember they had these two fees swapped, right? And they were fixing those. You mentioned that.

Yeah. So, uh, I guess what I was asking is despite them being inverse, now that they're correct, you're not necessarily proposing that not only are doing, enhance them in terms of... No, no. I just wanted to clarify.

No, it was in most cases, it was the right number in the wrong place.

Yeah, especially for all the jumping castle.

That was the big one.

Yeah.

Yeah. In a couple of cases, there is a number change because the increase didn't fall in line with the others and it wasn't incorrect calculations. So thank you, Ms. Rodriguez, for seconding that. Does anybody have any questions on any of those? If a copy of that could be sent to us for our files, that'd be great. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Trevino, we're going to vote.

As far as that?

We're voting on your amendment specifically? Yes, ma'am. I'm fine with that. Okay.

Okay, motion passes 7-0.

Okay. And we're going to take a break after this one. Um, Ms. Rodriguez, did you have anything in addition? Yes, ma'am. Okay.

So I went through this as comprehensively as possible, just cause it's so much. Um, and I guess I'll start with, so the two, uh, that were subject, not just to the 3%, but to the review as well, where just so I'm clear parks and the library. Correct. Yeah. Um, so let me ask, I know that all of that, all of the. proposed rates were contingent on the study that y'all looked at, peer review cities, correct?

Yes.

And let me ask, did that study and did the methodology within that study account for, and I understand in terms of peer cities what classifies what, but does it actually go and further disaggregate the data to include poverty rates in comparison to other cities?

I don't know that it compared poverty rates. And I also wanted to clarify that it also looked at the cost of providing that service to see what level we are recouping the cost back with that fee that we're charging. So it wasn't just a comparison to the pure cities.

Okay, and I ask all this because the recouping of the fees isn't lost on me at all. It's just in terms of essentially some of these hikes that are being proposed are quite significant. And I want to support them, but I guess what I'm trying to understand is did we do an additional, and it doesn't sound like we did.

I don't believe so.

An additional accounting for the individual nature of our poverty rate in comparison to the other comparator cities.

I don't know the answer for certain. I don't believe that we did though. I don't recall that being part of what we asked the consultant to do, so I would say no.

Okay. You know, because one of the questions that I had asked, I guess let's start from the beginning. The portable toilet cleaning, the 538% increase, I see that the rationale was that we were greatly undercharging for that service. I guess in terms of the recipients of those charges, are they normally big organizations that host events at Plaza Park or who all necessarily goes and requires the portable?

No. Hi there. Jessica Ramos, Assistant Director of Parks and Rec. So the 538% that you're speaking of, that once we... So for portable toilet cleaning, that is just the cost of what it costs the city to get those portable toilets. And that is just passed on to the customer. So it could be any event that's held in Plaza Park. So it could be, you know... It could be the Mutt Strut, all the different things. Summer in the Park. Summer in the Park, yes. So they pay all those fees directly to us, and then we pay fully for their service.

And this is going from $18 to $115 for those of you that want to know the actual numbers. Yes, ma'am.

Yes, so I guess the 118 dollars I guess in terms of y'all's ability to calculate this where y'all looking at the number of events that are already Hosted on that property and then basing the cost recovery on Like insuring or I guess guessing that they would reschedule in the subsequent years to do the cost recovery or I'm just trying to understand so that so the the fee that

we pass to them is just what it costs.

And that's the 118?

Yes. Yeah, that is what it costs for the company to come out, drop the toilets off, to service them, to do all of those things. Okay. Yeah, that is just that straight cost.

Okay, and I'm less concerned about... No, go ahead, but I want to ask a question relevant to that. Oh, please, because I was about to...

Okay, so do those portable restrooms, do they stay there in the parking lot, or do they come in... come and go with the organization that's needing them?

It depends on the time of year. So in the summer, they stay because we have movies in the park. We have music in the park. We have summer. Yeah. And we have all the things. Yeah. The play. So they do stay there and are just serviced.

Okay.

Yeah. And then they stay locked and then they're opened just for the event. So they're fresh and clean for them. Okay.

I would wonder if whatever costs recovered from this could be actually for public facilities versus a portable, if they could be encumbered for that purpose, now that I'm thinking.

So the question would be what do we spend on that in a year? Exactly.

Is it more affordable to just build, similar like to the Dunbar? Yeah, I see where you're going.

I do want to clarify that that is each time it is cleaned. Yeah, the $118. Right, it's not just the whole summer is 18. It's each cleaning.

But for each event, they would individually be charged $118, correct? Correct.

Jamie Lee Case, Director of Parks and Recreation. I hear where you are going. During those busy holiday weekends, we do leave them open for the public. We don't leave them whenever we know that we're going to be having an event. We do keep them locked up because once they are cleaned, we don't want the event organizer that is paid for those portable toilets to not have clean facilities. Um, but during the summer we vastly do leave them open, uh, to, to use because there's no other restroom facilities except at city park. And then our office, when our office is open, we have the public use our office often.

Yeah. I saw where our minds were going on that one.

Yeah. I don't have any more questions at the moment other than do we know how much we spend, uh, each year?

Yeah. Cause the purpose of the question was we were kind of having an off, uh, the, the conversation about would it be more cost effective to encumber the whatever funds that are raised through this particular fee for the purpose of constructing public restroom systems similar to what we have at Dunbar. Which would also have to be cleaned, but they do have restrooms.

We have, you know, with the Riverfront Parks planning process, the Plaza Park area was specifically omitted. Whenever that area is, you know, improved, whatever the plans are for that with the City Hall project, then yes, we could absolutely look to see where More permanent restroom facilities would go very similar to what we've installed at Dunbar Park. Grand total for the summer season, we have 20 portables across our riverfront parks, and that totals $30,000. And we only cost recover for Plaza Park rentals. So $118 for a cleaning whenever those are being used for an event in the park.

But now we're talking about a lot more money that we're charging, so yeah.

Mr. Gonzales. So just for clarification, outside the summer when they just stay there, the cost to rent the portable toilet is just passed on to the renter.

Correct.

So what we're talking about is cleaning them. I'm trying to go back to what my colleague is thinking, but encumbering the cleaning fees to build four permanent facilities, wouldn't necessarily be an applicant. If anything, we would encumber the rental fees.

Correct. And I'm sorry if I misheard that as far as encumbering those. Those fees just go back to the general fund. The fees do. They're not encumbered in a special revenue account or anything like that.

If I'm understanding correctly, the thought process was whatever they are, for us to encumber them from the general fund to potentially build permanent restrooms. But I'm on the same page, but I'm kind of thinking the $30,000 we're spending to rent the facilities over the summer. would it actually be financially feasible to just build permanent?

I'm going to suggest that maybe that being item on another agenda. Yeah.

We're going through that riverfront plan process right now, and that'll be coming back to you in the future so we can have a further conversation at that time.

Good idea, but another time. Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so now the activity center membership fees. This was really the one that, so for the public, and if we could pull the schedule fees just so everybody watching both in-house and online could be. ON THE SAME PAGE. SO THE PROPOSAL IS CURRENTLY THE ANNUAL FEE FOR A RESIDENT WHO IS AN ADULT IS $92 AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THAT BY ABOUT 40% TO $130. And, you know, I had asked other questions in the message board because I'm trying to think, like, I know I've been on y'all's tours before. The activity center is struggling. It's busting at the seams. I think that was the phrase that was used at that time. It is, in comparison to other gyms across, private gyms across town, far more cost effective than, you know, an annual membership there. And I understand all of that. I think though given that for so many of our residents who are looking for an affordable option to recreate, which we know has many great returns on just for the city, for their own health, Um, again, I just struggle. I understand why we use the peer cities. We do. I'll just preface it with that again. Um, but I'm just struggling to see, um, how we can sit here and sort of make some exceptions, uh, for people who just cannot pay. And so I had asked some questions about will current members be grandfathered and the answer was no. I had asked about monthly payment plans, and one of the response was monthly payment plans are available for the family memberships only. All other memberships are a one-time payment. So I guess let me ask, is that a software sort of administrative thing, why it makes it easier for family, or did we base that on just the amount of what it is?

The amount.

Okay, so within our software, it would be possible to have payment plans for adult residents without a family. Yes. Am I correct? Absolutely. Is that something we can, I think it just would help me, you know, be able to support this a lot more when there's a monthly payment plan available for somebody who maybe they still want to go, but that's, it's just too much, that increase on top of all the other rates we just applied. Um, is that something perhaps mayor that we can get some consensus on from council to see if anybody would be interested in something like that? Um, so the question is right now, monthly payment plans are available for the family memberships only. Can we apply that to all of the resident?

And I suspect that was originally probably due to the cost. And I'm thinking that adult resident may be getting up to that. same cost at which the family was done in the first place.

I think when I started, it was like $80 a year or even cheaper. Yeah. Yeah. 20 years ago.

Council, what do you think? Do we want to ask staff to make that resident or I would say, uh, the resident adult senior or even youth? Cause somebody may be mowing yards to make that.

Right, so I guess what I'm asking is for it to apply to yes, the other categories aside from just the family, so the youth, the senior, and the adult. It's not changing the proposed fee, it's just allowing more flexibility to be able to pay.

I will also say that we do offer youth scholarships for youth memberships, where it will pay half of their fee for them. So that is something that we do for our youth.

And then you also mentioned the silver sneakers and Optum Fitness. Can you explain the difference between those? I took notes because I thought you might ask.

I need to know about that silver sneakers thing. Yeah. So silver sneakers is through participating Medicare. the Medicare health plan. So Medicare Advantage or Medicare Supplement Plan. And so that is how you can join the Silver Sneakers program. That gets you a free membership to the activity center through your insurance. That's generally available for adults 65 and older. And the way that that works for us is that we work with Silver Sneakers and we submit all of the paperwork to them. And then we get the $3 per visit and the reimbursement capped at eight visits per member per month. So that is how we get our membership fees for silver sneakers is through the insurance program. Um, With SilverSneakers, they also get access to our total wellness fitness classes. And they don't have to pay the separate total wellness membership. So they can take those SilverSneakers classes through total wellness. And we have over 1,000 people signed up for that right now. So it has done really well since we've implemented it. OptumFitness is a little newer to us. We've only had it, I mean, maybe... maybe a year, maybe eight months to a year. So that's also through a health insurance plan. It's Renew Active by United Healthcare and One Pass Medicare. So that one, the age requirement depends on their specific insurance plan. So it could be somebody 18 and up that would qualify for that. It just depends on if that is their insurance. But it's the same amount that we would get back. It's the $3 per visit capped at eight visits per member per month. You see why I had to write that down because it's a tongue twister. And we have 67 active participants right now with that. And it's only growing each month. Cool. Yeah. So it's been great.

Do we have any programs to encourage those members to come more often?

To come more often? Yeah.

So at maximum, it's $288 a year. So a senior 65 and older that's NC Silver Sneakers is getting essentially free access, but the city is able to recoup up to $288 for that member when a senior membership is only $84. So I would think we want those specific seniors to come four times a month. Right. Or whatever, eight times a month.

Yeah, eight, yes.

But are we doing anything, like, specifically to try to encourage those seniors to come?

Well, I think by offering the silver sneakers classes, I think that's a big draw for them. And I think really the activity center, it's pretty hopping during the day. I know y'all go every once in a while, but we do have a good crowd that comes. And we have really seen an increase in participation since we have implemented these programs. I don't have those numbers in front of me, so I apologize. But we have our numbers each month since we have implemented these programs have grown significantly.

That popped up to me, because when you said we're capped at eight visits, I'm like, that sucks. Most of our seniors probably come more than eight times a month, but I'm like, wait. Once I started doing the math, I'm like, well, I guess it's beneficial, because normally they pay $84 a year to come every day. So even if they come every day, we're still getting $288 a year.

For a lot of our folks that come, it's their social time. They come quite a bit. So y'all can offer resident...

and non-resident memberships on a payment plan.

So are y'all wanting that?

I would be interested if you want to make them pay every month for a single membership, is there a fee that we incur to run a credit card or something like that?

Yes, absolutely.

Yeah, so I mean, I would be, I mean, if they just cover the fee, right?

We eat credit card fees.

You have to, right? I think, right? Yeah. You can't charge back fees. So at some point, maybe if that's their only option, the membership goes up just a tad, but it allows them the convenience to do that. So anyway, I'm just trying to, yeah.

Ms. Garza's got her hand up, and then we really need to wrap this up because we're talking about fees. Ms. Garza.

Yeah. So I just want to understand the timeline. Do we have to adopt these specific fee changes tonight? I just feel like there's a lot more questions. Yeah. That's my first question.

About fees in general? These. Yeah, okay. I will ask the question of whomever can tell me, Ms. Reyes, Mr. Gary, do we need to complete these fees this evening?

If there's a portion of the fees, like if you want to say, for example, you want to approve all the fees except for parks and rec fees or whatever the case may be, then we can do that. Or you can postpone the whole thing. It's up to the mayor and council.

What I would like to see approved tonight is the building permit fees because that's the one that's covered by the statute that requires an annual reauthorization. The other fees that we're adopting, we can certainly come back with those. Right. One way is that as Ms. Ray suggested is adopt everything except leave the current, whatever fees y'all are still wanting to discuss for the leave those as is, and then we can come back. It's just a resolution.

So we can come back with just those particular fees.

So you could table just to know which one that is. We've got planning and development. There's some miscellaneous fees, building fees. Y'all tell me which one it is.

I guess. Is it the desire of Marin council? are the only issue that you have with parks and rec fees? Because if the other fees you're okay with, then you can go ahead and approve all the fees and then just say that we're gonna table the parks and rec fees.

Well, I wouldn't even table them. I would say approve them as is with the understanding we'll probably come back and have further amendments, but at least the current fees stay in place on the parks fees. And also you could approve the fee schedule except leave the parks and rec fees at the current rate. And then we will give direction to bring this back.

Let me ask them if that's what we want, because I need to find that out first. So I'm asking Ms. Garza, which sections of fees are you looking at?

For the parks and the library. Parks and library, okay. Oh, go ahead. Yeah, I was just asking because I feel like those are some of the most beloved programs of our community. And I feel like not many folks were aware that we're having this conversation tonight. And yeah, I think it's too big of a deal.

So parks and library. Did you have any others than parks and library?

Yes, ma'am. I actually was going to come in with a proposal specifically about the special events. I had asked a question on the message board if whether or not the current fee proposals account for the most recent block party hosted on the downtown square, particularly whether they accounted for the demand and staff, police, fire, and the like, and wanting to make sure that this conversation is as comprehensive as possible. I know that there was a suggestion about potential tiers and I just think that to do this without addressing that, I think we would be remiss.

So it's parks, library, and special events? Yes, ma'am. So I'm going to make a motion, and I've never made a motion like this before, so this is going to be kind of weird. I'm going to make a motion that we postpone parks, library, and special event fees only to, next meeting?

A month from now, Ms. Garza? What I heard Mr. Aguita say, and I just want to make sure I got that right, is that... We're going to approve the rest.

We're only going to postpone these three categories.

Correct, but what I heard him say is that you could approve those three categories with the current rates, so there's no, like, if somebody were to come in and do those things...

If we're postponing, now, current rate or the proposed rate?

The current rate.

If we don't change them, then it stays the current rate.

Correct. Go ahead.

Yeah, I just want to make sure that's the understanding with the motion that those rates remain the status quo, the current.

That's what's going to happen if we don't change them. Right? They stay as is.

Right. That's the understanding with the motion, so we have it on record.

Well, I hadn't even finished saying the motion yet. And I'm looking for Ms. Garza and Ms. Rodriguez. I need to give a date certain.

Well, for mine, I just want to make sure that for special events, staff has enough time to comprehensively look at this. Hayden, sorry to throw a wheel.

It's either going to be next meeting or the first meeting in October or the second meeting in October because we need to not hold these forever.

Hello, Mayor and Council. Hayden Meagle, Director of Administrative Services. We've had the special events ordinance in place for about two and a half years now. and we wanted to look at it comprehensively to see if we do need to add those tiers, I don't think that we would have that, we're not gonna have that evaluation done by an October meeting. We're talking about looking at that ordinance later this year and then coming back with some revised fees.

Y'all will come back when you're ready for that.

Correct.

So do we want to stick with the proposal here because you're going up some, but we're talking about maybe going up more. So I'm going to take special events out of here so we let this go, but then we will come back for a more extensive discussion at some point in the future.

Right, and I know our committee was supposed to get a comprehensive update regardless. Yep, you're right. Okay.

Okay, so I'm restating my motion. Oh, I still need to know when we would be ready, and this is Ms. Garza and Ms. Rodriguez, as to when you would be ready to have a discussion on parks and library fees.

I'm trying to see what's on the rolling agenda for the next one.

Okay, I'm just going to say October 2nd meeting. Is that enough time?

Let me see.

What do you think about it? Okay, what's the meeting after that?

I don't know the date. It wouldn't be until the second meeting in November, right? So it would be after the election.

Wait, what?

I'm saying second meeting in October.

Correct, but she asked what's the meeting after that. Oh, you're saying second meeting in November. Oh, it'd be the second meeting in November. Correct.

So the second meeting, I'm sorry, Mary, what date did you propose?

October this? I don't know. I don't have a calendar in front of me. But remember that with our new calendar, we do not meet the week of the election in November.

You're right, you're right, you're right. Yeah, this will be the first year we've done that. Let me get my calendar.

Yeah, I guess it's the 15th, right? I can't believe it's already the 15th.

It would be October 20th.

Right, no, but I'm just saying today. Had you originally said October 6th?

It's when y'all are ready.

Okay.

Mayor, if I could give my two cents, I would recommend the second meeting in October if the concern is the community doesn't have enough time to give their opinion or whatever.

That's why I was going to start it out with the 20th.

Yeah. Yeah, I guess the second meeting in October, which would be what day?

So I am making a motion that we postpone decisions on increases for the parks and library sections only to the October 20th meeting. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez.

And Mayor, for that discussion, could we potentially, I don't know how much work it would be for staff, but could we potentially have The data further disaggregated in terms of peer city reviews to include poverty rates and how they differ between the ones listed.

See if they have those or at least tell us what the cities are.

Yes. Yeah, I would like to see the whole study. That would be interesting.

All righty. So we've got a motion and a second to postpone. Did anything go down? Postpone the increases.

Well, I was about to say that because I think some of the library ones did.

Okay. We're going to postpone the changes on parks and library to October 20th. And then if that passes, that's an amendment. And then we'll be back to approval of the rest of them will be on the table. So, Ms. Trevino, this will be just the amendment to postpone those two. those two sections, sorry.

Ms. Garza? Thank you, motion passes seven to zero.

All right, so right now what is on the table is all of the rest of the fee changes as presented this evening. The amendment to incorporate all the yellow ones has already passed.

Ms. Garza?

Yes, but just real quick, Mayor, did your, like, kind of check on the sheet, did that capture the weird part of the animal shelter where the medium and the large range of the euthanasia and disposal?

Can we go back to that page?

You see, I think they were, like, the same, you know?

Oh, they're like $1 to $2 increases?

Well, no, the size, the unit of measure.

I'm sorry, Ms. Garza, I'm not sure what your question is. We've got people up here talking, and I can't hear you.

I'm sorry. Under this section, medium and large are both identified as 51 to 100 pounds. Oh, okay. Yeah, that's just like a typo. I thought that'd be something you'd get. Oh, you're right.

There's two 51 to 100s.

Yeah, I was trying to see like how we compare to other areas and stuff like that. And that was just one of the things.

We do need that fixed.

But I don't know.

So somebody needs to make a note that the, we need that fixed. I had missed that one because I was just looking at the, I didn't look at that. Uh, we'll need a clarification on that. Um, but that can be emailed to us or whatever. Okay. So we are now ready to vote on the main motion with all of the staff changes. but not parks and library.

Mayor, I feel like I need to go back because I did not get her, Ms. Garza's vote. She asked a question about the Indonesia.

Yeah. We're voting on the main as amended and partially postponed. This will be the final vote on it. Am I right there? Yes, ma'am.

Ms. Garza?

Wait, wait, wait. Mr. Purcell still.

Thank you. Motion passes 7-0.

Thank you so much. And guess what, sports fans? We're taking a break. We have returned from our break, and council, would y'all be okay if we did item 20 next, which is the human services grant funding? Y'all be good with that? Okay. I'm not gonna forget you, Ms. Finn. Ms. Trevino, would you read item 20, please?

receive a staff presentation, consider approval of resolution 2026-170R, allocating to various nonprofit agencies human services grant funding of $750,000 from the city's general fund authorized city manager, her designee, to act as the official representative of the city in matters related to said grant funds, including authorization to execute funding contracts with selected agencies on behalf of the city and declare an effective date. Motion to approve.

I've got a motion from Ms. Rodriguez and a second from Mr. Peselk. Do we have a presentation for this? I mean, I know there's one in the packet. Yeah.

Go ahead and put one together.

And thank you. And does anybody have any questions? I have one small amendment, but anybody have anything? OK, my amendment is for Hayes Helping Hands. They had requested money under two categories. HSAB, Human Services Advisory Board, recommended funding for one of them, but not the other, which leaves that organization with money for shoes and coats, but not for community assistance, so my motion is to rename the Hays Helping Hands program from Shoes and Coats to Coats, Shoes, and Community Assistance, no changing the amount. Just give them some flexibility because the second one was not recommended for funding. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Are there any questions on that one? If not, we'll vote.

Ms. Garza? Okay. Thank you. Motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. And that's all I have. So whatever anybody else has, amendments, a conversation, now would be the time. I will remind everyone and the folks at home that we had a pretty extensive conversation. Was it July 7th?

Yes.

On July 7th. And in that packet, there's a lot more detail. So if anybody wants more information, the July 7th packet would provide it. If we're all ready to vote, we will. Yes, ma'am.

Really quick, Mayor. I want to give a huge thank you to the Human Services Advisory Board. They meet very frequently for a long time, and these are not easy decisions to somehow find ways to allocate to meet all the need when we know the need far outpaces what we have. But also, Ms. Griffith, I really appreciate your work on this. I know that this is a huge undertaking in addition to what you do for CDBG and your other responsibilities and just wanna say thank you for that. I'm very proud of what our city, I think one of the people who came and testified earlier did, really applaud us as a city for how much we give as it relates to social services. And so I do want to say thank you as somebody who's a big proponent of it. Thank you to my colleagues. Thank you to city staff for making it happen. And I just hope that as we move forward, we really figure out if there's better ways to do this, better ways to allocate the money, to also think about ways in terms of proactive or applying money to things proactively and the return on investment. Ms. Garza and I got a chance to visit the Sunrise Navigation Center and they were talking in the conversation about some of the mistakes that Austin made. They were putting great money in but not really figuring out are we getting the best bang for our buck in terms of return. And so I look forward to continuing the conversations to make this as comprehensive of a process as possible and just wanted to say thank you. Thank you.

Thanks to everyone. And thank you to the organizations that took their time to come in and present. I know that they were seeking funding, but still, that takes something in order to do that and speak before the group. So thanks to all. And we're ready to vote if nobody else is raising a hand or saying anything.

Don't we usually have a presentation about this?

I'm sorry?

Don't we usually have a presentation about it?

Well, I asked if anybody needed one. Ms. Griffith has the same one that we saw on July 7th.

OK, yeah, I think just a quick review of it. It feels weird to not put it on, to show where we're putting the money. I know it's in the packet, but I don't know. I'm just a nerd.

Yeah, I, uh, I noted that, um, it's the same as what was in the July 7th packet and the motion that, um, to men that passed didn't change the funding. Any didn't take, didn't move any around. It just gave one agency more flexibility. So do y'all want to see the, uh, see the presentation? I'm seeing no yeses here. Yeah. They're saying they've, they've, they've read the packet and they're good.

I'm open to it, but

Yeah, I'm just, I mean, it wasn't for the benefit of the council. It was a benefit of the viewers at home, but that's fine.

I would suggest watch the July 7th meeting because we had some discussion, and that included CDBG.

Well, I mean, just for the convenience, can we put that screen up for a couple of seconds and someone can pause the video so they don't have to go look for an old meeting? They can go to this meeting.

It may not be... something that we can put up the meeting screen right now?

No, no, I'm saying, because I'm assuming, Ms. Garza, the crux of what you want to see is how much each agency is getting.

I think it's the seven spreadsheets. So if we have the spreadsheet is what I was thinking, we might be able to put that up. Here we go. Yeah, there's seven pages of this.

Yeah, just a recap for people, like this is what, You know, we had a timeline, right? The recommendations came on July 7th. This is what. We have a process that we're not just giving out money willy-nilly. I think it's especially relevant given that, like, there are conversations in, like, the county where they're changing their process and everything. Like, we still had a process. Like, this is still a thing. Like, just, like, reassurance for folks.

Yeah, I was glad that Ms. Rodriguez stated and I was going to, she beat me to it, thanking the HSAB for the number of, I think they meet weekly for quite a while discussing all of this, listening to presentations. So that was really good. And the recommendations start on, I can't find where the page number is here anymore. They are in the packet under this item.

Yeah, I just also, I think it's especially important to name that these are the people we're giving money to because then when folks are not able to reach them, they know, like, okay, these, like, they can say, like, oh, wait, my taxpayer dollars is funding this because a lot of these organizations are sometimes hard to track down. Neighbors want to go to them with money. for inquiries about applications and stuff.

Yes, I will mention that all of the applications are on the website under the Planning and Development Services, and it's on the left side, and it mentions Human Services Advisory Board, and there's links to every application. You can watch the videos of the meetings. It's all out there for those who have that interest. So we will vote. Oops.

Ms. Garza? Thank you. Motion passes seven to zero.

All righty. So now we will go back to item 19. I think it was six, seven. Oh, yeah. I think it was six, seven.

And eight.

And eight.

Mm-hmm. so if you will read six consider approval of resolution 2026-159r authorizing amendment number one to the inner local cooperation agreement with texas state university to allocate federal transit administration fta grant funds in a compliance in compliance with the fiscal year 2027 fta attorney all review authorized city manager her designee to execute the amendment on behalf of the city and declare an effective motion to approve

Motion by Ms. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Scott. Ms. Vann.

Good evening. Amy Finn, your transit manager. This is an amendment to the overarching ILA with Texas State for federal funds for the transit program. We recently had our triennial review with FTA, and this was one of the findings. Essentially, we just needed something in the overarching ILA of what Texas State does with their vehicles when they dispose of them. It's in each of the funding agreements. We just have to also put it in the overarching agreement as well. In all these items, you're kind of beating us to the punch a little bit. So October 7th, during your work session, we'll have an in-depth presentation about the transit program in general for both. Texas State will be there with some of their information, and then we will also bring y'all information about how it kind of works, how funding works, and what the federal requirements are. Okay. Perfect. All right. So, that'll be the long version. Yes.

All right.

Council, do y'all need anything else? If not, we'll vote.

No, just if we could advertise that that's going to be on a future, since there's interest. I would say, Ms. Reyes, if y'all could do a little extra. Communications has been doing good on.

Yep.

But maybe something ahead of time.

On his back. And so, he's been doing a great job with social. So, yes, Ms. Finn will work with comms to make sure that we're getting that out there.

Okie doke. Is Ms. Garza on? Ms. Garza? She's probably stepped away.

Oh, she's back.

Thank you. Motion passes seven to zero.

Hot dog. Item seven, please.

Consider for the resolution 2026-160R approving the Texas Department of Transportation sponsored public and transportation agency safety plan and establishing fiscal year 2027 safety performance targets for the city of San Marcos public transit services in accordance with 49 CFR 673 and declare an effective date. Motion to approve. Second.

Motion to approve from Mr. Scott. Seconded by Ms. Rodriguez. Ms. Finn.

This is our public transportation agency safety plan. It is a federal requirement. We have to bring it to you every year, updating safety targets, and then whatever additional federal requirements are added. So this year it was that frontline employee survey, anonymous survey option. We do this every year, and then we submit it to CAMPO and TxDOT.

Perfect.

All righty.

I'm ready to vote.

Ms. Garza, thank you. Motion passes seven to zero.