In Our Opinion: Shock & Awe, Over SM City Council’s Hypocrisy Part II

January 5, 2015

0 6 minutes read

IN OUR OPINION…

By Melissa Jewett, Publisher

On December 4th I wrote an article called Shock & Awe Over SM City Council’s Hypocrisy below is Part II

Since my original article, I have had sources say, “the city and county relationship has never been this bad,” or “I never really understood what Greater San Marcos Partnership did”. However, a majority of the comments I received were, “you said things in your article that everyone else wants to say, but can’t.”

I don’t understand why some believe they cannot communicate their beliefs to city staff or the council. That being said, it is a sad day in San Marcos when our residents feel this way; and let us not forget as Sony Pictures just demonstrated to all Americans what freedom of speech is.

I personally have nothing to gain or lose by writing this article on the issues involving GSMP and our city council, as some might say, I don’t have a dog in the hunt.

I would also like to thank Don Moore, Publisher of the San Marcos Daily Record who explained another facet that seems to me that most of San Marcos do not understand about economic development. There are so many variables to economic development; it really is a very complex set of important variables.

After writing “Shock and Awe, Part I” I am just starting to uncover part of what might be behind this and other irrational decisions coming from the dais which council phrased as “looking into” or what I would call an investigation.

We have heard several reasons from the Dais for a sub-committee, but it all boiled down to Thomaides and Prewitt stating they had never received updates from the Greater San Marcos Partnership.

A major factor that the council neglected to communicate to everyone, which is not so transparent in the public record, is that Jared Miller our City Manager, Past Councilman Wayne Becak, and Mayor Daniel Guerrero ALL serve(d) on the Greater San Marcos Partnership Board of Directors

If you were on City Council and felt like you were not getting the necessary pertinent information from GSMP, wouldn’t you ask the Mayor, City Manager, your other council member(s), who serve(d) on the GSMP Board, or would you rake Ms. Cruz over the coals during a city council meeting?

If you chose the latter of the two, what would the benefits be for handling this item in such a manner? Remember you would have also approved this budget item for GSMP, as it would be your fiduciary duty to pass a budget. This issue has not put some council members in a good light.

Therefore, I started my research with the city budget and you might ask yourself why. Councilman Thomaides, Councilwomen Prewitt, and Hughson mentioned several times during the December 2nd meeting the amount of money they were spending on GSMP and queried “are we getting a good return” or as Councilwoman Prewitt stated, “are we getting a good bang for our buck?”

Below is a small excerpt from COSM Fiscal Year 2015 Budget and here is a link to a printable copy of the city of San Marcos’ 2015 Fiscal Budget.

Page 9 of 408 (page 9 should tell you I didn’t have to dig very deep)

“Economic Development and Small Business Development”

“Funds totaling $360,000 for economic and small business development along with $160,000 for legislative representation has been funded exclusively by the Electric Utility fund. In fiscal year 2015, the funding for these programs is split equally amongst the General Fund, Water/Wastewater Fund, and Electric Fund since development benefits all the major funds.”

What this paragraph tells us is the city has always pulled the funding for “economic development” (GSMP) and the city’s own “legislative representative”, who is the lobbyist for all issues, out of the Electric Utility Funds Budget.

In the 2015 fiscal budget, they are NOW required to split the total of these two at $520,000 equally from the Electric Utility fund, Water/Wastewater Fund, and the City’s General Fund. So the city’s general fund just got smacked with a bill of $173,333.33 that someone else has always had to pay.

The total for just the Greater San Marcos Partnership alone is $120,000, and they have NEVER had to pay this bill out of the general fund and now they do. I seem to recall we recently received another rate hike in our already high Water/Wastewater bills.

Out of curiosity, I’m wondering….if this money was already allotted for in this current budget and now a couple of council members don’t want to “pay” their bill that they are required to pay…who or what do they want the GSMP’s share of $120,000 for, including the water/wastewater rate hike dollars for? Hmmm…..

As I am learning, the above is only one reason why council is questioning the Greater San Marcos Partnership.

Here is the Greater San Marcos Partnership 2014 4th Quarter Report. On December 16th, Ms. Adriana Cruz delivered this report to our city council in an open session.

Not only did Ms. Cruz show Greater San Marcos Partnerships 4th quarter results (July 1, 2014-Oct 31, 2014) she included all previous year results since the inception of the Partnership in 2010.

This presentation is a very eye-opening experience if you are an open-minded individual, but if not; you will never understand the actual benefits of having an entity like GSMP or helping to fund them. This is another reason why I wanted to thank Don Moore for his article.

In Don’s article, he insinuated that San Marcos is behind the times (really, who woulda guessed?) on the method by which they fund economic development.

We could be the biggest winner in Texas of good, sound, and sustainable economic development and growth in the newly coined “Innovation Corridor,” but until our city council can apply rationalism, without bias or favoritism, we will continue to squander the tremendous opportunities placed before us.

Why is it that when some in San Marcos hear the term “economic development” they equate it to student housing or think of huge contractors building up a storm, polluting our beautiful river, aquifers, and ruining our city?

Two weeks ago council approved city tax incentives for United WELD LLC. This new company is moving into a building that has been vacant for a couple of years and Don Moore also called the building location “the northern gateway to our city.” This is a good thing, and when this company starts the moving process, there will be “new money” circulating into our city that has never been here before.

Can anyone guess who helped bring this amazing opportunity into “the northern gateway to our city”? Yes, it was GSMP.

Until you’re able to grasp the dynamics of economic development, its intricacies, how economic development funding works, and how all these puzzle pieces come together, you will be averse to spending tax dollars on economic development and growth.

Therefore, I have taken the liberty of pulling the Wikipedia definition below. I could publish names of cities around the country, their stories, and pictures of what happened to them when they turned a blind eye on economic development and growth.

Their residents also said the very kinds of things I hear daily in San Marcos….”I don’t want San Marcos to grow and become another Austin”.

Wikipedia Economic Development

“ Economic development is the sustained, concerted actions of policy makers and communities that promote the standard of living and economic health of a specific area. Economic development can also be referred to as the quantitative and qualitative changes in the economy. Such actions can involve multiple areas including development of human capital, critical infrastructure, regional competitiveness, social inclusion, health, safety, literacy, and other initiatives. Economic development differs from economic growth. Whereas economic development is a policy intervention endeavor with aims of economic and social well-being of people, economic growth is a phenomenon of market productivity and rise in GDP. Consequently, as economist Amartya Sen points out, “economic growth is one aspect of the process of economic development.”[1]”