SMTX City Council Moves Forward With Trail Connectivity Collaboration
By Terra Rivers | Managing Editor
On Thursday, the San Marcos City Council received a presentation regarding a potential partnership with the San Marcos River Foundation.
Mayor Jane Hughson recused herself from the discussion due to owning property near the proposed project.
SMRF requested the council’s support for collaboration in submitting an application for a $10 Million Lone Star Grant by the Lyda Hill Philanthropies to fund the completion of a long-envisioned greenbelt corridor around western San Marcos.
The organization will also be partnering with the San Marcos Greenbelt Alliance to create a trail connecting Purgatory Park to Spring Lake Natural Area.
If awarded the grant, SMRF is proposing to:
- Purchase parcels to complete trail connectivity
- Fund construction of 4.8 miles of trails with amenities
- Fund construction of three trail access parking lots with paid parking
- Fund 5-years of City operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
- Fund and provide associated project management, design and permitting costs
According to staff, the city is not eligible to apply for the grant, but partnerships are encouraged for proposals meeting three key issues: health outcomes, environmental protection, and workforce development.
The trail is proposed on property currently owned by the city and on two tracts to be purchased by SMRF known as the Elisk and Geiger tracts.
A memorandum of understanding between the collaborating parties must be submitted with the grant application and will be in effect for the duration of the project.
The city will handle the maintenance of the trail throughout the grant period and into the future.
During the discussion, the council discussed implementing a parking fee for non-San Marcos residents of $2 per hour and a potential $1 per hour parking fee for residents.
The council directed staff to move forward with bringing back a resolution of support.
Please note the two orange tracts are private property and will not have public access. The city accidentally left off that description of the private land on the map. Those landowners put conservation easements on their land which prevents development that would cover the land with buildings or pavement. But that easement does not give public access. Those landowners are doing a great thing for the San Marcos Springs and residents of San Marcos, protecting this key location of recharge zone!
QUESTION TO DIANE WASSENICH:
Re: The property constituting part of this deal “known as the Elisk and Geiger tracts”
having “conservation easements” and which “will not have public access” ….
In this matter you’ve informed us of a “conservation easement” attached to said properties.
Possibly you mean a perpetual covenant was inserted into the deed as a condition to any future
sale of the property as would bar development by any future private owners . Such a covenant
is commonly used in real estate, but the question begs how does this benefit the PUBLIC, much
less justify these costs borne by PUBLIC taxes ?
The terms of an “easement” always conveys ingress and egress to another party.
Thus, do you mean to say the City in its proprietary (non-governmental) capacity will
be granted an easement paid for by PUBLIC taxes, while the public will receive absolutely
no benefit relative to this scheme, namely public easement/access ?
If so, this deal will profit the City in its proprietary “for profit” non-governmental capacity as
a water vendor operating within the “recharge zone” (obtaining and selling potable water to
the public at a profit) by means of paying for the deal using taxpayer money. If true, the City
will expose itself to a lawsuit, as this is NOT lawful. Otherwise, it’s doubtful they will stop, look
and listen, because the City has been chumping us for years.
Ms. Wassenich, THANK YOU for all the good work over the years on behalf of the public.
However, don’t let ’em chump you into thinking they won’t chump even you, given the chance.
The city is not involved in private conservation easements on Windemere and Dreamcatcher, the two ranches in orange. City funds were not involved, but some grants were on Dreamcatcher, which SMRF and another land trust received. The landowners also donated toward those conservation easements. The grant being applied for and described in this article, if received by SMRF, may involve Geiger and Elsik tracts. But again, the grant to SMRF ould be used for that. Also, must mention: the land with private conservation easements do NOT mean their ranches can never be sold. The land can be passed on to heirs and can be sold. But the conservation easement is in the deed in perpetuity, meaning the limits on buildings and pavement goes with that deed. New owners will also live by it with a land trust inspecting annually to assure that. Thanks for your question which allowed me to explain more.