San Marcos council delays vote on ordinance to raise council expense allowances after extended debate

The San Marcos City Council extensively debated Ordinance 2025‑03, a measure to increase cumulative allowable council expenses by $90,000, and ultimately voted to postpone consideration to a later meeting.

Councilmember Reyes (first referenced by surname in the public record) led a critique of bringing a midyear budget change before the council without fuller documentation; she argued for stronger accountability measures, including per‑city IRS per diem references, written explanations of educational benefits and stricter missing‑receipt limits. “This is taxpayer money and there are rules governing that kind of money,” Reyes said, urging a slower, more transparent process and promising proposed amendments.

Other councilmembers supported raising allowances to reflect higher travel, lodging and conference costs and to reduce barriers for newer or working‑class councilmembers who may otherwise be unable to attend professional‑development events. Councilmember Scott framed the proposal as a way to keep pace with rising travel costs and support professional development for council members new to office. City staff and finance staff explained accounting and procedural details including how some funds had been found midyear and how the city’s procurement card and reimbursement processes work.

Council debated multiple technical clarifications — for example how the existing allowances related to health‑insurance waivers for certain government‑employee councilmembers, whether some amounts should be rolled into a single stipend line or remain as separate reimbursable accounts, and the mechanics for reallocating unused funds to other members. Several members asked staff for an infographic that maps the narrative policy language to annual and monthly dollar totals so that voters and the public can more easily understand changes.

After those discussions, a motion to postpone the ordinance to the next council meeting carried 6–1. Councilmembers said they will return with proposed amendments, a clearer chart and suggested edits to the language (including clarity about compensation components tied to insurance), and that staff will produce supporting documentation for public review before a final vote.

Ending: Council did not adopt the ordinance Feb. 18; the item was postponed for further amendment and will return to council for additional consideration.