San Marcos council orders broader public engagement on three city hall site options after heated comments

San Marcos — The San Marcos City Council on Tuesday directed staff to widen public engagement on the Hopkins City Center/new city hall project after more than a dozen residents raised concerns about cost, contract terms and environmental risk.

City Manager Annette Reyes opened the work session by stressing that the meeting would not approve a site, financing or construction. Instead, staff presented three broad options — rebuilding at the current city hall location on the south Hopkins parcel, constructing on a north Hopkins parcel, or pursuing an unsolicited downtown proposal brought forward by developer Upward Communities — and asked whether to continue due diligence and public outreach.

Darren Smith of Economic & Planning Systems told the council the high-level estimate for a new 109,000‑square‑foot facility, including structured parking, is roughly $80 million to $100 million. Smith noted the city has about $13 million earmarked for the project and that Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) No. 5 holds roughly $4 million in reserves, leaving a substantial funding gap unless new revenue sources, property monetization or phased construction are pursued.

Public commentators urged greater transparency and questioned aspects of the downtown proposal and the city’s agreements with private partners. Jean Bagot, president of the Downtown Association of San Marcos, and Dwayne Bradley of the South Square Collective supported exploring a downtown location, saying it could spur economic activity. But multiple speakers — including Lisa Britt and Abigail Mason — warned that public‑private partnerships can shift long‑term costs to residents, criticized an exclusivity clause and cited termination penalties in the city’s agreement with Upward Communities.

Environmental concerns also surfaced. Virginia Parker of the San Marcos River Foundation and Gina Fleming urged groundwater and floodplain studies, noting some Hopkins sites are in the floodplain while supporters said downtown parcels appear to sit outside the floodplain. Several residents called for additional engineering, stormwater and traffic analysis before any site is advanced.

Councilmembers debated whether to expand steering‑committee appointments and how to present information to the public. Members asked staff to publish contract summaries and current spending on the project website and to stage multiple, neighborhood‑based town halls rather than a single meeting so working residents can participate.

Council direction, reached by consensus at the meeting, authorized staff to proceed with expanded community outreach (multiple town halls plus an interactive website and printed materials), to continue limited due diligence on the three site locations and to return to council before committing to any site‑specific studies or finance plan. Staff also agreed to post refined scopes of contracted work and a spending summary with a regular update cadence.

The work session adjourned at 5:57 p.m.; staff said follow‑up materials and presentations would be available on the city’s project web page and steering‑committee documents would be posted to improve public access.

The council did not take a formal vote to select a site or approve financing; further engineering, environmental, and financial analyses were left for a later stage pending the additional public engagement.