ELECTION
Editor’s note: These are preliminary results with all 88 Hays county precincts reporting. According to unofficial figures, 19.52% of registered voters voted in this election. The Daily Record will publish an updated version when the election has been canvassed on Nov. 10. Canvassing and release of official results will occur on Nov. 10.
In the Nov. 4 election, incumbent Matthew Mendoza will be holding his seat for San Marcos City Council Place 1. There will be a runoff election between incumbent Saul Gonzales and Josh Paselk on Saturday, Dec. 13. Early voting for the runoff election will be from Dec. 1 to Dec. 9, according to the Secretary of State website.
San Marcos residents approved 10 of the 12 city charter amendments — changes to the governing documents, denying an increase in the term limit for mayor and an increase in the time required for the Planning and Zoning Commission to do a full review of the Comprehensive Plan.
For San Marcos City Council Place 1, incumbent Matthew Mendoza received 56.77% of the vote or 4,233 votes. Chase Norris received 43.23% of the vote or 3,224 votes.
For Place 2, Josh Paselk received 35.13% of the vote or 2,615 votes. Saul Gonzales received 26.84% of the vote or 1,998 votes. Barbara Montana-Escobar received 25.57% of the vote or 1,903 votes. Christopher L. Polanco received 7.89% of the vote or 587 votes. Brandon Oles. received 4.57% of the vote or 340 votes.
Charter amendments Proposition A that would make governing document language gender neutral was approved with 61.74% of the vote or 4,899 votes in favor and 38.26% of the vote or 3,036 votes against.
Proposition B that would require the city to post public notices on its website and social media in addition to in a newspaper was approved with 93.5% of the vote or 7,349 votes in favor and 6.5% of the vote or 511 votes against.
Proposition C that would increase the mayoral term from two to four years with a term limit of two consecutive terms was denied with 56.98% of the vote or 4,459 votes against and 43.02% of the vote or 3,367 votes in favor.
Proposition D that would decrease the number of required council meetings from 22 to 20 was approved with 51.79% of the vote or 3,995 votes in favor and 48.21% of the vote or 3,719 votes against.
Proposition E that would make it so each council meeting had an agenda item with the previous meeting minutes along with an item for approval of the minutes was approved with 93.33% of the vote or 7,154 votes in favor and 6.67% of the vote or 511 votes against.
Proposition F that would amend Section 3.13 of the city charter to correct a run-on sentence and clarify that printed copies of the code of ordinances may be available for purchase was approved with 87.63% of the vote or 6,688 votes in favor and 12.37% of the vote or 944 votes against.
Proposition G that would increase the time from 30 to 90 days for citizens to file a referendum to approve or reject legislation enacted by council was approved with 81.31% of the vote or 6,135 votes in favor and 18.69% of the vote or 1,410 votes against.
Proposition H that would increase the time from 45 to 60 days for the city clerk to determine whether a referendum, initiative or recall petition is properly signed was approved with 67.81% of the vote or 5,101 votes in favor and 32.19% of the vote or 2,421 votes against.
Proposition I that would increase the time from five to ten years for the Planning and Zoning Commission to do a periodic review of the comprehensive plan was denied with 73.38% of the vote or 5,550 votes against and 26.62% of the vote or 2,013 votes in favor.
Proposition J that would reorganize the provisions of Section 7.02(7) regarding the review of the city charter to Section 7.03, which focuses on the comprehensive plan, was approved with 74.8% of the vote or 5,111 votes in favor and 25.20% of the vote or 1,722 votes against.
Proposition K that would require plain language to be used in the city’s budget documents was approved with 95.26% of the vote or 7,377 votes in favor and 4.74% of the vote or 367 votes against.
Proposition L that would change the title of Article XII to Ethics, previously General Provisions, and would move sections unrelated to ethics to a new article, Article XIII called General Provisions was approved with 83.56% of the vote or 6,058 votes in favor and 16.4% of the vote or 1,192 votes against.
