In 2019, the City of Bastrop adopted new development code ordinances. It took a long time because the City gathered a lot of public input prior to holding any Planning & Zoning public hearings or City Council public hearings.
The City held public meetings to “share future development plans and to solicit community input”. These were held on April 10 2019, May 9 2019, June 8 2019 and June 26 2019. The draft code, technical manual, and draft pattern book were released on May 24, 2019 so the public could review them. Another public meeting was held to solicit input on the technical manual on August 22 2019. The Planning and Zoning Commission did not take action to approve the code until September 26, 2019. The Council’s first reading of the new zoning ordinance was October 22 2019. The second reading and final adoption took place on November 12 2019.
From the first public meeting to final adoption was seven months.
Why, then, is the City Manager Sylvia Carrillo trying to push through a new code in just 23 days? There’s always a reason when that happens. So, what’s the rush?
Last night’s meeting agenda was far too long. The meeting started at 5PM. I don’t know what time it ended because I left at 9:30 when there were still two items to be discussed and voted on. There was a full house when it started. By the time I left, there were barely 25 people in the room.
Even the Commissioners were exhausted. So exhausted, in fact, that one of them left the meeting. Another read a motion for setback code changes when he meant to read a motion for lot size code changes. He was so tired he didn’t even realize he was reading the wrong prewritten motion. Setbacks hadn’t even been discussed yet.
Four hour meetings are unfair to the governing body, but most especially to the public who have to work the following day, may have had to arrange child care or may be elderly. Again, what’s the rush?
For all the bloviating about drainage, street width, cost of street maintenance by Carrillo last evening, pushing this forward in such a short time frame only makes sense in the context of future development. What’s on the drawing board for which these changes are needed? What’s the rush?
Citizens need to remember that the Gateway development was defeated on May 14, 2024. That date is important because the developer can resubmit an application one year later: May 15, 2025. If Carrillo has her way, the new code will be adopted by March 11, 2025. That’s 2 months for the Gateway developers to have access to the new code to lay out a conforming development.
Previously, developers were required to comply with a grid layout of streets and roads-including the Gateway development. If these proposed changes become law, that will no longer be the case, facilitating a different design for this project and every other.
What else is on the drawing board? Are there mapping changes? Zone changes to specific areas? There’s something in Bastrop’s future for which these code changes are necessary, that’s for sure.
I spent eight years on a planning board, six years on a town council. I know this game. Nothing of this magnitude and effect on citizens gets rushed through this fast without an ulterior motive. It’s likely the Planning & Zoning Commissioners have no idea what it is, and perhaps only the Council majority that votes together knows. Maybe only the City Manager knows. But there is an ulterior motive that will reveal itself in time. Otherwise, what’s the rush?
The City of Bastrop held numerous public hearings before it adopted the current zoning ordinance. The public had many opportunities to provide input. Modifications were made based on that input. The Council held public hearings on the ordinance to obtain more public input, and then it was adopted. That happened just 6 years ago in 2019.
As proven by the defeat of the Gateway project, the code worked. An over-intense project was proposed needing a zone change. When citizens came out to oppose the unfettered development on steep slopes behind Bucees, the developers modified their plan. They hoped they’d still get approval for a zone change so they could build their multi-million dollar project. That strategy did not work and the zone change request was defeated.
That, however, wasn’t the death of the project. It was just denied under current zoning. And the defeat only meant citizens wouldn’t see it again for 12 months.
But there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Why not change the entire zoning plan for the City of Bastrop? Make it so complex that citizens cannot absorb it all. Do it quickly before citizens realize what’s happening and why.
Developers do this all the time. Can’t get what they want one way, they try another tactic. Can’t get a zone change on a particular piece of property? Change city-wide zoning instead and buried deep within is the zone change that developer wanted all along.
It’s all about money. The profits from major developments run in the tens, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars. So, they get Council people out of the way who might or do oppose their plans and install Council people who vote “yes” for the zone changes because they’re in the developers pocket or they just aren’t “minding the store”. (Sound familiar? Get rid of Lyle Nelson and pro-Gateway Council member(s) remain.)
No matter how it happens, the developer gets its development, citizens be damned. Once the code is modified and the proposed development meets the zoning criteria, the development gets approved.
It’s odd the code is being re-written and shoved through so quickly. Odd, too, is that it’ll be adopted just in time for Gateway to be refiled, only this time, a zone change won’t be needed making that development harder to defeat.
I’ll be very surprised if this isn’t what happens. The only thing that will change is if citizens come out in droves and express their opposition to these zone changes. Waiting for future development projects is just too late.
If you live in the City of Bastrop, you may remember quite a few charter amendments on your ballot last November. Two failed. All the rest passed.
November? That’s almost 3 months ago. Are the changes in effect yet?
Good question. So, let’s figure that out. State law allows charter changes to be placed on the ballot. Citizens vote. If citizens approve a change, there are other steps that must be taken before they are law.
According to Texas law: Title 2, Subtitle A, Chapter 9, Sec. 9.005(b):
Sec. 9.005. ADOPTION OF CHARTER OR AMENDMENT. (b) A charter or an amendment does not take effect until the governing body of the municipality enters an order in the records of the municipality declaring that the charter or amendment is adopted.
On the November 12, 2024 City Council agenda was a draft “first reading” ordinance (2024-41) certifying the results of the election. This was deferred to a future meeting because final vote tally had not been sent to the City Council.
On the December 10, 2024 City Council agenda was a draft “first reading” ordinance (2024-41) certifying the results of the election. All questions except J were approved by the City Council as canvassed.
On the January 14, 2025 City Council agenda, more than 2 months after the election, was a draft of a resolution (rather than the previously adopted ordinance for second reading) (2025-07) certifying the results of the election.
As written, that resolution provided for the “adoption of Propositions A, B,C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M.
On January 13, 2025, after reviewing the agenda, I emailed several City Council members and the Mayor letting them know that this verbiage was incorrect and that Proposition L had, in fact, been defeated by the voters. Further review showed that Proposition G had also been defeated.
At the meeting of January 14, 2025, a motion was made to modify the City Secretary’s written resolution to provide for the “the adoption of Propositions A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, J, K, , and M; and the rejection of Propositions G and L.”
With that modification, the resolution certifying the results of the November 5, 2024 was finally adopted on January 14, 2025.
So, with all those delays, the City Manager bought almost three months more to move into the City limits. The current charter requires her to live in the City limits, but the City Council somehow gave her a pass. Voters reaffirmed that provision on November 5, 2024. So, has she moved into the City limits?
There are a couple of other legal steps once the Council has certified the results. Under Title 2, Subtitle A, Chapter 9, Sec. 9.007:
Sec. 9.007. CERTIFICATION OF CHARTER OR AMENDMENT. (a) As soon as practicable after a municipality adopts a charter or charter amendment, the mayor or chief executive officer of the municipality shall certify to the secretary of state an authenticated copy of the charter or amendment under the municipality’s seal showing the approval by the voters of the municipality.
(b) The secretary of state shall file and record the certification in his office in a book kept for that purpose.
And, last, the City Secretary must record the changes either on microfilm or in a “book kept for that purpose.” As of this writing, the changes have not been recorded on the City’s website.
Sec. 9.008. REGISTRATION OF CHARTER OR AMENDMENT; EFFECT. (a) The secretary or other officer of a municipality performing functions similar to those of a secretary shall record in the secretary’s or other officer’s office a charter or charter amendment adopted by the voters of the municipality. If a charter or amendment is not recorded on microfilm, as may be permitted under another law, it shall be recorded in a book kept for that purpose.
It took 2 hours. See my post “The Poison Pill” in which I predicted that within a few hours, Rep Stan Gerdes would tell you that he banned Dem Chairs, but he wouldn’t tell you “the rest of the story”. And, that’s exactly what he did.
He did not tell you about Permanent Standing Committees and the other Dem-favorable provisions of these Rules. He did not tell you he voted to shut off all debate, to not allow any amendments, shutting off representation of the people. Rep Lowe stated “I am disgusted that the process of fair debate was eliminated in an effort to concede power to the minority party.” Rep Gerdes voted “yes” to eliminate debate in an effort to concede power to the minority party. (See page 116 of the 1/23/25 Journal. See also Rep Pierson’s relevant comments on why he voted “no” on page 118 of the 1/23/25 Journal.)
Gerdes did not tell you that he knew of this strategy when he voted against the GOP Caucus choice, violating the rules of the Caucus. Yet he did. And, he did not tell you what he’ll get in return for his votes. A chairmanship of one of these subcommittees? Again, we’re watching and time will tell.
Here’s the text message his consultants sent just 2 hours after adjournment.
Don’t believe Stan Gerdes sent this text. He did not. His consultants did.
Don’t be duped or played. Consultants who are given access to (and often design) elected official communications put out these texts and social media posts.
This morning at 4AM while most of us were sleeping, including many of our TX House Reps, the 232 page Texas House Rules bill dropped. That’s right, 4AM. I’m writing this at 4PM the same day and that package was adopted by the Texas House just an hour ago. No amendments were allowed.
Exactly as predicted, it allows chairs of committees to only come from the majority party. So, yes, Dem Chairs aren’t allowed. But all vice chairs must be from the minority party. And, much more benefiting Democrats is in the rules.
These rules create twelve “Permanent Standing Subcommittees” (a new category of subcommittee) to which the Speaker shall appoint chairs (of either party), may refer bills, will choose members. These committees will hold separate meetings from the committee to which they report…. In other words, through these rules, subcommittees have been permanently established that will, in essence, act as full committees.
Clearly, “Permanent Standing Subcommittees” have been established to circumvent the rules, especially that rule requiring chairs from the majority party. And, should a new Speaker be appointed, that Speaker is not allowed to change the make-up of the committees appointed by the prior Speaker during this entire session.
🚨Rep @brianeharrison and I explain the betrayal of Texas voters that just happened as RINOs joined the Dems to silence conservatives and give the Democrats more power than they’ve ever had in the recent history of the state of Texas!!!
This is the first of things Democrats will get for their votes putting Dustin Burrows in the Speaker’s position, the majority of votes that put him there by the way.
What else will Speaker Burrows give away during this session to the renegade Republicans who thwarted GOP voters, our platform, our legislative priorities and their own rules? He’ll give away “Permanent Standing Subcommittee” chairmanships to those who joined with Democrats to keep the Austin Swamp in power.
We’re watching and wondering. I’m wondering how long it’s going to take Stan Gerdes’ consultants to post on his Social Media that he voted to ban Dem chairs. Probably a few hours…. But, I’ll bet he doesn’t tell you about Permanent Standing Committees, and the other Dem-favorable provisions of these Rules. I’ll bet he doesn’t tell you he voted to not allow any amendments or to shut off all debate. We’ll see.
I’m sure each of us has an idea of what we think it means to be a mayor. I always thought the mayor ran the city, determined policy, crafted the budget, hired and fired. Basically, I thought the mayor was the executive in charge.
But, guess what? That’s not always the case. The city’s form of government determines who’s in charge, who hires and fires, who creates budgets, who adopts budgets, who authorizes spending, who negotiates contracts and more.
I was mayor under a “Strong Mayor / Weak Council” form of government.The City of Bastrop has a “Weak Mayor” because the form of government is “Council – Manager”. Broad powers are vested in the elected City Council and the City Manager, an unelected bureaucrat. The mayor has little to no authority.
COMPARE THE POWERS OF A STRONG MAYOR VERSUS A WEAK MAYOR
The powers of the mayor in a Strong Mayor / Weak Council community are as follows:
MAYOR : Exercises executive power of the municipality, appoints department heads with Council approval. Removes department heads subject to Council disapproval by 2/3 of all members. Prepares budget. Has veto over ordinances subject to override by 2/3 of all members of Council.
Mayor exercises executive power of the municipality. Up to 10 departments under Mayor’s direction. Business Administrator assists Mayor in budget preparation and administers purchasing and personnel systems. By ordinance, Business Administrator may supervise administration of departments, subject to Mayor’s direction.
COUNCIL : Exercises legislative power of municipality, approves appointment of department heads. Disapproves removal of department heads by 2/3 vote of all members. Overrides Mayor’s veto by 2/3 of all members.
Council sets its meeting dates and times. For a limited number of boards, commissions and committees, Council has ‘advice and consent’ authority. Council can appoint subcommittees of its members, but not inclusive of citizens.
The City of Bastrop operates under a “Council – Manager” form of government.The mayor is a “weak mayor”. Few of the powers listed in a “strong mayor” form of government is applicable to a “weak mayor” form.
As you can see from the list below, taken directly from the City of Bastrop Charter, the mayor in Bastrop has little to no authority over anything in the City. While the mayor is a member of the City Council, the mayor has no vote except in a tie and has no veto authority.
COUNCIL: enacts local legislation, adopt budgets, determine policies, appoints the City Attorney and the Judge of the Municipal Court. The Council shall also appoint the City Manager, who shall execute the laws and administer the government of the City.*
The Council shall have the power by ordinance to fix the boundary limits of the City.*
All powers of the City and the determination of all matters of policy shall be vested in the City Council.*
(1) remove from any office or position of employment in the City government, any officer or employee or member of any board or commission, unless that person reports to the City Manager or is employed in one of the City departments under the direction of the City Manager; (2) establish, consolidate or abolish administrative departments; (3) adopt the budget of the City; (4) authorize the issuance of bonds; (5) provide for such additional boards and commissions, not otherwise provided for in this Charter, as may be deemed necessary, and appoint the members of all such boards and commissions. Such boards and commissions shall have all powers and duties now or hereafter conferred and created by this Charter, by City ordinance or by law; (6) adopt and modify the zoning plan and the building code of the City; (7) adopt and modify the official map of the City; (8) regulate, license and fix the charges or fares made by any person, firm or corporation owning, operating or controlling any vehicle of any character used for the carrying of passengers for hire on the public streets and alleys of the City; (9) provide for the establishment and designations of fire limits and prescribe the kind and character of buildings or structures or improvements to be erected therein, and provide for the erection of fireproof buildings within said limits, and provide for condemnation of dangerous structures or buildings or dilapidated buildings, or buildings calculated to increase the fire hazard and prescribe the manner of their removal or destruction within said limits; (10) adopt, modify and carry out plans for improvement and redevelopment of any area of the City which may have been destroyed in whole or part by disaster; (11) adopt, modify and carry out plans for the clearance of slums and the rehabilitation of blighted areas; (12) fix the salaries and compensation of the City officers and employees; (13) provide for a sanitary sewer and water system and require property owners to connect with such sewer system, and provide for penalties for failure to make sanitary sewer connections; (14) provide for garbage disposal, and set fees and charges therefor, and provide penalties for failure to pay such fees and charges; (15) exercise exclusive dominion, control and jurisdiction in, upon, over and under the public streets, avenues, sidewalks, alleys, highways, boulevards and public grounds of the City and provide for the improvement of same; (16) compromise and settle any and all claims and lawsuits of every kind and character in favor of or against the City.*
So what can the mayor do in the City of Bastrop, you ask? Not much.
MAYOR: The Mayor shall preside over the meetings of the Council*
The Mayor shall appoint members to all City boards and commissions, subject to confirmation by the Council.*
The Mayor shall also be recognized as the chief presiding officer of the City.*
The Mayor shall also be recognized as the head of the City by all courts for the purpose of serving civil processes, by the Governor for the purpose of enforcing military law and for all ceremonial purposes.*
That’s it. That’s all the Mayor of the City of Bastrop can do. And, once the Council, as this Council did, takes away the Mayor’s office, requires Council approval for the Mayor to represent the City at various functions, what’s left?
All that’s left is the right to preside over Council meetings. The mayor doesn’t even determine the agenda.
So, the Mayor sits on the dais while the various Council members criticize, interrogate, accuse and otherwise take pot-shots at the duly-elected Mayor of the City. All that angst for $150 per month.
I’ve wondered for a long time why Lyle Nelson would want to be Mayor in a Council-Manager form of government. In all honesty, I don’t know why anyone would want to be mayor in these conditions. To me, this is a dangerous form of government with far too much power handed to an employee: the City Manager. (More on that in another blog post.)
With basically no authority, Lyle Nelson has had to sit on the dais and suffer the vitriole of three angry and vindictive Council people. I salute him for holding out this long, for trying to calm the flames and do the business of the City, but to no avail. I fully support Lyle Nelson’s resignation.
[All items with an * following are taken directly from the City of Bastrop Charter.]
(Apologies for a very lengthy blog post. The issue is complex.)
I’ve always said that politics is the world’s largest chess game. Anyone good at it has to think multiple moves ahead and has to analyze a variety of actions that could be taken by others. And, it requires understanding the law, policies and rules.
It’s the strategy of politics that I find incredibly fascinating.
Let’s take, for example, the issue of “No Dem Chairs”. The grassroots have been trying to stop Texas House Speakers from handing committee gavels to the Democrats for several sessions. Why would a Republican Speaker do that? After all, Republicans have a sizable majority.
Remember the old “smoke filled room”? Well, the only difference is that today there’s no smoke. Smoking not allowed. But the deals still are cut and not in public. Some deals are to bring members to a certain side of an issue. Some deals are to put opponents in an untenable position: damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Some deals are a win-win. Some deals are a win-lose.
Think about the last CR in Washington. You know, that 1500 page spending bill that caused voters to go nuts. A laundry list of added spending was slipped in, hoping voters wouldn’t notice. A day later, it was 116 pages with things like Congressional salary increases removed. People were still unhappy and calling their legislators. A day later, after significant negotiations, it was finally passed.
On December 7, the Texas House Republican Caucus met to select its candidate for House Speaker. There were two candidates: David Cook & Dustin Burrows.
There are rules about what percentage of the caucus a candidate must receive on each ballot: 75% on ballots 1 and 2; 60% on ballot 3. No one got 75% on the first two ballots and then 26 members of the Caucus walked out, including Bastrop County’s HD17 Rep Stan Gerdes. David Cook won on the third ballot.
“Cook clinched the GOP endorsement 48-14 during the voting’s third round, but over a dozen Burrow loyalists abstained from the vote by walking out of the chamber. While caucus rules mandate that all 88 House Republicans support the party’s nominee during January’s official speaker vote — support that would push Cook well over the 76 vote threshold to secure the Speaker seat — Burrows has maintained that a pieced-together coalition of rogue Republicans and Democrats will be enough to ensure his victory.”
Speaker Candidate David Cook has agreed to “No Dem Chairs”. Speaker Candidate Dustin Burrows has not. He says he’ll leave it to the entire House.
It’s important to know that the Speaker appoints the committee chairs. Thus Speaker of the Texas House is a very powerful position. And, as such, putting the issue of “No Dem Chairs” to the entire House, in my opinion, is abdicating the Speaker’s most important responsibility for the success or failure of GOP Legislative Priorities.
The formal vote for Speaker is on January 14, day one of the 89th Texas Legislative Session. Republican House members are expected to vote for the Caucus choice. Those are the rules. If all Republican legislators stick together and follow the rules, that would give David Cook the win. A David Cook Speakership would give grassroots Republicans the win. “No Dem Chairs” would finally be a reality in Texas.
But not so fast……
Remember those 26 “walk-outs”? If they break Party caucus rules and don’t vote for David Cook, Dustin Burrows (who has probably by now negotiated all or a majority of Democrat votes) will likely be the Texas House Speaker. The GOP/Dem split is 88/62. It takes 76 votes to become Speaker.
Simple math: 76-62=14 So if 14 Republicans vote with all the Democrats, Burrows is Speaker. Which 14 Republicans bill break the rules? Will Bastrop County’s HD17 Rep Stan Gerdes be one of them?
Let’s say Burrows wins. When he takes the gavel, how will he put his opponents in their place? How will he show his power to those in the Republican Caucus who didn’t vote for him. Ahhhh…… the Rules Packages.
The day after the vote for Speaker, when all the grassroots Republicans have gone home, the Texas House will vote on both Housekeeping and Permanent Rules packages.
Rules are critical to the function of the Texas House and they are extensive. In 2023, the House Rules, HB4 and amendments, were 199+ pages…. a lot of items with which to negotiate. Plenty of places for “poison pills”.
What is a “poison pill”? A “poison pill” strategy is used in business to prevent a hostile takeover. In politics, it’s used to force opponents into a no-win voting dilemma.
This happens when opponents of a bill put something in it that makes it impossible for supporters of the main topic of that same bill, to vote for it. The bill could contain language that supporters have wanted for years. So what do they do? Vote for that which they’ve worked so hard to accomplish and, in the process, vote for something they adamantly oppose? (This is exactly why conservative Republicans in Washington are pushing so hard for “one subject” bills.)
No matter how they vote, their opponents will use it against them. They’ll be accused of voting against the very thing they’ve worked hard for. Or, they’ll be accused of voting for the thing they adamantly oppose. (So much for not using public resources for political purposes. See Chess Move #5.)
This happens all the time in politics. It’s a common strategy to get items, unfavorable to the majority, passed by the minority. Stick the unacceptable thing into a bill the majority desperately wants passed. Think Ukraine funding.
So, back to the Burrows Permanent Rules Package.
It may contain language that, if passed, will result in “No Dem Chairs”. But it may also contain “poison pill” language that is unacceptable to most conservative Republicans.
Chess move #4 forces members in support of “No Dem Chairs” to vote for the “poison pill” as well. Dems get what they were promised in the non-smoke filled room and Republicans get “No Dem Chairs”.
OR, conservative Republicans vote against the “poison pill” and in the process, also kill the “No Dem Chairs” provision.
From my experience, when that happens, most of the public won’t understand and will just hear (or see in campaign literature) how Rep So-and-so voted against “No Dem Chairs”. And, those members who put Burrows in as Speaker will claim they voted for “No Dem Chairs” but alas, conservative Republicans killed it.
In the 2023 Legislative Session, Dade Phelan was elected Texas House Speaker. After multiple attempts to get “No Dem Chairs” included in the Rules package, it was killed through procedural moves. The premise used to kill “No Dem Chairs” was that having chairs from one political party would violate a rule they had just adopted stating that House resources could not be used for political purposes. (FYI, this was a new Housekeeping rule in 2023 leading one to wonder if it was added for just this purpose.)
Proposed rule: “If, at the time the speaker announces the membership of committees, the members of one political party constitute a majority of the membership of the house, the speaker shall designate a member of that party to serve as chair of each committee.”
Result: The above Amendment to the rules (House Journal, January 11, 2023 page 139) was killed by a point of order that stated “The Housekeeping Resolution adopted by the House earlier today codified the constitutional rule that House resources may be used only for public purposes and may not be used for political purposes.”
They said that ensuring a Committee Chair was from the majority party was the same as using “House resources […] for political purposes.” Odd, the United States Congress operates with the chair of each committee from the majority party and they have a similar, very stringent rule about using public resources for political purposes.
the next chess move
Bastrop County’s HD17 Rep Stan Gerdes was one of the 26 who walked out of the Republican Caucus. He refuses to publicly state his support for David Cook or answer whether he’ll break the Caucus rules and vote for Burrows. He has, though, posted on Facebook on January 5, “I’ll be voting to ban Dem chairs.”
If that’s the case, it would seem he plans to break Caucus rules. (Shame on him.) And, then, knowing what happened in 2023, he can confidently vote for “No Dem Chairs” while watch it go down in flames. One week from now, we’ll know his next move.
Last night’s meeting agenda was far too long. The meeting started at 5PM. I don’t know what time it ended because I left at 9:30 when there were still two items to be discussed and voted on. There was a full house when it started. By the time I left, there were barely 25 people in the room.
Even the Commissioners were exhausted. So exhausted, in fact, that one of them left the meeting. Another read a motion for setback code changes when he meant to read a motion for lot size code changes. He was so tired he didn’t even realize he was reading the wrong prewritten motion. Setbacks hadn’t even been discussed yet.
I’ve always said that politics is the world’s largest chess game. Anyone good at it has to think multiple moves ahead and has to analyze a variety of actions that could be taken by others. And, it requires understanding the law, policies and rules.
Let’s say Burrows wins. When he takes the gavel, how will he put his opponents in their place? How will he show his power to those in the Republican Caucus who didn’t vote for him. Ahhhh…… the Rules Packages.
Bastrop County’s HD17 Rep Stan Gerdes was one of the 26 who walked out of the Republican Caucus. He refuses to publicly state his support for David Cook or answer whether he’ll break the Caucus rules and vote for Burrows. He has, though, posted on Facebook on January 5, “I’ll be voting to ban Dem chairs.”