Mark Gleason and Jude Prather each claimed victory in their respective San Marcos City Council races.
Gleason, city council place 5 incumbent, fended off challenger Zach Sambrano. Prather, who previously served on the council between 2010-2016, narrowly defeated Mark Rockeymoore by less than 40 votes.
In the place 5 race, Gleason received 2,075 votes (54.15%), while Sambrano garnered 1,757 votes (45.85%).
Prather tallied 1,927 votes (50.43%) in the place 6 contest and Rockeymoore received 1,894 votes (49.57%).
Alongside the two council places, San Marcos voters had 13 propositions on the ballot to choose from.
All but two propositions were approved by voters. Propositions A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, L and M all received a majority “for” the proposed amendments to the city charter.
Proposition A asked voters to weigh whether to replace a part of the city charter with a new statement of goals of the city government that is organized by the categories of people, place, environment, economy and public services.
Prop A received 2,820 votes in favor of the amendment (76.84%) and it received 850 votes against (23.16%).
Proposition B asked voters to consider amending a portion of the city charter to establish term limits for councilmembers elected at the regular election in November 2022 or any regular election following 2022. The limits would make councilmembers ineligible to run for any city council positions — other than mayor — for two years after serving three consecutive terms in office.
Prop B garnered 3,073 votes for the term limits (80.61%), while 739 San Marcos voters cast their ballots against the proposal (19.39%).
Proposition C asked voters to weigh an amendment to the city charter which would establish term limits for mayor by providing that a person elected as mayor at the regular election held in November 2024 or any regular election following 2024. The term limits would establish that the person would be ineligible to run again for mayor for a two year period after serving four consecutive terms in that position.
Prop C received 3,110 votes in favor of the mayoral term limits (80.61%), while 705 votes against it (19.39%).
Proposition D proposed the amendment to the city charter to require all regular city council meeting agendas to include “Citizen Comment Period” and “Question and Answer Session with Press and Public as an agenda item.
Prop D was overwhelmingly favored with 3,447 votes for the proposition (90.21%) and 374 against it (9.79%).
Proposition E asked San Marcos voters to vote for or against an amendment to the city charter to allow the removal of city manager by a vote of our members of the city council instead of the currently required five members.
Prop E received 2,079 votes for the change (55.63%) and 1,658 votes against it (44.37%).
Proposition F had voters consider an amendment to the city charter to remove the requirements for city council approval of the city manager’s appointment of assistant city managers.
Votes for prop E narrowly outweighed votes against it with 1,845 San Marcos voters voting in favor of the amendment (50.05%) and 1,841 voting against it (49.95%).
Proposition G proposed an amendment to the city charter to remove the requirement for city council approval of the city clerk’s appointment of assistant city clerks.
Prop G garnered 53.78% votes for the amendment and 1,700 against it (46.22%).
Proposition H asked voters to weigh in on an amendment to the city charter to change the residency requirement for city clerk, allowing the person appointed to reside in San Marcos’s city limits, as currently required, or within Hays County or the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Prop H received 2,249 votes for the change made to the city charter (60.28%) and 1,482 against it (39.72%).
Proposition I proposed an amendment to the city charter to remove the requirement for city council approval of the presiding judge’s appointment of a municipal court clerk and assistant clerks.
Votes for Prop I narrowly outnumbered votes against it — 1,866 votes for (51.21%) to 1,778 votes against it (48.79%).
Proposition L asked voters to vote for or against an amendment to the city charter which would add a provision stating that no action of the planning and zoning commission shall have any force or effect unless it is adopted by a vote of five or more of its members.
Most voters cast their ballots for Prop L with 2,946 votes in favor of the amendment (79.86%) and 743 votes against (20.14%).
Proposition M proposed an amendment to the city charter to require the charter review commission to make a final report of its recommendations and require that the chair or a designated member of the commission present the report to the city council.
An overwhelming majority of voters cast their ballots in favor of Prop M — 3,333 votes for the amendment to the city charter (91.14%) and 324 votes against it (8.86%).
Propositions J and K both received more votes against their respective amendments to the city charter than votes for the changes.
Prop J asked voters to consider an amendment to the city charter which would’ve removed the residency requirement for appointment of the presiding judge.
Nearly 70% of voters cast their ballots against Prop J — 2,527 votes against the proposed amendment (79.86%) and 743 votes for the change (31.74%)
Prop K had voters consider an amendment to the city charter to remove the requirement for city council approval of the city attorney’s appointment of assistant city attorneys.
Over 53% of voters cast their ballots against Prop K — 1,939 votes against the amendment (53.15%) compared to 1,709 in favor of the proposition (1,709).
Following Tuesday’s election, results for the two city council places and propositions will be canvased on Monday, Nov. 15. Gleason and Prather will be sworn into the city council on the same day at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 630 E. Hopkins St.
