The San Antonio Governance Committee on April 16 approved staff recommendations to advance 14 council consideration requests (CCRs), sending most items to the committees identified by staff or to the council’s June budget goal-setting session. The motion carried by voice vote; the transcript records a unanimous aye and no recorded oppositions.

Why it matters: The CCRs include measures that could affect neighborhood safety and traffic policy, land use and rezoning in District 7, city facility naming rules, city contracting and wage monitoring, potential new or expanded Animal Care Services facilities, and a proposed program to help locally owned grocery stores in underserved areas. Many of the items require further study or budget decisions before any ordinance or funding commitment is adopted.

Committee action and how items will move forward

Staff presented each CCR and recommended next steps. The governance committee voted to adopt those recommendations as presented. Major recommendations and next steps include:

- Large-area rezoning (District 7): Staff described a rezoning area roughly bounded by Pettus Street (north), Culebra Road (south), Watkins Road (west) and including part of Rita Avenue. Staff recommended initiating the item at a City Council session via resolution for a full review. The committee approved the staff recommendation to send the rezoning matter to City Council for consideration.

- Reduced garage/yard sale fees for seniors and veterans (Council District 6): The CCR would cut the permit fee from $16 to $8 for residents aged 65 and veterans. Revenue data presented by staff: Mike Shannon said the city generates about $300,000–$350,000 annually from garage-sale permits and issues roughly 25,000–30,000 permits per year. Staff recommended consideration as part of the June budget goal-setting process to assess the fiscal impact; the committee approved that recommendation.

- Vacant property revitalization (Council District 2): The CCR would create financial incentives and regulatory streamlining to promote adaptive reuse, public–private partnerships, and expanded blight and code enforcement. Because the item has financial impacts, staff recommended moving it into the June budget goal-setting process; the committee approved that recommendation.

- Faith-based land for community benefit (Council District 2): The CCR requests a task force and technical assistance to help faith-based property owners understand zoning and options for redevelopment, as well as expedited review pathways. Staff recommended referral to the Planning & Community Development Committee; the committee approved that referral.

- Comprehensive review of residential development fees (Council District 10): The CCR requests a fee comparison with peer cities, economic impact assessment, stakeholder engagement and recommendations. Staff recommended referral to the Planning & Community Development Committee; the committee approved that referral.

- Updated process for naming city facilities (Council District 4): The CCR seeks changes to Chapter 6 procedures, including expanding who is notified (a 500-foot notice radius), increasing neighborhood association notification, clarifying public meeting and opposition procedures and specifying possible review-committee membership. Staff recommended referral to the Planning & Community Development Committee; the committee approved that referral.

- Neighborhood speed limit reduction (Council District 7): The CCR asks to lower the prima facie neighborhood speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph and references city plans including Vision Zero, Complete Streets and the Bike Network Plan. Staff recommended referral to the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee for technical work on traffic code changes; the committee approved that referral. Councilmember Gavito urged the change on safety grounds, saying, “Everyone deserves to feel safe walking, biking or playing outside their homes.”

- Ensuring integrity in local contracts (Council District 5): This CCR asks for active monitoring of wages and hours at contractor and subcontractor levels across city construction contracts (beyond public works). Staff recommended referral to the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee; the committee approved that referral.

- Holistic traffic calming (Council District 5): The CCR asks to establish a cross‑departmental review team to evaluate and implement on-site traffic calming, quick-build options and follow-up technical analyses. Staff recommended referral to the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee; the committee approved that referral.

- Animal Care Services (ACS) second campus study (Council District 2): Staff outlined a CCR to explore the need for a second ACS campus, identifying underserved east-side areas using the city’s intercity tour boundaries, evaluating size and feasibility with community benefits and listing the 2027 bond as a potential funding source. Staff provided baseline data: ACS receives about 90,000 calls annually, roughly 55,000 of which are characterized as critical; ACS adopts over 5,500 pets each year and facilitates about 18,500 placements via transfers to rescue partners; the existing campus (built in 2007) has about 200 dog and cat kennels on a 15‑acre site; ACS currently responds to about 82% of critical calls and is on track to target 100% response by January 2026. Staff recommended inclusion of the study in the June budget goal-setting process; the committee approved that recommendation. Council members asked that the analysis compare a second full campus to alternatives such as satellite facilities or expanding existing capacity.

- Comprehensive San Antonio Fire Department analysis (authored by Councilmember Maquir Rodriguez): The CCR requests an analysis of resources, facility conditions, staffing capacity, fleet and equipment and projected needs based on population and housing growth through 2040 (as stated in the request). Staff recommended presenting a proposed scope and cost at the June budget goal-setting session; the committee approved that recommendation.

- Crash investigator/technician role and low‑priority call handling (Councilmember Kerr, District 1): The CCR asks the city manager to evaluate options (including collective bargaining considerations) to create a crash investigator technician role — preferably filled by retired police officers or civilian employees — to handle low‑priority calls (minor traffic accidents, found or lost property, parking and noise enforcement) and to explore technology solutions for reporting such calls. Staff recommended referral to the Public Safety Committee for further discussion; the committee approved that referral. Councilmember Kaur (author) requested continued work with the police association to address safety and pay/benefits questions for retired officers.

- Grocery store incubator program (Council District 2): The CCR would design a grocery incubator to support small, locally owned grocery stores in food‑desert areas with technical assistance, site selection and possible financial support. Staff recommended Metro Health coordinate with other departments and include the item in the next budget goal-setting session; the committee approved that recommendation.

- Reemployment assistance for federally funded positions (Council Districts 4 & 8 and a mayoral memo): The CCR seeks a reemployment assistance program to prioritize hiring city vacancies that are federally funded, streamline applications and coordinate with local nonprofits and workforce partners. Staff reported outreach activity and a related workforce hotline: Workforce Solutions Alamo received 369 calls in 32 days and is hosting a job fair in coordination with JBSA, the city and the San Antonio Food Bank. For this CCR, staff recommended no further action beyond coordination and outreach (as presented); the governance committee accepted the staff recommendation.

Votes and next steps

The governance committee motion to adopt staff recommendations for all 14 CCRs was seconded and approved by voice vote; the transcript records an “aye” and no opposition. Each CCR will proceed according to the staff-recommended path (referral to the committee identified or inclusion in the June budget goal-setting session) for additional technical analysis, stakeholder engagement, and any subsequent Council action.

How officials described fiscal and timing considerations

Staff repeatedly noted that items recommended for the June budget goal-setting session carry potential fiscal impacts that will be analyzed and returned to the council as part of that process. For example, the garage-sale fee change requires staff modeling because current permitting does not capture veteran or senior status; the second-ACS-campus study will include site feasibility, operating impacts and comparisons with satellite clinic or expansion options; the proposed fire-department analysis requires a defined scope and cost to be presented at the budget goal-setting session.

Where to follow up: Committee hearings and the June budget goal-setting session will host the next public presentations and technical briefings on these CCRs. The governance committee record shows staff and council authors intend additional committee-level vetting before any ordinance or budget allocation is adopted.