San Antonio City Council Special Session on CCR Process Changes - August 13, 2025

On August 13, 2025, the San Antonio City Council convened a special session at 2:01 PM to discuss proposed enhancements to the Council Consideration Request (CCR) process. The session, which was a discussion-only briefing, concluded with an executive session from 3:50 PM to 4:25 PM and adjourned without any votes.

Discussion Items

• Mayor Jones: Opened the discussion, outlining three enhancements to the CCR process: (1) requiring the city manager to initial the CCR to confirm notification, (2) requiring the city attorney to conduct an early legal review within 96 hours if legal concerns arise, and (3) requesting a brief statement from sponsors on how the CCR relates to core city services. The mayor emphasized these changes are designed to increase efficiency and reduce legal risk, and that the city attorney has affirmed they do not conflict with the existing ordinance. He also noted that over 30 CCRs died on the vine in the previous administration, indicating room for improvement.

• Councilwoman Castillo: Expressed preference for keeping the current council-adopted CCR process and argued that any proposed changes should be voted on by the full council. She challenged the city attorney’s interpretation, citing an example where a persistent CCR on auto and metal recyclers succeeded despite being initially deemed preempted by state law.

• Councilman White: Provided historical context on the CCR ordinance, noting he helped amend it two years ago. He argued that the proposed enhancements conflict with the ordinance and should only be made through a council vote. He opposed requiring the city manager’s signature (preferring informal notification) and opposed the early legal review, stating the current ordinance allows legal review only after a CCR goes to governance committee. He also opposed refiling CCRs uncompleted from the previous term.

• Councilwoman Alderete Gavito: Supported keeping the existing process, expressing concern that early legal review could allow unelected staff to stall or veto council initiatives. She shared an example of a loose and dangerous dog policy that initially faced legal obstacles but eventually succeeded through persistence.

• Councilwoman Via Gran: Encouraged collaboration and suggested formalizing some aspects but recommended that any changes go through committee first.

• Councilwoman Spears: Raised concerns about potential delays with the four-day legal review and worried that future mayors could weaponize the process to slow CCRs.

• Councilwoman Galvan: Asked clarifying questions about what happens if prerequisites are not met. She indicated discomfort with the new changes and preferred full council discussion and a vote before adopting any modifications.

• Councilwoman Cor: Suggested resetting norms rather than changing process. She raised the issue of what happens to CCRs when a council member leaves office, recommending that this be addressed in the ordinance. She also suggested using DocuSign to streamline signatures.

• Councilwoman Meza Gonzalez: Sought clarification on the proposed changes and on the refiling of existing CCRs. She expressed preference for sticking with the current process and having any changes approved by the full council.

• Councilman White (second round): Argued against refiling existing CCRs, stating it disrespects the work and public investment already made. He noted that the ordinance currently is silent on expiration of CCRs.

• Councilwoman Alderete Gavito (second round): Opposed wiping away months of work on CCRs like the cluster mailbox initiative, calling it disrespectful and wasteful.

• Mayor Jones (closing): Reiterated that the enhancements are simple, non-delaying, and within the legal authority of the current ordinance. He acknowledged scar tissue from previous administrations but stated his intent is to move faster and minimize risk.

• City Manager Eric: Stated he is agnostic on the process and willing to work with whatever the council decides.

• City Attorney Andy Segovia: Affirmed that the proposed enhancements are not contradictory to the ordinance, are supplemental, and are within the council’s prerogative. He clarified that he did not author the mayor’s memo. He also noted that the legal environment has become more complex, warranting earlier legal review.

• Refiling of Existing CCRs: The mayor stated that CCRs not completed in the previous term need to be refiled to give respect to newly elected council members. Several council members opposed this, arguing it undermines ongoing work and should be addressed by ordinance.

Key Outcomes

• No votes were taken; the session was a discussion-only briefing.
• A majority of council members expressed that any amendments to the CCR ordinance should be decided by a full council vote rather than unilaterally by the mayor.
• The mayor stated he would take the council’s feedback under advisement.
• The city attorney reaffirmed the legal basis for the enhancements as supplemental.
• The meeting adjourned at 4:25 PM after an executive session with no action taken.