City Council - Regular Meeting

It is 6.30 and I'm calling to order the Elgin City Council meeting on September the 15th, 2026. And we'll begin with roll call. We'll begin with Mayor Pro Tem Love. Love here. Mayfield here.

Krim here.

Pena here. McShann here. Hyman here.

Gibson here. Celia here.

And we are missing Deputy Mayor Pro Tem St. Pierre due to surgery. And so I need a motion. I'll make a motion to approve.

I second.

It's been moved and seconded. We'll begin with Mayor Pro Tem Love. Love, yes. Mayfield, yes.

Krim, yes.

Pena, yes. McChin, yes. Hymas, yes.

Gibson, yes. Silva, yes.

We'll stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

The invocation.

Oh. Excuse me. I guess because it said you. All right. It's my turn. OK, we bow our heads, please. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for bringing us together tonight and for the opportunity to serve our community. Please give us clarity in all our decisions, compassion in all our discussions, and tolerance and understanding toward one another. Help us to listen before we speak, to respect our differences, and to remember that we are all working toward the same goal, the betterment of our city and the people we are privileged to serve. Lord, we especially lift up our Deputy Mayor Pro Tem St. Pierre. We ask that you place your healing hands upon her, give her strength and comfort and peace, and grant her a speedy and complete recovery. Continue to bless our council, our city staff, our first responders, and the citizens of our community. Guide us tonight with wisdom and unity. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Amen.

Now stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the city, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible,

We're now open to our public hearing on budget and tax rates. This budget.

Okay.

OK, this is our second reading on proposed FY 2026 2027 annual budget for the city of Elgin, Texas. This budget will raise more total property taxes than last year's budget by $955,681. And of that amount, $311,659 is tax revenue to be raised for new property added to the tax roll this year. It is now open. Our public hearing is now open. And it's 6.33 and we're closing the public hearing for the proposed rate. Now we'll go on to the tax rate. Public hearing in the second reading on proposed FY2026-2027 property tax rate for the city of Elgin. And it's 6.34 and that hearing is open. It is still 634 and we are closing that public hearing. We're now open for our public comment. And we have three minutes. And we have Jeannie Senter.

Good evening. I just have a couple of questions on number 10 of the agenda tonight, item 2. And I'm just curious if this authorization is for a specific piece of property, like a one-time deal? Is this for the property purchase of some property that's currently owned by EDC. And then my last question is, I wasn't understanding what the last phrase about and making certain findings related to thereto. I was just wondering what that meant. Thank you.

Justin Compton.

City Council, it's great to see you all again. I wanted to start tonight just with a thank you for the engagement that I received last week and with the follow up emails that I sent to you all and I appreciate the responses that I received from some of you and the dialogue that we were able to have. I have three things I want to touch on tonight, as time allows. First, for the flock cameras. Flock cameras and other automated license plate readers are not the same tool as a security camera, nor do they save the same purpose as a traditional piece of technology. A storefront or a corridor camera in a public space records that place that it's looking at. When an incident occurs, someone reviews the footage for that time period. It's local and periodic to that situation. An AOPR system reads every plate that passes. It can fingerprint the vehicles by the make, the model, the color, stickers, racks, dents, anything that can be a unique identifier for the vehicle, not just a partial plate or a full license plate. It builds and retains a searchable log of ordinary driving, and outside agencies far beyond Elgin could potentially query that history. It is a network driving diary, not a camera on the corner. And so second of my three points, there's a common question about public spaces, as some people bring up the objection that once you're in public, you give up any claim to your privacy. Being seen in public on a sidewalk while you walk through, for instance, our amazing downtown area is not the same thing as having your every trip logged, stored in a searchable database that can be accessed weeks or months later. even without a warrant being tied to you as a suspect for a particular crime or situation. Your errands, my errands, the everyday trips of our fellow residents here shouldn't be feeding a regional lookup network just by default of being on our public roads. Public space doesn't mean a permanent searchable tracking of everyone who drives past a pole that's just there on the side. Lastly, many cities around us have already reversed course on the flock cameras. That's not because they suddenly stopped caring about crime or wanting to protect their citizens. Austin ended its flock camera program after public and their city council pushed back on privacy and data sharing risks. Bastrop just unanimously terminated and decommissioned theirs and barred future ALPR and vehicle surveillance contracts over how plate data is accessed, stored, and shared. Then Pflugerville ended its contract after records showed roughly 1.6 million plate searches by about 459 outside organizations in six months, compared to only a few thousand city searches. The common thread here isn't anti-police or pro-crime. It's that always-on networked plate tracking outruns local control, public trust, and often both. As our elected officials, I ask you to cancel the subscriptions and bring down the flock cameras that we have here in our city. Thank you.

Marilyn Kalinsky.

Good evening, council members. I am here to address the issue of the wastewater treatment proposed for the Liddick area. I do own land on Liddick Road. And the land that's being considered carries historical significance. It is part of the land originally purchased for the establishment of Liddick. The town of Littig is currently experiencing a resurgence of efforts documenting its importance in Texas, and even America's history, as the establishment of a freed slaves community. They're also tracking its heritage, the original inhabitants and their descendants, etc. To ignore this effort and place a wastewater treatment plant on this seems to be trying to scuttle the efforts to preserve the heritage of this community. There are other land options available and I would seriously ask you to consider an alternative to that location. Thank you.

John Beale.

Fellow volunteers, we at the Wilbarger Creek Conservation Alliance are excited to bring this community a gift, a precious gift, the Wilbarger Creek Greenway, which at about 4,000 acres may be the largest park in Travis County. And it extends a little bit into Bastrop County. It is right across the street from your proposed sewage treatment plant. As elected officials, you have the difficult and complex task of making the best long-term decisions for all of the individuals and families under your care. The developers, their bankers, and engineers, want to move fast before the market changes. Speed, however, does not always lead to the best public decisions. This appears to be the case where, to avoid public participation, the erroneous boxes were checked on your application. Two regional sewage treatment plants, one by Mainer and yours, are within a mile of each other, each calling themselves regional. This doesn't make economic or environmental sense. Both proposed plants are in the wrong place. Considering our shortage of water cleaning up the discharge for reuse would benefit the entire region The potential for reuse is tremendous Two weeks ago an agreement on Salado Creek included both reuse and the most recent technology membrane technology Over the past two years, all 31 sewage treatment plant permits applied for west of Interstate 35 had a reuse component. Every single one of them. None east of I-35. Mayor, please call the mayor of Manor to see what is possible. Thank you.

Gina Gonzalez.

Hi. Good evening, Council, Mayor.

Tonight I want to talk about something a little different than what I usually talk about. We spent a lot of time discussing whether this wastewater treatment plant should be built in Liddick, but I think there's another question that deserves to be asked, especially by a community where many of us pay taxes to Bastrop County and have Elgin written on our addresses, yet do not have a vote in the city decisions that can profoundly affect our future. What responsibility does the city of Elgin have for what happens to Liddick after this plant is built? A six million gallon plant of wastewater treatment per day isn't a temporary decision. That infrastructure is being placed here could influence development and land use decisions for generations. So what's in the city's vision for LIDC in the next 10, 20, 30 years? And what protections are being considered today to make sure a historical rural community still exists then? Because preservation isn't just simply somebody making sure somebody doesn't bulldoze your church or your cemetery. It's caring for the community as a whole. Litig is a living cultural landscape. It's the farms, ranches, the open land, the waterways, the generational families, ranches, the church and the cemetery, and the relationship, all those things tied together. You can leave every historic building, but Lydic will still be Lydic. I understand that Elgin has a responsibility to prepare for growth, but I believe there is another responsibility that comes with that, to consider what the growth cost of the community is being asked to accommodate it. And I think we also have to be conscious of a larger history. Too often, land that once carried a burden of plantations and exploitation later becomes the land asked to carry society's pollution and unwanted infrastructure. Liddick was once a plantation. Generations before us transformed that land into community farms, homes, churches, and black land ownership, as well as a variety of land ownership. We should be asking whether the decisions today we make today honor that transformation or begin reversing it. The people making this decision today may not be sitting here 20 years from now, but me, my family, LIDIC will still be living with those consequences. So before the project moves forward, I want to ask the city a very simple question. What are you doing today to ensure that LITIC still exists as LITIC after the growth and infrastructure is being built to support arrives? Because if LITIC looks completely different in 25 years from now because of decisions made today, we shouldn't have to look back and ask why nobody thought about what we could do when there was still time. Thank you so much, guys. Have a great day.

OK. That's it for our public comment. We'll move on to our announcements.

Good evening, Council and Mayor. Brigham Anderson, Recreation Program Manager. We have a lot of fun, exciting things coming up the next couple weeks for the city to attend. First off, we have Viva Elgin, Hispanic Heritage Month celebration this Saturday, September 19th at Veterans Memorial Park from 4 PM to 9 PM. And we have Rec Rally on Saturday, September 26th at Elgin Memorial Park from 8 to 2. The Great Pumpkin Bash on Sunday, October 11th at the Elgin Recreation Center from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. We have an adult co-ed kickball league that will be on Thursdays from October 1st to November 19th with registrations closing September 23rd at Elgin Memorial Park, games starting at 6 p.m. Book Bingo, every third Friday starting Friday, September 18th at the Elgin Public Library, 2 p.m. Step Into Peace, DIY doormats, Tuesday, September at Elgin Public Library, the 22nd. Trivia Night, Friday, September 25th at the Elgin Public Library at 7 p.m. Elgin Public Library Star Party, October 10th from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. following October 3rd at Elgin Public Library from 10 to 1. And finally, the Elgin Police Department will celebrate National Night Out on October 6th evening. Thank you.

We now have a proclamation recognizing September 15th through October 15th, 2026 as Hispanic Heritage Month. Whereas Hispanic Heritage Month originally began in 1968 for a week under President Johnson and extended to a month in 1988 by President Reagan, is now observed throughout the nation during September 15th through October 15th. And whereas the city of Elgin promotes an inclusive community by offering events and programs that encourage arts and culture that celebrate all unique and different backgrounds in Elgin. And whereas the population of Elgin, Texas is 52.56% of Hispanic origin, and whereas the Hispanic community has made contribution to the culture of Elgin, which is reflected in design of the Veterans Memorial Park expansion, and whereas Hispanic Heritage Month showcases the important contributions of Hispanic and Latino community have made to the city and recognizing the diverse cultures, histories, and their perseverance. Whereas the City of Elgin Parks and Recreation Department participates in the City of Elgin Dia de los Muertos celebration on the first week of November every year. And whereas the City of Elgin Parks and Recreation Department is hosting the second annual Hispanic Heritage Month celebration on Saturday, September the 19th, encouraging citizens to attend and learn more about Hispanic and Latino culture. And now, therefore, I, Theresa McShan, Mayor of the City of Elgin, do hereby proclaim Tuesday, September the 15th through Thursday, October the 15th as Hispanic Heritage Month, and I urge all citizens to celebrate and recognize the diverse cultures. In witness whereof, I have hereto set my hand and cause the seal of the City of Elgin to be affixed this 15th day of September 2026.

And we do have someone to...

Okay.

Well, now I'm moving to our consent agenda, which is one, the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes, August the 25th. Number two, City Council Special Meeting Minutes, September the 3rd, 2026. And the other, everything else on here is considered with the Hawkeye Festival that's coming up. Number three is the closing of the streets and on Friday, for the Hog Eye Festival Street Dance on February, October 23rd from 4 p.m. to midnight on Depot Street, from Main Street to Avenue A for the Free Street Dance, and on Saturday, October the 24th from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., the Festival Grounds Loop 109 Main Street from the 400 block of North Main Street to the 200 block of South Main Street, Austin Street, First Street, Second Street from the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to Avenue A, Central Avenue and Depot Street from Main Street to Avenue A. Number four is a resolution for the city council authorizing execution and of an agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation for temporary closure of the state of Right-of-Way. And number five is a request to waiver the restrictions imposed by Chapter 8, Article 2, Section 8.22 of the City of Elgin Code Ordinances as it pertains to the possession of open container on October the 22nd, 23rd, 24th for the 39th Annual Hawkeye Festival. And number six is consider waiving requests for Veterans Park rental fees and close the streets along the parade route. West Second Street and Depot Street from North Avenue C to North Main Street. From the North Main Street from West Second Street to Depot Street for the Elgin Independent School District Homecoming Walking Parade on Wednesday, October the 21st from 5 to 8 PM. Request for police department and public works assistance as needed. Do we need to pull anything? Any questions?

We'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as is.

I second the motion.

OK. It's been moved by Love and seconded by Axel. And we'll begin with Councilmember Love.

Love, yes. Mayfield, yes.

Krim, yes.

Pena, yes.

McShann, yes.

Hymas, yes.

Gibson, yes. Silva, yes.

And we'll move on to new business. An ordinance de-annexing 1.93 acres more or less across 17 lots from the full purpose corporate limits of the city of Elgin in support of the lawn farm municipal utility district providing for a continuing effect of the development agreement preserving the city's rights and powers providing for amendment of the city's official boundary map and making certain findings related to.

Yes, council, this is the acreage that was annexed in by the city, about 10 for 52 lots. They have the ability to formally request to de-annex those lots for that acreage, and this is the first one that they have submitted.

I've got a couple quick questions. So was the city expecting to receive any, tax revenue, or is there any revenue that we budgeted for that we wouldn't be seeing as a result? There is not. OK. And the last one is, do we incur any obligations as a result of this annexation? No. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions? You have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve.

And I'll second.

Moved by Love and seconded by Gibson. We'll begin with Mayor Pro Tem Love.

Love, yes. Mayfield, yes.

Krim, yes.

Pena, yes. McShann, yes.

Hymas, yes.

Gibson, yes. Silva, yes.

It is 6.55 and we are going into executive session as according to 551.071 consultation with our attorney.

Thank you.

It's 7.22 and we're reconvening into our regular session. We'll have Kaylee come up and speak to our number two.

So just to provide a little bit of clarification, so due to the posting requirement dates of when this agenda had to be posted versus when the EDC board met on September 9th, the EDC board had a couple questions for clarification that we're waiting for responses from our legal counsel. So once we have those questions answered, we will bring a more formalized agreement back to you guys.

Okay, what motion the table is? We have a motion. Second.

I'll second. We'll begin with Mayor Pro Tem Love. Love, yes. Mayfield, yes.

Creme, yes.

Pena, yes. McShane, yes. Hines, yes.

Gibson, yes. Silva, yes.

We'll move on to number three, a resolution of the city of Belkin authorizing the city staff to submit public comment on the Texas Water Development Board 2007 State Water Plan and making certain findings related thereto.

Evening, Council. Michael Gonzales, Director of Public Works. The Texas Water Development Board put out the 2027 State Water Plan. This is the first amendment to that plan. And public comment is open on that plan up until the 25th. We as staff felt it was probably the easiest and cleanest for us to submit public comment that the council wanted via their online portal. We're pretty, in general, supportive of the plan. As you may remember, we enlisted the help of Kimley Horn engineers go for a grant for $12 million, and so we're pretty supportive of anything the Texas Water Development Board does at this point. But if there's specific language you'd like us to include in our letterhead, we can do that. If you trust us to go forward with the letter that Beau and I developed, we can do that as well.

So I know I don't have to say this, and you already know, but we want to ensure that whatever we say is consistent with what we're saying in our grants, right?

That's the undertaking for sure.

No, that's good. I'm glad you guys have the opportunity to do that. I know it's a short window, but I appreciate it. This goes back to like 1950 when the first drought happened in Texas that was so severe that they said we're going to start a water plant for the state. And they've been doing it since then every so many years.

I appreciate it. Yeah. If there's nothing else, we'll put that letter together, sign it either with Bo and myself, and submit that before the deadline.

Anybody with any special comments you want made on that one? What's going on with that? OK, we have a motion.

Smarter men than me are doing this together. I'll make a motion.

I'll second. That's been moved by Council Member Crown and seconded by Council Member I mean I got your mother in my mind.

No that's not her name.

Okay, we'll begin with Councilmember Krim.

Krim, yes.

Pena, yes. McShane, yes. Hymas, yes.

Gibson, yes. Silva, yes.

Love, yes. Mayfield, yes.

Okay, number four, an ordinance providing and adopting a budget for the city of Elgin, Texas for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, 2026 and ending September the 30th, 2027 in accordance to the local government code of the state of Texas and ordinance and rules of the city of Elgin, Texas appropriating the various amounts thereof and repealing all ordinances or reports, parts of ordinances in conflict therein. We had a discussion, Bowie, you wanna?

Yes. So council last week, I think we had a very good, productive meeting and kind of went through the budget workshop where we left was there's somewhat of a consensus on two potential different options. And council asked me to put those together of what those exactly tailored out to be. I think on the next slide, Peyton, we should have. Looking for my slides now. She didn't put them in. Okay. um the basic yeah they're there i knew i had them maybe it's blank maybe you don't yeah it's still blank so the ones that were emailed to you guys over the weekend those that have them printed out you can make if you look over them it was basically I'm not going to go through all the decimals we will have to do that later but basically I'm a refer to it sixty eight cents and sixty seven cents yeah same numbers that we went through before if you were to pass the sixty eight cents how much money would be available to spend out of the general fund and then the same number the six six six one eight eight if you pass the sixty seven cents We gave you the numbers for the new positions. It was kind of a consensus to come out assuming those new positions all would start in January. So that's what the total cost to the general fund would be for those positions in January. And then basically looked at all the different comp study and then based on what was left, the delta amount to spend in the new positions, put forth two different comp plans that came from staff review. Essentially, it's option number four, and we'll go into details if we need to on what option four is all over again, but one would be a start date of January, and one would be a start date of March, essentially. And that's the difference. Council Member Krim wanted to see the impact to taxpayer with the tax bill annual and monthly increase of the difference of those two and then the totality of what you would see. So that has all been provided to council to look at. And we are here to answer any additional questions that you might have or scenarios or anything that was not covered in the budget workshop that you felt was still a concern for you.

Amen.

Does that look like the one that we reviewed last week. Yes.

So if you pull the both of those numbers the seven eighty three nine thirty nine is on there. And so is the six six six one eight eight. Right. So those are the two different scenarios we walked out of. Yes. Last week that council wanted us to run the numbers on.

So for some reason I have highlighted the

You mean the tax rate, 665?

Yeah, with a budget of 548, 439. And I don't remember being the only one talking about that. So I don't know if anybody else.

I recall the last conversation he had, he clarified we only wanted to look at these two, .68 and .67.

And that was the consensus.

We all shook our head and said yes.

Remember, if a council member wants to look at one more number, we can.

I'm absolutely okay with it. I just want to clarify, when we walked out of here, this is where we walked away.

So if there's another number, we need to throw that out now. So we can get it. So they can start working. That way we can look at any number that y'all.

But just know that anything goes lower, we do less. Correct.

So essentially what you're looking at, the difference between the 67 and the 66, so that would be the $666,188, which is the 67 cents. I know a little confusing there. Versus the 65, that's about $119,000. If you look on the slides that I provided you guys, the over-under or the over-short for the 67 cent rate option was about 84,000 or 85,000 almost exactly. so you're if you did go if that became an option council wanted to discuss that would leave a little bit of a short uh plus or minus probably just under 30-ish let's see that'd be let me do on that 15 35 000 plus or minus that you would be short okay i don't think it would change staff's recommendation of option four in march to go that direction and we would just need to find that 40 odd thousand back throughout the budget somewhere in there how much is that uh the three percent in the uh that is part of option four right right but i we don't have it extrapolated to pull out bits and pieces of Basically, we had those four options plus that fifth option, but we don't have the ability to go and come back without time and effort to come back with infinite amount of options of redoing the college study. Not infinite, like three, but I hear you.

So Pam, do you have any idea what that cost would be? What we're looking at is the 3% that's added to. I'm thinking it's 3% of the total. It's probably. Reduce it by 3%. That would be what it is.

So you're basically at, you want the option of the TIP and the benchmark, but you want no raise included. So that's option two, ma'am.

Bring to minimum and time and position.

And no raise. Was option five. I think that's a raise. Option five only.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

Time and position is a raise. And the bring to minimum is a raise. But I know you're saying no raise with a 3%. I'm just saying no raise. Yeah, across the board. Yeah. No, no, across the board, 3%. How much is 3% of how much are we talking about?

The way that the consultant worded it was everybody, all employees would get at least a 3% increase out of the compensation study. That was option four.

At least.

At least.

So... Right now, I need to go back and look at the overall cost for option four, starting in March. That was how much?

Starting in March, the option four was $325,240, starting in March. So that was based on 67, though, right? This price doesn't change. That's fixed with that. This is the price for January. Gotcha.

Man, my mind was working great a minute ago, and now I'm in number dyslexia. So is that somewhere in the neighborhood of 30, like... Less than 30K, right? Less than 30,000. 10% is 30, I'm thinking... 10% is 32, one third of that is 10 point change, four, 10 point somewhere around there.

So Pam, option number two was bring to minimum and time and possession only across the board?

No, it was bring to minimum and comp ratio.

It was comp ratio, bring to minimum.

The closest thing that he's asking for would be option five. yes which was and it really would impact the 34 36 employees 34 to 36 employees which bring the minimum in time and possession of the total so those would be the ones that would be impacted and that cost for that option five that we presented last week was just under $300,000 total. So you're talking about it's about a $25,000 difference there, Roland, if you started one in January versus the other one starting in March.

And we were short how much? About $35,000. $35,000.

would still not cover that? Is that what we're saying? I mean, if we get it close enough, we'll go back through the budget to find where those dollars can be to reallocate. Because I'm going to have to, unless you pass the 68, we're going to have to bring back, you're going to have to approve a budget and then tell us to make the changes to match that budget that you have. But that would only come into play if you were planning on potentially going down to the 66. Right.

So I like the idea of bring to minimum. We want to bring staff up, get them at that level where we know we're matching at least 90% of our employees.

And they wouldn't be going anywhere.

And then the time and position, I'm kind of, you know, like I was saying, I'm more of a merit guy. I believe in merit pay. But if this is a one-time thing, which I may have misunderstood before, I thought it was something that was going to continue to increment as they stayed in there. This is a one-time thing.

No, it's not a step system. It's a one-time thing. Time and position is where your experience is recognized and valued.

right so so i'm i'm good with that like 90 and that's okay because we want staff that are actually out there doing a great job and they've been there a long time and we want to be we want them to be recognized and get the appropriate pay yes my concern is for those that aren't doing a bang up job But that's okay. We're right now trying to close that gap and create, recalibrate, I guess is the word. Okay, the buzzword is recalibrate. And build that staff up. And I like that. Looking at the rates, I mean, pay scale is good here in this compensation study. So I'm thinking 3% on top of that, that is kind of like, well, I'd rather we look at how things go without it for now and maybe.

It's not 3% on top.

It's not 3% on top of that. I want to be clear about that. So it's a minimum of all staff would get at least a 3%. There are some people that are going to see more than 3% because of, time and position or brought to minimum they're going to see larger increases of three percent but that three percent is that every staff member at a minimum would have a three percent increase it's not that they would be brought to minimum time and position and then you just put 10 okay because i heard i heard that it wasn't going to increase right that it was going to everybody was getting the three percent it's going to ensure that every employer receives at least three percent so if

Yeah, I get it. Anybody out there? No, that was what I understood.

I just wanted to clarify that. That's two different things for sure, but I would understand your concern. But it would be assuring because if you just did bring to minimum and time and position, there will be a lot of employees that will have no increase whatsoever. And you're not doing COLA or anything else. So it'd just be flat across. And if it was option five, how many staff do we have? 30.

34, 43, I can't remember the number.

34, 33 would see an increase and the rest of the staff on the city would not.

For the bring to minimum, right? That doesn't count for those with time and position, right? There are others.

Bring to minimum is separate from time and position.

So totally. total number of employees affected from bring to minimum and time and position is only 34 employees. They either fit one of those two buckets and everything, that's it. That's what we discussed last week.

I heard that there were 30-ish that were just needed to be brought to minimum.

No, it was added together on, and I don't have the slide with me, but I broke it down by bring to minimum, time and position, and the 3%.

So that's a distinction. So option five that we talked about last week as a cost, it was bring to minimum and time in position. And ultimately, if you took all the employees across the board that that could potentially affect, it was 34 total employees. So if you went with that as an option, 34 employees would be impacted and would have a raise of some kind of percentage, not necessarily 3%, it might be more, it might be less, but those positions and those employees in those positions would be impacted. any other positions across the board, there would be no change. Okay, so it's not at least 3%?

There's some that are going to get less than 3%? No.

That's option five. You keep talking about option five. Okay. If you go option five with no 3% minimum across the board, only 34 employees are going to see a difference in their paycheck. OK. And with option four, how many? Option four, every employee across the board will see some kind of a minimum of a 3%. So that's the difference.

It's a $50,000 difference from four to five.

Okay, and then the 67.

And just to clarify, Pat, for all of these, the police numbers are already included in this number, so. In the total number, yes. Yes, that total number that you're seeing for comp study, option four, the police portion, if you remember, was, I believe, 205, 206. The lion's share. That was across the board, yes. So that's already incorporated.

Okay, and we're saying 67 covers that.

67 would cover the police and option for which would be starting in March, which would be starting in March.

Okay.

I'm just clarifying that if you were to go if your recommendation or asking of it, I might have misinterpreted you but if you were asking if we went down below the 67 even further would our option that we would put forth to what we would move forward with the comp study change the answer would be no because we still feel that option four would be the best it would just be a March timeframe So with the 66, you could still do option four. We would still be pushing around. We would have to go back and find the $35,000 short throughout.

One Kubota tractor.

Not as easy as that, but something like that. I won't do that, but we would go back and find that.

Well, that that's that's good news, I think, too, too lovely. Right. And I would I would go with the six, six, six, seven, six, seven.

No, no.

He's saying he wants to go lower to six, six, five.

Was it. Oh, it is six, six, five, eight, seven, three. And you said you could still figure out how to get option four, but you'd be 30 K short.

Yes, we would have to go back into that. That would be obviously one of the things we'd go back through the budget to find that. But I think, Pam, that's close enough that we could probably find that throughout.

And let's let's be clear. If we do this calculation, We can't go, we won't have time to go back and do another one. So we gotta be sure, if anybody has another number they wanna look at, let's talk about it right now.

Yeah, exactly, right? We coulda did this last week. That's what we were supposed to do last week. We shoulda did this last week. And I'm giving my position, right? So you guys have positions, bring them. Oh, we did. It's a good time to talk about it.

That way, yeah, y'all got a whole week.

folks I think we're nickel and diming this thing to death and the reason I say that the difference in the impact on the taxpayer between proposed 66 and the 67 or even the 68 Guys, we're making a correction here. If you know the history of the council, back in 23 and 24, I think is when they reduced the tax rate, they didn't do us any favors. They thought they were at the time, but they didn't do us any favors. Since 2020, this community has grown 40%, and it continues to grow at a rate of about 6% a year. We continue to add about 800 to 1,000 homes a year to this community.

It's almost one a day.

Almost one a day. And the thing is, if we look at even real conservative predictions, we're going to be servicing 20,000 people in a short period of time. And some people even go as high as maybe 40, 50,000 people by 20, you know, in 10 years. So my point is... i don't think we're doing the taxpayers any any justice by not continuing to try to protect their investment and that's these people that's our employees again i'll go back and say it a thousand times if you've got a guy if you've got a certified deep guy in water and waste water and you lose him it's going to cost you twenty thousand to forty thousand dollars to replace him overall after you've considered all of the certifications and all those things a police officer real conservative figure is anywhere from $50,000 to $80,000. So my point is, if we nickel and dime this thing, we're not doing the taxpayers any different. There's not a substantial impact on those folks to make it worth us not taking care of what we've invested, what, $50,000 in a comp study? $65,000 in a comp study? And we're really doing, I think we're doing a disservice if we don't try to make that, again, we're trying to run a 2026 budget on 2019 dollars. And excuse me, Bastrop, Elgin has the smallest budget. We do more with less. And I know there's people out there that argue with me all day long. We do more with less than any other community in Central Texas. We've got a $30 to $35 million budget. We're $10 million under Bastrop. And we've got the same population, or if not more. But what we don't have here that everybody else has around us is Bastrop collects $9.6 million in sales tax. We collect $3 million. It's not apples to apples, guys. We have to have a bigger budget. And unfortunately, we don't have the retail tax base or the tech tax base to do it with. It solely comes from property taxes in Elgin. That's all we have right now. We will have. that in the future, but we don't have it now. And so we're having to play, we're making a correction of what was done five, six, eight years ago, and unfortunately, in my opinion, if we don't do it now, we're gonna do it later, and it's gonna be a bigger impact on people. And you're still carrying forth is it it's what the definition doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is insanity and We I think we're in a position where we have to raise taxes So what option is it that you're looking at in terms of the study? I'm honestly it at the least that goes to this 67 and

No, in options.

Oh, in option four.

So option four. So that's no different from what I'm saying and from what Bo is saying can be done. So I don't think that's insanity, right? Because we're both going for the same option.

Yeah, no, but I'm just saying to reduce the tax rate any lower and put these guys in a position to have to go dig up. I mean, the impact. They're going to have to find the money. They're going to have to find the money. And the impact is going to be so minuscule. Again, I'm not making light of $100. Yeah, I wouldn't say that.

But I'm telling you.

$100 is a lot of money.

Yeah, I'm for staff and citizens, so we got to think about both. Somebody wants to look at all the numbers. That's where we do our due diligence. We look at all the numbers.

I'm just saying if you don't do it now you'll do it to him later which is going to be worse.

Yeah I think that that's yeah and they're coming to me and they're coming from all directions right. So we have a federal 65 and up right. Yeah.

No, they're paying taxes. They're just frozen. I appreciate what you're saying, Liston.

And I understand your position. And this is the right time, right? So I'm going to stop talking.

Got it. Again, I just think the council from years ago can't go, you know, whatever somebody did back then is what they did. But my point is I don't think they did us any favor now because at the rate we're growing, you know, we've grown 40% since 2020. Our staff hasn't grown 40% since 2020. And, again, if you... If you're just being reactive in terms of, we're not fixing whole streets anymore, we're just patching potholes. And unless we got the money to do the work, we can't do it. So that's my point.

I agree. We definitely need to account for what's coming in, right?

So Roland, do you want the calculation for the 0.66? Because they need to know that to go back.

or what would you be looking for on that I mean ultimately I don't think I need anything else is that what we just discussed if you if you guys move forward tonight just so everybody is clear essentially you need 6 days to adopt the budget and the tax rate. So six out of the eight present today have to vote yay for whichever of the options. We were at 68 and 67 when we left the budget workshop. Now it kinda sounds like we might have someone with 66 in as well. One of those three options, we've gotta have six of you to vote yes for in order to adopt. the budget if we don't think we're going to get to that tonight.

We still have next week.

We have next week. But that is the right. That's it.

I think everybody understands like that's it. But if there's still somebody like this, there's still questions, then I think it's right to for all that to be answered and whatnot. That way everybody is clear minded and there's no doubt

once this come out because once it is it's done so if there's any doubt and you have the six six so we know for sure that we want that looked at well i mean at the end of the day all it if it was up to staff or you said what would we go and budget we're going to go try to find cuts because we don't see could go with option five but we don't see that that's a long-term fix from the comp study that is at the end of the day option five is something we came up with that was not recommended by the consultants right that was side numbers city staff trying to take what we could from the consultant and put together something to the side but it is not a true option that came from the consultant as a way from the comp study so I have a hard time.

You don't mean cuts and stacks, right?

When I say cuts is you're going not in staff, not FTEs, not in positions, but it's going through there and trying to find a way to make the math work. The option for We kind of went through that yesterday versus option three. It's actually better or cheaper on the option four than the option three that was put in when you actually look at what impact it would have to the general fund. That's why we're on option four versus three is we're only talking about general fund number impact, which is where the tax rate and everything goes. But we would still lean to option four. Obviously, you're talking about the month that you started in. Looking at that, I think each month is about $80. What was it? $60,000 a month difference is basically I think it was closer to 50. Okay. So between 50 and $60,000 is what it costs to move backwards each month with option four or move it up each month. And so, um, you know, the tax rate, if you, if you asked and you said, Hey, we're going to be over a little bit on that. that's what we have the unknowns for going into this next year and we do have some unknowns for sure uh when it comes through staffing and so on and so forth uh to kind of cover but we will get you whatever numbers you guys want to think i'm trying to get a consensus ultimately for the six votes i'm with you right yeah i mean i don't want to

say everybody needs to jump on board with what Roland thinks, obviously. And you guys?

Well, is the 0.67 tolerable for everybody and what we are trying to achieve?

0.67 is tolerable for me.

So if it's 0.67 that we can be tolerable with and accomplish the budget, not cutting any employees and we've got that three percent.

And a small push and I say we would go with the point six seven that's just me another thing we want to keep in mind too when we're talking about these numbers and salary and our tenured employees. If they start to decide they want to retire because we've got people at retirement age and we want to bring in staff that is at their level and hopefully above we've got to keep in mind those salaries if the salaries are low we're not going to be able to We're better staff now we may be able to retain our staff because they are they're happy and they like it, but everybody's going to leave at some point and to this just point the future we need to be recruiting people who are moving forward, yeah, and I'm not saying our 10 year people are but Everybody is getting to that point where, hey, it's time for me to relax. We do need people to push us forward. And we're going to need some more experienced staff and maybe some who had some more around the way expertise, too. And dollars are going to make a difference.

And I also think we're not progressive with our infrastructure and our employees and things like that. You know, these commercial endeavors that come into it, like Taylor and some of those places, they're looking at places that can afford them some capacity, not necessarily, you know, In other words, they're looking at communities that are flourishing and that sort of thing. And again, I look at it like maintenance on my car. I can do a little bit of maintenance every year and save my car, or I can wait until the engine explodes and then, you know. You pay more. You're going to pay more. The $100 we were talking about just a few minutes ago, to me, isn't a substantial impact to taxpayers. But I think what the end result is, if we don't do this, it's gonna be more than $100 impact on those folks in the future. So I think we have a responsibility to, anyway.

So that we're on the same page. We're not talking about not doing it, right? Because I think we're all talking about option four. So nobody's saying we're not going to do that.

We're all on option four.

And when you're saying that we got to pay our people, we're saying that we want to pay the people the same amount. So I'm not saying pay the people any different amount than from what you guys are saying. So I just want to put that level set out there just so that we all understand. I don't want less for our staff than what you want. you know, that waiting years and years is gonna cost you more. I think we did that already. The city's done that and here we are now where we're having to do this maintenance.

We're paying the price for what happened four or five years ago.

Right, and I think we all agree that we need to do it. I'm on board with that too. And we're all agreeing on the same options, so the same amount of raise or pay for the people. So I think on that level, we're on the ground. I think we may not, and I'll bring it up myself, is so we wind up with less additional revenue or.

Every penny is about one hundred and seventeen thousand and I think ninety five of that is what goes to the general fund.

Correct. So then. How many staff do we have positions do we have for staff that are not filled that are budgeted.

I don't know that off the top of my head I'm sorry. good estimate that are not budgeted none of our positions are not there but unfilled positions that are in the budget maybe five and that's 100k or more yeah at least okay so 100k now if there's money left over in this fiscal year we can't move that forward without you saying so

So what we're talking about is just right now, right now.

Right. Everything that's been placed in front of you guys, remember, we're budgeting on a zero begin, zero end.

Zero end. Right. No, and that's the way it should be. So I think we're all good with that.

So is that 6-7 looking OK?

The difference between the two is the implementation timeline.

Yeah.

From January to March.

Correct.

But with 6-7, you don't have to go hunt for money.

For 6-7, we're not hunting for money.

You'll have a little cushion.

$30,000. Let's say $40,000. $40,000. Again, reoccurring cost that's operational. So that is going in, and that just gets you to a zero game.

So let's say 6-7, are we going to be sitting here next year talking about having to— Increase taxes again because I know we just did it last year.

I mean my hope is that Eventually that Elgin takes off in terms of retail, but we were Supposedly the hottest thing going in in that in this corridor out here in terms of growth and And I think we've got some promising commercial growth ahead of us and that we would start sharing in some of the $9.6 million that Bastrop takes in every year for sales tax. So that's my hope.

So five, ten years from now when 290 reaches us, are we getting some portion of that?

You mean the toll road? Well, it'll bring in the growth, but you'll have that corridor, you know, for commercial.

So it'll bring in people, but I'm talking about are we getting any portion of the revenue that's generated? Oh, no, no, no.

They keep everything. You get to pay the toll.

You get to pay the toll. Hey, I do that today.

Yeah. So are we in agreement? I don't think so. On 6-7?

You have to pass the budget first. And the budget is written on 68 cents.

Yeah, so you would basically, if you were going to pass the budget, you would have to instruct us to write it based on the tax rate that's approved. But presumably, we'd have to know what tax rate it is you are approving.

And right now, we're sitting at 68 on paper. For the budget, right. We need to choose if we're going to keep it or go lower.

So the implication, and again, this is my naivete, right? So the implication of doing 68 on paper and then coming back and doing 67 on the actual tax.

You got to rewrite.

Yeah, we would have to rewrite the budget. Now what is done before in the council is you've approved a budget basically and said it's going to be approved on this tax rate and then staff has had to adjust the budget to what that would be, which would be putting in this other set of numbers basically and going through it. Because remember, the way we have the budget set, we kind of have what we think we're going to have in that new revenue. We have that 783-939 just sitting down there as other revenue. remember in the budget and so it'd be basically essentially changing that number to be whatever the rate ended up being so it would stay at the 68 it would go down to the 666 if it was the 67 or further down from that number I'm bringing you into the process of how those dollars are going to be allocated through all the workshops we've had in full transparency so that you can't say I approved a tax rate, but I don't know where the money went. And so you guys are you're having discussions on where the money is going to go, which is and you're tying that to the tax rate, which is perfectly fine. but that's more of how staff then moves forward once you've approved the budget and that's the way we presented it to you guys so you understand that once you approve it this is how it's going to be used I won't necessarily bring your receipt back, but I'll be able to show you that this is where where it happened. But tonight you if you were going to adopt a budget, you're either adopting the one that has been presented to you, which is based on 68 or you're we have to add the language to it that you're adopting it based on the tax rate that you will approve and then you've adopted the budget, staff will take a couple weeks to make sure it's all ready to go and then it would be posted. And that's very similar to what was done last year is, or you can adopt what you've been presented already, which is the 68th. But again, there's that single line item there that says other, and that's that revenue that we've been talking about how that would be spent.

And we still have one week left.

Right. Yes. I mean, if you guys know that 68 is off the table, then I would much rather you prefer you direct us to come back and I can present you a 67 budget. And that's what you would adopt at the next council. That would be a lot cleaner. That would be a lot cleaner. But for us, I mean, coming in here with two different budgets and then, or three different budgets, we're talking about now. I think we're past that.

I think we're out of 68.

Yeah, we're past that.

I want to hear from both because I do.

So I would like to see a budget at 67. Me personally. That's just me. One person.

And to be clear, what it's going to essentially be, it'll be the same budget, but in that other category of how low revenue, it'll be the 666-188. Where those monies are gonna go is what I've been presenting to you guys. We have the idea of the new positions and then you guys would approve a comp study if you notice tonight that is on the agenda, but we're not approving a comp study to move forward with until you guys have approved a budget and a tax rate. so those two line items we probably we will table and they would come back next week there's four four well all four you have budget tax rate reclassification and comp study that way you've approved it you know exactly where the money on the taxes are going at that point in time

Would it make more sense if we adopted a tax rate than the budget?

Yeah, but you can't. You can't.

I'm just saying.

Yes, it makes more sense. It does. There are smarter people out there. It's not like they want you to work harder. There are smarter people out there that decided.

So I'm going to nod my head to 6-7.

I'm not on six seven bringing a clean budget budget.

So so that what you'd have to have.

Right. But in order to have it in our, you know, right in our hands on our screen to make it make it legal.

Right. And six of us are prepared to vote for the six. Okay. The point is that you know, I'm just saying when they go rewrite this, we won't we're not going to go anywhere. Come back with something.

Move the goalposts one more time. No. No, I'm just saying no.

That's what you're saying, not do that. Yes, don't do that. Don't do that.

Yeah.

Yep.

So, I mean, ultimately, we want to make a, we would not be voting and approving the budget and tax rate tonight. We would just basically be tabling it, and we would bring back something next week for you guys. And I know what it is that you're looking for there. We would bring you a clean budget back on that.

A clean budget at 67 cents.

Yes. And a bunch of decimals after that. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, Ms. Pena.

I said, and those little numbers behind the point. Yes.

So 675873.

Do you have to vote to table it?

So we need a motion to table it. I motion to table.

I'll second.

Okay, what's the name of the council member, Pena? Pena, yes. McShann, yes. Hymas, yes.

Gibson, yes. Silva, yes.

Love, yes. Mayfield, yes.

Creme, yes.

And again, we've gone to five. We're moving to motion.

So moved. I'll make a motion to table number five under new business.

Second.

we'll give them council member gibson gibson yes yes love yes mayfield yes yes

I do want to pause on this one. So just to be clear with Council, we talked about the reclassification was there were two recommendations out of the comp study. One was a reclassification of, I would say, job descriptions and titles across the board that makes you more uniform with other municipalities and what we see in the industry today. The second recommendation was the one of the four different options when it actually came to the comp study portion. Staff's recommendation in talking to it is those are, we have them listed as two separate line items, basically, but we still do believe very strongly that the reclassification is important, irregardless of which option the council moves forward with. So we did have that set up to be after the budget, but I do want to be very clear that item number six you could move forward with, and that's not making a commitment to any kind of option, but it is something that the city does feel needs to be taken into account from the consultant, and it is something that on the staff side we do want to put forth.

but they already got paid right this isn't about paying them it's about no it's about city business city business their recommendations and instituting those reclassifications to our systems

it will not change pay or any of those things of that nature and pam if you want to chime in a little bit more but it's really just to reach making sure the job duties align because we had multiple categories that didn't necessarily align that could be one simple category that makes that portion of the city a lot better

So I provided counsel with the staffing summary last week and the front page lays out how that is written with the red highlights the blue font to let you know which positions were changed through the comp study and how many positions were assigned to each department.

And to be clear, that has nothing to, when we say comp study, the reclassification is not changing pays or anything of that nature across any of the staff. This is not a final document. It's just the reclassification. And we're still, are we still waiting on any of those or that it has been done?

I haven't put the numbers in for the positions.

So I'm asking you, is that going to be ready by next week? Yes.

And it will be written on the positions that we've had listed.

But we can move forward with this motion wise is there a reclassification shouldn't change anything structurally for it's going to change numbers because those new positions are the new positions haven't been put in so it would be better to table it table here because we have to add those few positions that's number six yes yeah I make a motion we table this particular item of the second.

All right, number seven. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Elgin, Texas, approving and adopting the city employee pay scales as recommended by the city's compensation consultant, establishing compensation ranges for approved position classifications, authorizing implementation in accordance with the adopted budget. And since we don't have a budget, we're going to have to.

to do all this over next week.

And I'll second. Second by Krim. Love, yes. Mayfield, yes. Krim, yes. Feeney, yes. McShane, yes.

Gibson, yes.

Silva, yes. All right, it is 8-12 and we're gonna go into executive session again. Pursuant to Texas government code 551.074, personnel matters, the city council will deliberate the appointment, employment and evaluation reassignment duties, discipline or dismissal of the city manager. And we will go into executive session. It is 8.35 and we're reconvening into regular session and there was no action to be taken in the executive session. It is 8.35 and we are adjourned.