[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6172325,"mediaKeyId","5389790-0daec1f53ff0042c8530e06b901604ad","parentId",5389790,"title","Council reviews FY2026 draft budget: elections, IT, CCPD/MEDC transfers and downtown projects highlighted","audioSeconds",4570,"startMs",3970000,"endMs",8540000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5389790-0daec1f53ff0042c8530e06b901604ad&start=3970&end=8540","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5389790-0daec1f53ff0042c8530e06b901604ad/thumbnail_3970000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6172325/Montgomery/Montgomery-County/Texas/Council-reviews-FY2026-draft-budget-elections-IT-CCPDMEDC-transfers-and-downtown-projects-highlighted","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6172325-227be2ef941a74c798f352c739b203de/orig.mp4?Expires=1776168917&Signature=NjxLje3FnMseLGpHH23PP5R0XHarEzIb9dkdI8mNMTEYn-eMW-4~gvlzFTy12hlqiVg4Skss2lGdpK7zhLJdO-SMqnLczaH441Xe5Gp61SYiFT-0ZBrqLEUQCcnEyAh3Nc3i4WRZ-QWXZc3vSHelG~XFm6W3LIEgAE001S-Peu5Vtmu0kKQNaiPnHYJHkj2izrjoQx-r0jCocCgkncHjtHZhK4nKP01lRDaiLPgFF24qFT4qDr5wNTiQh4zAl~JIF59sps6gSv3DMl~0zmyHULcIKtwQEf6gZ8qXxgqLwmZFzpzo4CQWaPpZFHj0nS8Y4KIvoN7tD~t8S7ffCS8egQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Montgomery, Texas","date","2025-07-15T13:56:55Z","article","Council reviewed the FY2026 budget packet line by line and flagged several items for adjustment and follow up, ranging from higher election costs to computer‑technology upgrades and capital transfers for downtown development.

Elections: Staff reported the city’s shared cost for the November election totaled $35,858 for the last event and recommended increasing the FY2026 election line from $30,000 to $40,000 to allow a margin for inflation and shared‑cost fluctuations among participating jurisdictions. Council asked staff to request an itemized bill from the county to clarify the large increase compared with prior years.

Computer and AV technology: Staff proposed multiple computer‑technology line items, including a new livestream platform subscription (~$1,900 annually), records‑management scanning (Laserfiche) costs, internet services, server replacement and switch upgrades. Staff said the council chambers livestreaming system is obsolete and repeatedly fails; they proposed a replacement platform and a modest contingency line so the city can replace microphones, cameras or other AV components without returning midyear for budget adjustments. Staff noted most purchases will be portable or transferable to planned new facilities.

CCPD / MEDC / downtown projects: The packet reflected a reallocation of MEDC‑sourced funds. Historically the EDC transferred $200,000 to capital projects; the EDC (MEDC) has shifted additional funds to support downtown improvements, including streets and waterline replacements tied to a private development in the downtown core. Staff said MEDC moved $296,000 for downtown improvements and that they expect to start sign production and construction work early next year. Council discussed procurement of locally made signs as a possible cost‑saving strategy.

Water/sewer capital and funding options: A councilmember raised the city’s need to fund a projected $14 million water project. Staff said the city has been evaluating funding options and noted a recent debt service piece had fallen off the current year; the council directed staff to refine funding scenarios after final property‑tax and revenue estimates are available and to report back at the next workshop. The council also noted that legislative proposals could change property‑tax calculation and that the city’s consultant for tax collection is building updated models; staff said they had not yet run the state‑legislature scenarios through those models.

Other budget items: Staff recommended increasing the records‑scanning and records‑management lines (Laserfiche) to enable document scanning and retention, increasing computer replacement and server funds to stagger hardware replacements, and creating a small audiovisual contingency line for council chambers equipment. Police and CCPD budget breakout: staff reviewed CCPD (special district) items, including vehicle outfitting, radar and radio repairs and a mix of personnel and capital lines; staff and the police chief said they would reconcile totals where Excel totals differed from packet subtotals.

No formal budget ordinance was adopted at the workshop. Staff will reconcile spreadsheet totals (noting one CCPD subtotal discrepancy), incorporate directions including the TMRS Option 2 illustration and the Evergreen pay‑scale adoption, and return an updated package and a summary of totals for the next budget workshop in August. Council asked that staff highlight where proposed changes would use reserves, debt service or ad valorem revenue.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","07/14/2025 Montgomery, TX Montgomery City Council Workshop Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Council examined FY2026 budget line items, including raising the November election estimate to $40,000, upgrades to livestream and records systems, CCPD and MEDC transfers to capital projects, and discussion of a planned $14 million water project; staff will return refined totals for the next workshop.","taxTitle","Montgomery, Montgomery County, Texas","taxId",59888,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6172331,"Council favors hybrid pay parity after Evergreen Solutions study; 10 employees would receive increases",1137,2473000,3610000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5389790-0daec1f53ff0042c8530e06b901604ad&start=2473&end=3610","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5389790-0daec1f53ff0042c8530e06b901604ad/thumbnail_2473000.jpg","/articles/6172331/Montgomery/Montgomery-County/Texas/Council-favors-hybrid-pay-parity-after-Evergreen-Solutions-study-10-employees-would-receive-increases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6172331-33b5693e1331d257abf75a7ba3fd40a7/orig.mp4?Expires=1776168917&Signature=JJR6Yf8grY3LXl4otzyUiXpVALW2CU1n7RLLnndiyKr1R0K~DC~bR2UznAqVRuEzNvgnlb0ORSEmKUNd8ln0mup9aZbgVzoTfb4BRDhUiAvP9ACtGdC57QGbotbipknZElKGJoSrql~i-GL6RNqTHABaSX2BSH31EVD1rmMcd77gmbXZn06PVNwjIOCi6oMwE~APwvBjQEpiISIzV3vf5V5RSvf5zpHv53W0JfOFWpL4jH64Ol~oM1563stNNwWm4M-l-inVej8-u5kwBHzhNsw5rtCOAfDHTCXhsIoBUYEdgKbk1MxX7Req3uZwsATqeU-cZ-hdqlBfNy68PbzTWQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Council reviewed the Evergreen Solutions compensation study and gave direction to adopt a hybrid parity approach to align salaries across the organization.

The consultant presented several options: a minimal bring‑to‑minimum, class parity, tenure parity, a hybrid approach and range placement adjustments. Staff summarized that the hybrid parity option would affect 10 employees and produce an identifiable cost to the FY2026 budget; one of the packet tables listed adjustments for employees by title and showed the resulting range placement and dollar impacts for selected examples. Councilmembers asked how the hybrid method treats years of service: the hybrid gives full credit for time in the employee’s current position and partial credit (half‑credit) for prior service in different titles, which makes it more targeted than a pure tenure approach and broader than a simple class parity.

Multiple councilmembers said they preferred the hybrid option as a middle ground that improves competitiveness without pushing many employees past range maximums. Staff said any new pay scale and related job‑description cleanups would be implemented with an effective date aligned to fiscal‑year budgeting (staff referenced an effective date of Oct. 1 in illustrative cost tables) and that the compensation changes would be adopted as part of the FY2026 budget package.

Job descriptions submitted by departments remain under review; staff returned many drafts to Evergreen for revision and said they will clean up strikeouts and finalize the titles and responsibilities prior to adoption. Council asked that department heads confirm the final job‑description wording for any positions where the recommended minimum experience or duties changed substantially.

No final ordinance was passed at the workshop. Staff will finalize job descriptions and include the hybrid parity pay scale in the budget adoption process; staff estimated roughly 10 employees would move upward under that option and presented example dollar adjustments for individual positions in the packet.","After reviewing Evergreen Solutions’ compensation study, councilmembers signaled consensus for the consultant’s hybrid parity approach, which staff says will bring 10 employees up to market and be adopted with the FY2026 budget.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6172336,"Council backs half‑day New Year’s Eve holiday, moves to reconcile vacation accrual policy",227,1231000,1458000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5389790-0daec1f53ff0042c8530e06b901604ad&start=1231&end=1458","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5389790-0daec1f53ff0042c8530e06b901604ad/thumbnail_1231000.jpg","/articles/6172336/Montgomery/Montgomery-County/Texas/Council-backs-halfday-New-Years-Eve-holiday-moves-to-reconcile-vacation-accrual-policy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6172336-e82b3aad02dea455f9b27300f5e535e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1776168917&Signature=SPVoPb3rM7LZ93plKqHZpTebq7bcsta~njn0-nwl8R5U4gItGbRt-FezyggSbVHvh478ukITwpGfVutSooJMXc80D3kYs78D-myU9TS1QT4220vc6OMhqgDJ6dD5nUojMK4Tnv616nAIrrfX9YCEfYpAlgcEooCfnbwej-MpValTyqdCsrH07u38UGP6kjPXD38bjo3Rrw47z-MkNknWz4bwuCriWzi33Z6GIJMhqTanG7DSEUYdQivEYg7n01-AR~IRV2C9WV9O0B9tvn1hNw3j6t8YVR9iENSsrq3HJDS4tLYFmH80YpyWGvNgD3MDtQcwkbIF9r0r1GdX5j71SQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Montgomery councilmembers reviewed proposed amendments to the city’s Policies and Procedures Manual on holidays and vacation leave and gave staff direction on how to reconcile the written policy with current payroll practice.

On holidays, council favored adding a half‑day for New Year’s Eve. Councilmembers said the office is rarely used that afternoon and that a half‑day would be convenient to employees; staff said the change would increase paid holidays to 12.5 days. The council agreed to bring the revision back for formal action at the July 22 meeting.

On vacation accrual, staff explained the discrepancy: the policy language currently reads as if employees earn 8 hours of vacation per month, but the payroll system actually accrues vacation per pay period (3.7 hours per pay period, 26 pay periods per year), which results in the same annual total but creates mid‑month differences for employees who leave mid‑period. Council members raised concerns about mid‑month hires and separations and asked whether changing practices or policy would be simpler.

The council’s direction was to modify the written policy to mirror payroll practice (accrual per pay period) so that the policy and the payroll system align. Councilmembers also discussed accrual caps: staff recommended removing an active accrual cap (so employees would not stop accruing once they hit a ceiling) while retaining the separation payout cap at 192 hours (the policy‑book maximum payout upon separation). The council emphasized that requests for time off must still be approved by supervisors and that the city wants employees to take vacation rather than accumulate excessive balances.

No final ordinance or policy adoption took place at the workshop. Staff will prepare a redline of the policy amendments—holidays and vacation accrual language plus the treatment of carryover and separation payout—for the July 22 council meeting that will be the formal action item.","Council supported adding a half‑day New Year’s Eve holiday and directed staff to amend the vacation accrual policy to match payroll accrual practice (3.7 hours per pay period), remove the active accrual cap, and retain a payout cap on separation.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6172341,"Montgomery discusses raising TMRS employee contribution, non-retroactive COLA deadline",322,123000,445000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5389790-0daec1f53ff0042c8530e06b901604ad&start=123&end=445","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5389790-0daec1f53ff0042c8530e06b901604ad/thumbnail_123000.jpg","/articles/6172341/Montgomery/Montgomery-County/Texas/Montgomery-discusses-raising-TMRS-employee-contribution-non-retroactive-COLA-deadline","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6172341-504a0eb93732f9cdf6ef2c4f5f87fac8/orig.mp4?Expires=1776168917&Signature=n4dr6oFMum1UKOlSLlcYzjrhfrWZQyT80wRnPMHlk6yWU2pyIGx4MEWxkHSnBB-Vonv1DqCn0WJPB3-4bXKS1-Mk8BggpzR6lr9nFUNiwubo5H825CfJy9FCC3Hii2Yc6eC5Vj0cdgPEslqdf6ja3sHd4o1wQtRXM12hC1vZRbINFv4sUCbvgwZvXMalfzl7nPMsh5gKBwBsup7Gl5qB9omi5rHKmhZ7QVGp2580FSGDJ8aaqeuUW5z8-u-q5i6raWpum-~rQxEZ8nm4D0Apbl5qXF6XvXqGLO~SpfENzCP7XA~BSwiiQA8ZDdEfUV4tzpYtB1yHlajmRcb7NrJQrA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Montgomery councilmembers and staff spent the workshop’s opening discussion examining changes to the city’s Texas Municipal Retirement System plan, including a possible increase in the employee contribution rate from 7% to 8% and a choice to adopt a new non‑retroactive COLA option that must be adopted this year.

City leaders said the change most directly affects employees’ paychecks and the city’s total payroll cost. A city survey of eligible employees returned 38 responses: 35 in favor of increasing the contribution to 8%, three opposed. The meeting’s presenter summarized plan designs showing how the city’s total contribution rate would change: with the city’s current plan design the 2026 total contribution rate would be 10.42% of payroll; moving employees to 8% would raise the total to roughly 12.48% under one illustration. Under an alternative that adopts a newly available non‑retroactive COLA calculation, that total was presented as 12.16% with 8% employee contributions.

The presenter explained that the 2023 change in state law created a non‑retroactive COLA option (a different method for calculating retirees’ annual increases) and that the city must adopt that non‑retroactive COLA this year if it wants that specific calculation method available. Councilmembers discussed trade‑offs between locking in the non‑retroactive option and adopting the higher employee rate; the presenter said the non‑retroactive choice and the 8% employee rate must both be adopted this year to secure the non‑retroactive calculation.

Several councilmembers said the retirement package is a leading factor in employee recruitment and retention. One councilmember said they would not take a job with another municipality that offered a lower employee contribution or weaker match. Staff clarified how TMRS calculates the city’s employer rate annually and why the city’s plan currently shows roughly 94.6% funded status in the actuarial summary shown to the council.

No formal motion was made. Councilmembers signaled a preference for the packet’s “Option 2” (8% employee contribution paired with the non‑retroactive COLA treatment under the example presented). The direction given at the meeting was for staff to “handle that into the budget” so council can see the funding implications. Staff noted the pay‑roll impact under Option 2 was an increase of roughly 1.4–1.7 percentage points of total contribution over the next budget year compared with the current projection.

The council asked for the effect of any chosen plan on retirees and on annual actuarial funding rates; staff and the presenter clarified that the non‑retroactive COLA changes how the annual COLA is calculated but does not automatically produce a smaller lifetime benefit for retirees—the numbers reflect different calculation rules rather than a different benefit structure. The council did not adopt plan changes at the workshop; staff will include the preferred option in the FY2026 budget materials for a future action date.

Councilmembers and staff retained the option to adjust adoption timing after the budget review and requested more detail in budget worksheets showing the specific payroll and budget impacts of the chosen plan options.","City council and staff discussed moving the Texas Municipal Retirement System employee contribution from 7% to 8% and whether to adopt a new non‑retroactive cost‑of‑living‑adjustment option before the statutory deadline, with staff directed to model the budget impact.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council reviews FY2026 draft budget: elections, IT, CCPD/MEDC transfers and downtown projects highlighted

Council favors hybrid pay parity after Evergreen Solutions study; 10 employees would receive increases

Council backs half‑day New Year’s Eve holiday, moves to reconcile vacation accrual policy

Montgomery discusses raising TMRS employee contribution, non-retroactive COLA deadline