MsDoubleD81 said:

---

Where's the other guy running for Place 5?

---

Padon Holt here...the "other guy running for Place 5"

Sorry it took me a minute to enter the chat but news of this forum finally made its way to my desk and I had to come see for myself what was going on. So thank you for being the one that pulled me back into TexAgs!

Interesting to see someone be so openly hostile towards A&M and yet run for public office in College Station. As our good friend Pepper Brooks once said, "That's a bold strategy, Cotton, lets see if it pays off for him."

While I think that Mr. Watson's disdain for the University is somewhat misplaced, I think that the University sure has not done the city any favors with the increase in enrollment putting pressure on the housing market. I also know that they pay no taxes, and yet receive services from CoCS, in the form of Fire Coverage, because they gave the city a fire engine when I was a toddler.

EFR said:

---

They actually pay for fire service.

---

Yeah, as of May, 2025.

How many years did they pay $0?

What about station 4? Who owns the airport again?

They still pay $0 in taxes.

Your taxes, fee rates and city budget are on the agenda tonite.

FYI

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Bob Yancy said:

---

Your taxes, fee rates and city budget City Officials driving us off a fiscal cliff at high speed are on the agenda tonite.

FYI

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Fixed It For Ya.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Your taxes, fee rates and city budget are on the agenda tonite.

FYI

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

I apologize for my failure to hold the line on the tax rate. I fought hard and with civility and I'm proud of that. The most frustrating thing about it was it didn't have to be raised. The money was there, with a few policy amendments in over funded areas, to cover all of the city's needs and leave the tax rate still.

The budget was the same. Came up short in the effort to pare it back. I still believe this budget is far too high on the capital project side, and even if it isn't, there's too much stuffed into FY27. More than the city could conceivably spend in a year, in fact- and the budget explicitly states that.

I thank Councilman White for his similar stance. I also thank those colleagues with which I disagreed. With few exceptions, we debated civilly and without animus and that's important.

Respectfully & transparently

Yancy '95 Place 5
Candidate for Mayor
Early voting begins October 19

Another tax hike. What are these people doing?

Queso1 said:

---

Another tax hike. What are these people doing?

---

Spending your money.

Between CS, Brazos County, and CSISD, I'm getting charged $1.91 per $100 value on my overvalued house.

Every taxing entity points at the other and says, "Oh, we're not as bad as them", or like Ms. McIlhaney said last night "we don't have anything to do with CSISDs taxes". Everybody is squeezing the golden goose for more eggs.

Things might change if people had to write a check every month for those taxes.

There is zero incentive for government to spend less and save money.

CS78 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

The most frustrating thing about it was it didn't have to be raised. The money was there, with a few policy amendments in over funded areas, to cover all of the city's needs and leave the tax rate still.

The budget was the same. Came up short in the effort to pare it back. I still believe this budget is far too high on the capital project side, and even if it isn't, there's too much stuffed into FY27. More than the city could conceivably spend in a year, in fact- and the budget explicitly states that.

---

With what you're saying, what was the reasoning from your colleagues? It kinda feels like raise it now while we can so we dont have to fight as hard to raise it even more in the future?

The fact that they are raising it on people when it's not necessary shows just how disconnected they are.

---

I don't want to characterize their reasoning. That's for them to do. There are things that could impact city hall's finances in the future. Unforeseen events like legislation and other things always give budgeting an element of subjectivity. How much reserve do you keep on hand, etc. We just had a legitimate disagreement, and that's part of government.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

And Midtown has a 65 cents per $100 on top of that.

My take from the meeting last night....we have many places where we have surplus funds, and reducing the funding to those areas to less than we would historically do makes things uncomfortable for folks. It was infuriating to listen to.

To the CM and staff credit, our city is indeed in a very good place financially and with more than enough cushion to handle any problems that may pop up. But the complete dismissal at the idea of lowering the tax rate, just to make sure the cushion stays unnecessarily fluffy was maddening.

Yancy and White werent asking to cut needed things. They were asking to cut % points off of a cushion, that we haven't come close to ever needing, and then that cushion that we have NEVER needed, goes into the general fund that can be used for other things.

But the rest of the council voted to raise taxes, knowing that they wont spend the $$, then the left over unspent $$ can be spent elsewhere....the reason being "If we do need it for what is budgeted, then we will have it"

edit to add Councilman White...credit where it is due

Bob Yancy said:

---

CS78 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

The most frustrating thing about it was it didn't have to be raised. The money was there, with a few policy amendments in over funded areas, to cover all of the city's needs and leave the tax rate still.

The budget was the same. Came up short in the effort to pare it back. I still believe this budget is far too high on the capital project side, and even if it isn't, there's too much stuffed into FY27. More than the city could conceivably spend in a year, in fact- and the budget explicitly states that.

---

With what you're saying, what was the reasoning from your colleagues? It kinda feels like raise it now while we can so we dont have to fight as hard to raise it even more in the future?

The fact that they are raising it on people when it's not necessary shows just how disconnected they are.

---

I don't want to characterize their reasoning. That's for them to do. There are things that could impact city hall's finances in the future. Unforeseen events like legislation and other things always give budgeting an element of subjectivity. How much reserve do you keep on hand, etc. We just had a legitimate disagreement, and that's part of government.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

I was there. The city did not want to lower the rate, as it could cut into the budget should something unexpected happen. OK. But, using the vacancy rate (unfilled jobs) rationale, that excess money is really a discretionary fund for our City Manager. If a budget gets out of line, in any corporation in the US, cuts or actions are taken. In the COCS, we have a discretionary fund that really takes all pressure off.
So, YOUR FAMILY has to make choices on how to pay the increased tax bills that have come under expectedly, but the city doesn't have to worry. That IS your job right? To take pressure off the city. So the kids don't get new shoes this year, or Christmas will be a little less jolly. Turn the AC up or the heat down, depending on the season, don't eat out and cut back on things for your kids. It's going to a good cause.

City of Bryan (so BPD) is getting a 6% raise. COCS is doing 3% COLA. BPD now has their draft pay scale they're sending out to area LEOs to try and poach them. BPD now averages 10-12% more than an equivalent ranked officer at CSPD. If I were in that officers association at CSPD, I'd be contemplating rescinding an endorsement of any sitting council member. They were failed in these budget talks.

This is what they're sending to officers at surrounding agencies:

Agree on all fronts. Additionally, COCS is doing 3% cost of living yet council was using 3.7% for inflation. They basically voted in a pay cut according to their own numbers.

I found this in my email inbox this morning, and thought I'd drop it here.

Glad to see the endorsement for Cepak.

What is your position on Flock?

Yet another slap in the face to local first responders. Round Rock is advertising their new pay scale to attract current officers. Their scale effective 10/1 has officers making as much as supervisors at CSPD.

Fun fact…the fire fighters and police officers for COCS actually got less of a cost of living adjustment than all others working for the City. Fire/PD got 3%. All others got 3% plus a 1% market adjustment. Make it make sense.

It's a thing all over and well known that this area is a training ground for first responders to come, get trained up for a successful career, and leave for more money and/or less BS. Our local leaders have absolutely failed first responders time and time again.

Mr. Yancy,

How do you respond to the assertion above that Fire/PD received less col raise than other city employees. Is this accurate, and if so, Why?

An even easier question is why were non public safety employees given a 1% market adjustment on top of the 3% COLA, but public safety employees weren't, yet are up to 10-15% off some of the benchmark cities that COCS allegedly uses for salary studies.

I am confused about how the fire school being here and TTF1 being headquartered here has anything to do with our local first responders. If the city wants their people to train at the fire school they have to book time and pay just like everyone else, and they don't do it very often.
I would think that step one of becoming a "destination employer" (whatever that means) would be pay the employees on par with their peers, especially their peers right next door that they work hand in hand with.