[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6549626,"mediaKeyId","5442468-58a06b86c29ddf29b8840b5e2467ee82","parentId",5442468,"title","Abilene council debates TMRS non-retroactive COLA option; council declines immediate action","audioSeconds",1792,"startMs",2666000,"endMs",4458000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5442468-58a06b86c29ddf29b8840b5e2467ee82&start=2666&end=4458","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5442468-58a06b86c29ddf29b8840b5e2467ee82/thumbnail_2666000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6549626/Abilene/Taylor-County/Texas/Abilene-council-debates-TMRS-non-retroactive-COLA-option-council-declines-immediate-action","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6549626-94a0270aa69cad17f5c6184b22c88972/orig.mp4?Expires=1770414128&Signature=LWhLnsL6z9~CW96H5YJIXDyq7Nmys1fC3gLszsg9WhdU0gsMvmVA2biA7eWWr41s~YuKBajCCgLBLDP1~LN3UaerLYW96kbUpcZBtUm6i2TsmdtCpvOfHbVGrLa8HjBW4wbK6JZmlkl9eW-1~20sGXLCQbueMAtPxlKHxSFKe1~LHk62Odb3vhKkoKq8Bze7JqWmHTKSVIgahwQXXs3qJAq8JLbRH-6~xkVJOGcQ1NVXNPJ46WlO1g2UuJOeoSgE4j4uvFQbanoz6xrsLBl3uQdDS6uyYchOoXXka4MCidrj8r83cYqxXG8S~xWnFHUp9XWZ9iraWDC-zC20DWupXw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Abilene","date","2025-07-21T00:00:00Z","article","City Manager Emily Crawford presented a proposal for the Abilene City Council to adopt a non-retroactive, repeating cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) at a special meeting as staff described financial and recruitment benefits and estimated costs.

Crawford told council the option — authorized by a 2023 amendment to the TMRS statute and with an adoption window running through 2025 — would replace the city’s prior pattern of periodic, non-formula COLA adjustments with an annual, non-retroactive plan. She described the most modest available repeating option as a “30% repeating COLA,” meaning 30% of the prior 12 months’ Consumer Price Index would be applied annually (she used the 2024 CPI of 2.9% as an example, which would yield a 0.87% adjustment).

Crawford and finance staff outlined estimated costs. Staff presented an all-funds cost increase from roughly $8.9 million to about $11.4 million under the non-retroactive option, while the specific near-term impact to the general fund and health fund combined was shown as about $1.9 million. Because the change would not take effect until Jan. 1 and would therefore not apply for a full fiscal year in 2026, staff estimated the actual 2026 general-fund impact at roughly $1.4 million.

Council members asked about alternatives, including a one-time “catch-up” COLA and the more-expensive retroactive COLA option. Staff explained the retroactive option (which looks back to each retiree’s hire date or retirement date) would carry a significantly larger employer cost, and that the non-retroactive repeating option was the most affordable way to provide regular adjustments to benefits.

Several council members voiced concerns about the timing and cost. One council member pointed to the city’s separate firefighter retirement fund, which the council acknowledged would require significant additional funding and could pose a higher near-term fiscal obligation. Others said wage increases and recruitment-focused pay adjustments remain a higher immediate priority in some departments (for example, transit driver pay increases and other market-based adjustments).

Council did not adopt the non-retroactive TMRS option at the meeting. The mayor summarized the discussion by saying the council was not ready to move forward “right now” and that staff would return with options later. The city manager clarified that a separate ordinance would be required for adoption and that council could revisit retroactive or other COLA options in future legislative windows.

Direct quotes from the presentation: “What I am recommending today is the most entry level cola benefit that is available through TMRS non retroactive, which is a 30% repeating cola,” City Manager Emily Crawford said during the presentation. Finance staff added that the change would increase employer contribution rates and noted that the general fund’s share of the cost would likely be about $1.4 million in the partial fiscal year.

Council members asked multiple follow-up questions about funding sources, potential offsets, and the competitiveness of TMRS changes relative to other cities. Staff said other Texas cities vary in approach: of the municipalities offering any COLA, a minority have adopted the non-retroactive repeating option.

Staff and several council members also discussed alternatives: a one-time catch-up COLA (which would be limited and nonrecurring) and continued reliance on pay adjustments to address recruitment and retention needs. The city manager also noted that the legislature may revisit TMRS options in future sessions.

Ending: Council asked staff to return with options rather than adopt the non-retroactive TMRS change at this meeting; no ordinance was introduced or adopted at the session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Abilene - City Council Budget Workshop - Jul 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","City manager presented a proposal to adopt a non-retroactive repeating TMRS COLA (30% of CPI). Council discussed costs, impacts on general fund (~$1.4M partial-year), and firefighter pension obligations, and did not adopt the change at the meeting.","taxTitle","Abilene, Taylor County, Texas","taxId",2817,"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},6549631,"Abilene council approves revised 2025 budget, moves $2.2M July sales-tax surplus into MIP; fee changes pass first reading",10267,543000,10810000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5442468-58a06b86c29ddf29b8840b5e2467ee82&start=543&end=10810","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5442468-58a06b86c29ddf29b8840b5e2467ee82/thumbnail_543000.jpg","/articles/6549631/Abilene/Taylor-County/Texas/Abilene-council-approves-revised-2025-budget-moves-22M-July-sales-tax-surplus-into-MIP-fee-changes-pass-first-reading","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6549631-3407838c324cb0d5db59ae3522edc5df/orig.mp4?Expires=1770414128&Signature=CUygXg7LLw-H-C5QcPXTV6wvSR0gxWZ~18P~tCx3-YT68umDiy-9O86Pm2aGUDvOOb~5nqv7lTwEopOpBhujxumKmraXVJ3uCmZYCtG5aBYEDwXOFHmKnaf4b9n6FWF6OTuIvdZ3IpaqngIYMEyKkuRilLFgPZYgSIHgNyTJcQ6plOeyd3-jICCZWF5Oa1xLmACqmRHibmPp3yyE531c9hscvdqbeuyhpWO0gkY9olZ485wxWMYl2n-9PdPojtR6ZkrowlS8vCc399PazX-d1flIFsS-Tliecii0wfRaGCUYKWYqMlzWk647fzcO3KAlF~B32HicJnBW7q~rp4sDPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Abilene City Council on Tuesday approved a revised 2025 budget that directs $2.2 million in unexpectedly high July sales-tax receipts into the city’s Minor Improvement Project (MIP) fund and adopted proposed fee changes on first reading, municipal staff said at a special meeting that began at 8:30 a.m.

The move to include the July sales-tax overage in the revised 2025 budget was presented by Marjorie Knight, the city’s director of finance, who told council staff tracked a 65% jump in July sales-tax receipts that translated to about $2,225,000 in additional revenue. Knight said council could either let the extra money roll into next year’s fund balance or increase expenditures and transfer the surplus to MIP; council voted to transfer the money to MIP.

The budget presentation showed citywide figures for the revised 2025 operating budget and the proposed 2026 budget. Knight said the 2025 revised all operating funds estimate is about $356 million in revenues and $364 million in expenditures, a $8 million deficit driven by one-time transfers to project funds (including about $9.9 million to MIP and roughly $12.4 million in transfers for water capital projects). The 2026 proposed operating budget was presented with roughly $369 million in revenues and $371 million in expenditures, a planned $1.8 million use of fund balance and an ending fund balance near $90 million.

Knight and other staff detailed fund-level highlights: the general fund (the city’s largest) was shown at roughly $138 million in revised 2025 revenues and $140 million in expenditures with the 2026 proposed general fund at almost $141 million balanced; personnel costs account for about 73% of general fund spending. Knight also presented a proposed citywide tax rate increase from 0.7607 to 0.7675 per $100 valuation (a $6.80 annual impact on a $100,000 home), a change driven largely by debt-service increases, she said.

The budget discussion included debate about whether to treat the sales-tax bump as recurring or one-time money and how to program the MIP transfers. Some council members urged using surplus funds for taxpayer relief; others favored earmarking the funds for projects like the Rebuild ABI infill program. Council ultimately approved a motion to adopt the revised 2025 budget that includes the $2.2 million transfer to MIP. Councilman Blaise Price moved the motion and Councilman Beard seconded; the motion carried (individual roll-call votes were not read aloud).

The council also approved the proposed fee schedule and fee ordinance on first reading. That ordinance encompasses changes to building-permit fees, some code-compliance fees, stormwater and water/sewer fees and a schedule of other user fees; the first-reading motion was moved by Councilman Craver and seconded by Councilman Yates and passed.

City Manager Emily Crawford and Knight repeatedly emphasized that certified values from the appraisal district — due on July 24 — and one more month of sales-tax data will be used to refine the tax-rate recommendation before the council takes final action. Knight said the second and final reading of the budget is scheduled for the council’s Aug. 14 regular meeting. Council postponed items tied to final tax-rate adoption and the 2026 budget (items 4 and 5 on the agenda) for a follow-up session the next morning so staff could recalculate options with the most recent valuation and sales-tax numbers.

“Would you like us to consider the option of the non retroactive COLA?” the city manager asked during a separate pension discussion; council declined to adopt the TMRS change at this meeting and asked staff to return later with options (see separate article).

Tammy Fogel, a member of the public who identified herself as “Tammy Fogel, president of Abilene,” urged the council to consider tax relief for residents, telling council: “I would encourage you to give the citizens a little bit of their money back rather than just moving forward and adding to the taxes.”

The council’s approvals were procedural first steps: the revised 2025 budget with the $2.2 million MIP transfer and the fee ordinance first reading were approved at the meeting; final budget readings and any tax-rate changes will require additional council action after staff completes value and revenue recalculations.

Votes at a glance:
- Revised 2025 budget (include $2.2M July sales-tax surplus transferred to MIP): moved by Councilman Blaise Price; seconded by Councilman Beard; outcome: approved (council recorded “motion carries”; no roll-call totals read aloud).
- Fee ordinance (proposed fee schedule changes) — first reading: moved by Councilman Craver; seconded by Councilman Yates; outcome: approved (first reading).

Ending: Council members instructed staff to return with recalculated figures after certified appraisal values and the remaining sales-tax data are available; second and final readings of budget items are scheduled for the Aug. 14 regular meeting unless council takes other direction at the follow-up session.","At a special meeting that began at 8:30 a.m., Abilene City Council approved a revised 2025 budget that includes moving $2.2 million in unexpected July sales-tax receipts into the Minor Improvement Project (MIP) fund and approved fee schedule changes on first reading. Council deferred final tax-rate decisions to a follow-up session.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Abilene council debates TMRS non-retroactive COLA option; council declines immediate action

Abilene council approves revised 2025 budget, moves $2.2M July sales-tax surplus into MIP; fee changes pass first reading