Hollywood Park City Council on Tuesday moved staff to revise the proposed fiscal‑year 2024–25 budget to include pay adjustments and capital repairs after a multi‑hour workshop on salaries, department priorities and one‑time projects.

Councilmembers directed staff to include a 3% cost‑of‑living adjustment (COLA) plus limited merit increases for the administration, finance and public‑works budgets; that direction carried 4–1. Council members also agreed to adopt a 10‑step salary plan for the police department in place of an added COLA for rank‑and‑file officers, and to apply the 10‑step structure for fire while approving a 3% COLA for that department. The council asked staff to circulate a revised budget for formal action at the next regular meeting.

Why it matters: Council members said the decisions are intended to make pay more predictable and to help recruit and retain sworn personnel while keeping the city’s operating budget roughly balanced. Staff and council repeatedly cited a small projected deficit in the draft budget and a need to preserve reserves for large capital items such as road projects and a replacement roof.

Public comments and context
Travis Thornton, a Hollywood Park police officer, told the council that morale has eroded in part because local pay “is low and getting worse,” and urged elected officials to adopt competitive raises so the department can fill vacancies. Thornton said Hollywood Park sits near the bottom of pay scales among Bexar County municipalities with paid police forces and described officers’ financial strain in concrete terms: one officer in his examples was reported to be a single parent living so close to eligibility thresholds that the family had recently gained Medicaid coverage because income thresholds changed. “All we ask is that you pay us a fair rate,” Thornton said.

Council discussion and the math
City staff and council went line‑by‑line through department salary schedules and capital requests. The budget as discussed contained a modest operating shortfall after initial revisions: staff said the revision reduced an earlier larger deficit to about $16,000 on the draft budget shown at the meeting, once most capital outlays were removed and certain offsets applied.

- Admin/finance/public works: Council members approved moving forward with a 3% COLA for all employees in those areas plus the merit amounts already listed in the manager’s packet. Staff estimates shown at the meeting said the payroll portion of that choice would raise base salaries by about $68,900; after employer payroll taxes and retirement contributions the first‑year cost to the city was shown as roughly $85,000. The council member tally recorded in the workshop was 4 in favor, 1 opposed; staff said they would update the budget numbers accordingly.

- Police: The police leadership presented a proposed shift from the current six‑step pay table to a 10‑step plan that compresses entry‑level competitiveness and stretches career progression across more steps (moving officers to successive increases every 2 years rather than every 3 years through the early career years). Staff and the chief provided a worksheet showing the 10‑step change would add about $49,192 in base salary cost in year one; including employer payroll taxes and retirement that figure was reported as about $60,750. Staff also calculated that adopting the 10‑step plan in place of the COLA/merit package in the manager’s draft would raise budgeted costs by about $26,489 in year one (roughly $28,000 after taxes/retirement), with smaller, forecasted additional impacts in subsequent years (staff showed approximately +$6,000 in year two and a larger bump in year three in their projection table). Councilmembers agreed to adopt the 10‑step plan and to have staff reflect that in the revised budget.

- Fire: Fire leadership said it was asking effectively for the 3% COLA (already in the draft) and requested the longer 10‑step table for long‑term salary structure. Councilmembers supported the fire department’s request (the group discussion produced verbal agreement to add the 10‑step structure while keeping the 3% COLA in the draft budget).

Offsetting items, reserves and one‑time projects
Council and staff also discussed funding sources and one‑time capital needs.

- Seizure fund and other special funds: Police staff said they had moved some recurring purchases and equipment items to the seizure (forfeiture) fund where legally allowable; staff reported about $78,000 of line items were being shifted to seizure funds to reduce the budget’s face value. During the meeting the police department identified three operating line items they would reduce or set to zero (equipment rental/lease and two training/dues lines) that together totaled about $14,000 in reductions; council asked staff to confirm the packet numbers and reflect the changes.

- Capital: The draft included a roof replacement and HVAC work (the manager’s worksheet had about $185,000 for three items: a roof, a large HVAC unit and a small “mini‑split” for the server/IT closet). Councilmembers asked staff to pursue any available ARPA or other restricted funds first, to seek more precise bids, and to reduce the capital amount modestly at the meeting (Council directed staff to show $176,000 in the revised draft for that capital package while staff follows up on ARPA eligibility and contractor estimates).

- Roads and reserves: Council discussed a multi‑year road program (staff showed a multi‑year plan with more than $2 million tied to street projects). Staff emphasized those road projects are planned from savings/reserves or bonds and do not come directly from general‑fund operating revenue; councilmembers discussed timing and the fact that the engineering and construction schedule phases will span multiple fiscal years.

EDC, ARPA and next steps
The Economic Development Corporation’s draft budget categories (including a recreation/community facilities line) were discussed; EDC board members at the meeting said the line items are budget categories and that any individual project above applicable thresholds will be brought to council for separate approval. Staff and council also discussed ARPA (federal American Rescue Plan Act) availability and the need to obligate or spend unobligated ARPA funds by federal deadlines if appropriate.

What happens next
Staff said they will circulate a revised draft that reflects the council’s directions (the 3% COLA plus merits for admin/finance/public works, the 10‑step police plan and the fire adjustments), and that the council will consider final budget and tax‑rate actions at the next regular meeting. Councilmembers and department heads repeatedly asked staff to show clearly in the published budget how much is ongoing operating cost versus one‑time reserve or special‑fund expenditures so residents can better understand the tradeoffs.

Ending notes
Council members and several public speakers framed the discussion as a choice between preserving personnel and services and preserving reserves for capital work. Officer Travis Thornton’s public comments on morale and pay framed much of the debate; residents who spoke later urged the council to keep services and noted they would accept modest tax changes in future years rather than reduce police or fire capacity. Staff will circulate the revised budget and a summary of how much of the draft depends on reserves versus operating revenue before the council’s formal vote.