Councilwoman Hicks
unconfirmed
0:22:20
jump
Answered
Verbatim
“With your requesting this possible raise, that means we would have to charge our people… they would have to pay more taxes, more water rates… we just increased the water rates, we just increased the sewer rates.”
Interpreted as app interpretation — not a quote
Will funding the cost-of-living adjustment require raising taxes and utility rates on residents who just absorbed increases?
Answer from the record
Yes, and it was quantified: a ~7.96-cent tax-rate increase (~$75.71/year for the average homeowner), plus $1.35/month on water and ~$1.65/month on sewer for the utility-funded share. The administrator distinguished the COLA (restoring 2022 buying power) from raises, which were not requested tonight.
Meeting video 0:22–0:28 · COLA impact spreadsheet distributed to council
↻ R1 · what the COLA costs taxpayers — see all raises of this question
Councilwoman Hicks
unconfirmed
0:29:10
jump
Answered
Verbatim
“How many times have the employees not received raises? How many years since 2022?”
Interpreted as app interpretation — not a quote
How often have employees gone without pay adjustments since the 2022 salary restructuring?
Answer from the record
The last cost-of-living adjustment was 2%, in 2022. Against ~12.5% cumulative inflation, employees sit roughly 10.5 points behind their 2022 buying power.
Meeting video 0:29–0:30 · City of Crockett minutes, July 20, 2026 (Aug. 3, 2026 agenda packet): "The last COLA was 2% in 2022."
Corrected Sept. 27, 2026: an earlier version said the 2% COLA was in 2024. The City's minutes say 2022.
Mr. Duren
unconfirmed
0:30:01
jump
Answered
Verbatim
“John, to be clear, the increase to this tax rate does not require or mandate or trigger an election or vote?”
Interpreted as app interpretation — not a quote
Does adopting the COLA-funding tax rate trigger a mandatory election?
Answer from the record
Correct — no automatic election. The rate would exceed the voter-approval rate, which instead gives residents the right to petition for a rollback election. The administrator walked through the mechanism on the record.
Meeting video 0:30–0:33
Councilwoman Hicks
unconfirmed
0:33:20
jump
Answered
Verbatim
“So you're saying that we have the money to do this? We currently have the monies to give raises?”
Interpreted as app interpretation — not a quote
Is the COLA already funded within the existing draft budget?
Answer from the record
No. The draft budget as presented does not include it — which is exactly why direction was requested tonight. Funding it requires the tax-rate adjustment and the water/sewer adjustments quantified earlier.
Meeting video 0:33–0:34
↻ R1 · what the COLA costs taxpayers — see all raises of this question Second raise of the cost question; answered consistently with the 0:22 exchange.
Councilwoman Hicks
unconfirmed
0:37:10
jump
Corrected on record
Verbatim
“How do we climb from there to give raises when we are playfully in the red?”
Interpreted as app interpretation — not a quote
How can the city afford raises while departments are running in the red?
Answer from the record
Premise corrected on the record: "We're not in the red." Department budgets are not in deficit; the COLA would be new, separately funded spending effective October, not drawn from current department reports.
Meeting video 0:37–0:38
Councilwoman Hicks
unconfirmed
0:38:30
jump
Answered
Verbatim
“John, how many full-time employees does the city have?”
Interpreted as app interpretation — not a quote
Current full-time headcount.
Answer from the record
56 full-time; 76–77 including part-time (library and some water/sewer roles).
Meeting video 0:38–0:39
July 6 workshop stated 59 full-time / 15 part-time. Discrepancy flagged for verification against the budget book.
Councilwoman Hicks
unconfirmed
0:39:40
jump
Answered
Verbatim
“Are you leaving any of the employees that were employees on the employee list so you can fill that position later?”
Interpreted as app interpretation — not a quote
Are vacated positions kept on the books, and are hires made without budgeted funding?
Answer from the record
Positions remain budgeted when someone leaves; hires are made only into funded positions. No new field positions are being created and there are currently no openings.
Meeting video 0:39–0:41
Unattributed member
unconfirmed
0:41:25
jump
Answered
Verbatim
“Chief, I know we had talked at the last budget meeting about leasing vehicles. Did you happen to follow up on that at all?”
Interpreted as app interpretation — not a quote
What did the patrol-fleet leasing research produce?
Answer from the record
Full Enterprise numbers, worst case: 13 new outfitted vehicles for $182,000 in year one, $266,340/year for years 2–4, with ~$378,700 in equity returned at 48 months. Realistic start: the 4–5 highest-mileage units (~$1,645/month per vehicle). No commitment made.
Meeting video 0:41–0:45 · Chief's lease summary handout
Unattributed member
unconfirmed
0:45:40
jump
Answered
Verbatim
“Is there a certain amount of mileage that you can put on a vehicle?”
Interpreted as app interpretation — not a quote
How does mileage work under the lease program?
Answer from the record
Vehicles average 20–25K miles/year; when a unit hits its mark, Enterprise swaps in a new one and resells the old — which is what generates the equity returned to the city.
Meeting video 0:45–0:46
Councilwoman Hicks
unconfirmed
0:46:50
jump
Answered
Verbatim
“Chief, how much have we spent, just say, in the last five years on vehicles?”
Interpreted as app interpretation — not a quote
Five-year spend on police vehicles under the buy-outright model.
Answer from the record
Roughly $850,000 to $1,000,000 — including a three-vehicle catch-up purchase last year. Staying ahead by purchase requires about two outfitted vehicles a year (~$175–180K).
Meeting video 0:46–0:48
Mr. Duren
unconfirmed
0:51:25
jump
Answered
Verbatim
“If we got three cars now… in two years we'd need at least three more. Would that alleviate some of the strain on your vehicles?”
Interpreted as app interpretation — not a quote
Would a small rolling lease (three vehicles every two years) relieve the fleet problem?
Answer from the record
Yes — about $59–60K/year for three leased vehicles ($1,645/month each), with older units still aging out over the lease term. The chief endorsed starting small over full-fleet replacement.
Meeting video 0:51–0:53
Councilwoman Hicks
confirmed
1:03:01
jump
Corrected on record
Verbatim
“Just in interest, not even touching the principal, we're paying over $1 million… we're also over $1 million delinquent in our taxes… where are we getting the monies?”
Interpreted as app interpretation — not a quote
Is the city overextended — $1M+/year in interest-only debt service and $1M+ in delinquent taxes?
Answer from the record
Disputed and corrected on the record: the administrator called the characterizations "false" and "out of context," stating every borrowing funded council-approved major infrastructure (water towers, clarifiers, a new well) with funding sources shown in the same budget book. The underlying figures remain unverified by this tool — flagged for check against the published budget and audit.
Meeting video 1:03–1:08 · FY2026 budget book (cited by both parties)
Speaker named on the record during this exchange. This is the sharpest factual dispute of the meeting.
Councilwoman Hicks
unconfirmed
1:17:12
jump
Deferred to staff
Verbatim
“First I'll go in there with me, show you what you're doing, because some numbers on here, that's not true, when I figured it up.”
Interpreted as app interpretation — not a quote
Request to reconcile her reading of the budget report's numbers with staff, after adjournment.
Answer from the record
Deferred to a working session with the administrator, who repeated his standing offer to walk any member through any figure. No resolution on the record.
Meeting video 1:17