Killeen City Council Special Meeting - July 28, 2026: Charter Amendments, Annual Action Plan, and FY2027 Budget Hearing
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Killeen City Council Special Meeting – July 28, 2026
The Killeen City Council held a special meeting on July 28, 2026, at 5:00 PM in the Council Chambers. The meeting addressed three major items: discussion and approval of ballot language for eight proposed City Charter amendments, a public hearing and action on the FY2026-2027 Annual Action Plan for federal grant funds, and a public hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year 2027 Annual Budget. The meeting also included citizen comments and a discussion on the city’s financial outlook.
Consent Calendar
- The agenda was approved by a 7-0 vote.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Dr. Sue Nisi Croft (citizen) spoke against Proposition F (grounds for recall), arguing it would create legal and financial barriers for residents and shift power from voters to the council. She stated she would vote no and urged others to do the same.
- Victoria Ginsburg and Lester Gross (both former homeless individuals) spoke in support of the Syntex ARC proposal for transitional housing, sharing personal stories of how the program helped them.
- No other citizens signed up for public comments on the agenda items.
Discussion Items
- DS-26-070: Ballot Language for Proposed City Charter Amendments
The City Attorney presented the final proposed ballot language for eight charter amendments (Propositions A through H) that will appear on the November 2026 ballot. Topics include moving city elections to November (Prop A), repealing resign-to-run (Prop B), filling council vacancies (Prop C), petition timelines (Props D, G), prohibiting initiatives inconsistent with state law (Prop E), requiring affidavit alleging incompetence, misconduct, or malfeasance for recall (Prop F), and requiring a recall petitioner to live in the district of the council member (Prop H). Councilmember Charles Kimble questioned the lack of definitions for incompetence, misconduct, and malfeasance; the City Attorney responded that the city would not define those terms and would rely on standard legal definitions. Councilmember David Bass expressed support for Prop F, stating it provides a basis for conversation. Councilmember Jessica Gonzalez noted that the voter's perception would guide the recall. Councilmember Brown moved to accept the ballot language as presented; the motion passed 7-0.
Public Hearings
-
PH-26-021: Annual Action Plan (PY2026-2027) for CDBG, HOME, and HOME ARP Funds
The city presented the draft plan and funding allocations. Key requests included sewer line blockage assistance, mobile shower units for the homeless, and funding for transitional housing by Syntex ARC. Councilmember Brown asked about utilities and wastewater for the mobile showers; Seventh Day Adventist representative Morland Harris explained arrangements with local businesses. Councilmember Vanessa Brown questioned the feasibility of using funds for galvanized water line replacement instead; the city noted such a program had not been through the required public planning process. Councilmember Chuck Kimble expressed concern about seniors and successfully moved to modify the plan: shifting $5,000 from the KPD homeless outreach team (reducing it to the CDAC-recommended $96,109.70) to Hill Country Meals on Wheels (increasing their funding to $35,000). Extensive discussion followed on Syntex ARC’s proposal for 16 transitional housing duplexes (32 units) at a cost of approximately $1.28 million. Council members debated the number of units, cost per unit, square footage, and the program's holistic approach. Councilmember Kimble’s motion to adopt the plan with that modification was approved 5-1-1 (Councilmember Nash-King abstained, one opposing vote). -
PH-26-022: FY2027 Annual Budget Public Hearing
City Manager Kagle presented a grim financial outlook. He revealed that just hours before the meeting, the city received the certified tax roll, which included a $175.2 million reduction in business personal property value due to HB 9 exemptions, reducing revenue by about $1.2 million. The city faces a structural deficit: under the current tax rate ($0.7014) a $3.2 million deficit; at the proposed rate ($0.7215) a $1.2 million deficit; at the voter approval rate ($0.7302) a $350,000 deficit. The city manager proposed cutting 31.5 vacant positions (saving $2.4 million) but noted this would strain services. Council members discussed alternatives: reducing non-public safety fleet replacement, cutting travel/training, evaluating community partner funding (KEDC, Schlueter Group), and seeking staff input on a 2-2.5% reduction in service/supply budgets (excluding IT). Councilmember David Bass stated he would not vote to raise property taxes and favored terminating the Schlueter Group contract ($100,000/year) and cutting KEDC funding. Mayor Pro Tem Jessica Gonzalez emphasized the need for sustainable solutions. Councilmember Nash-King urged caution on cutting personnel or quality-of-life services. No vote on the budget was taken; the date for adoption was set for September 1, 2026, at 5:00 PM (approved 7-0).
Key Outcomes
- Ballot Language Approved (7-0): The eight proposed charter amendments will appear on the November 2026 ballot.
- Annual Action Plan Approved with Modification (5-1-1): The plan for CDBG/HOME/Home ARP funds was adopted, shifting $5,000 from KPD homeless outreach to Meals on Wheels.
- Budget Hearing Scheduled: The council set September 1, 2026, for a public hearing and possible adoption of the FY2027 budget.
- Next Steps: City staff will prepare multiple budget scenarios (different tax rates and cuts) for council consideration by the next meeting.
- No decision on personnel or program cuts: Council members expressed varying positions; the city manager will bring recommended cuts to balance the budget.
Meeting Transcript
Is Bob PM on July the twenty-eighth, twenty twenty six. I'll call the special meeting, City Council meeting to order. Let the record show that all council members are present. I will now ask Miss Council Member Bass to open us up in prayer. If we can bow our heads for prayer, Lord, bless our deliberations today. Bless us with wisdom to make wise decisions for our city and help us remember that as you love us, love for one another is what you expect of us. In Jesus' name, amen. I pledge the United States of America and to a republic for which it says one nation under God's law. No, you can't okay. Council, I need a well, let me thank you, uh Councilmember Bass for the prayer, and mayor pro tem for the presolution. Um council, I need a motion to approve the agenda. Councilmember Brown. Move to approve the agenda. Second, Mayor. It was second by Councilmember Bass. Um discussion. All in favor signify by saying yes. All opposed, no. Motion carries seven to zero. Madam City Attorney, please call the first name. Doctor Sue Nisi Croft. I'm already at two fifty-five and I haven't started talking yet. There you go. Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. I'm standing before you tonight to address the language that has been finalized for the November ballot regarding proposition F grounds for recall. As a voter and a citizens of citizen of Kleene, I am deeply concerned about what will happen to our community voice if our uh neighbors vote yes on this proposition. Right now, our city charter protects a fundamental democratic right, the right of the people to recall on elected officials based on poor performance, policy portrayal, or general dissatisfaction. It is a system built on pure voter accountability. But proposition F uh completely shifts that balance of power away from the citizens and directly into the hands of the council by forcing a petitioner to sign a sworn affidavit out alleging uh strict legal definitions like incompetent official misconduct or malfeasis just to start a petition will um this amendment creates an immediate legal and costly barrier for everyday residents. If this passes, what happens when a city member sits when a council member votes for an unpopular tax high, pushes through unwanted zoning, or simply stops responding to their constituents under the new law, citizens will be completely blocked from taking action. As long as a politician's bad choices are technically legal, the voters are silenced and forced to wait years until the next election. Furthermore, forcing regular citizens to sign legal affidavits exposes them to personal litigation, deflammation threats, and institutional bullying from well-funded political uh campaigns. It turns a grassroot democratic tool into a legal battlefield that only the wealthy can afford to navigate. Gathering thousands of valid vote voter signatures is already already a mass uh difficult hurdle that stops frivolous recalls from happening. We do not need legal red tape to protect politicians from people who elected them. Tonight I want to get the ball rolling on this critical conversation. I want my neighbors to see this proposition for what it really is an incumbent protection plan that dilutes our voices and blocks our ability to effectively communicate our dis dissatisfaction with the council. I will be voting no on this proposition F in November, and I urge my fellow citizens and the 494. I repeat the 494 to do the same to keep the power where it belongs with the people. The 494 thank you. And uh may I have an additional amendment. Council. Can I see your hands, please? Yes, ma'am. And another thing I I wanted to say, this is kind of free-willy right here. I feel that y'all need a race. Y'all have been functioning on this uh amount of money that you get for I don't know how long, and I'm quite sure Debbie Nash can tell uh how long y'all have been functioning on this fee. I feel that all the crap that you all deal with and looking at the other uh cities that are have councils at our size. Uh, unfortunately, I couldn't bring that up when it was time to bring it up. They're being paid substantially more than what you all getting paid for doing more than what you all pretty much bargain for.
openpublica.com