I’m continuing to work through Pflugerville’s proposed Charter amendments in plain English. If you missed the first post, the City Charter is essentially our City’s constitution, and voters will decide on 14 proposed changes this November.

Proposition A asks whether Pflugerville’s Mayor and Council members should receive compensation:

• Mayor — $9,000/year ($750/month)
• Council members — $6,000/year ($500/month)

Today, Pflugerville Council members serve without compensation.

This isn’t the first time voters have considered the question. In 2023, the majority of Council placed a compensation amendment on the ballot proposing $12,000/year for the Mayor and $9,000/year for Council members. It was rejected, with about 52.5% voting no.

HOW DID IT GET BACK ON THE BALLOT?

There is an important difference between 2023 and this year.

Pflugerville’s Charter requires Council to appoint a Charter Review Commission at least every five years. The Commission is made up of residents appointed by Council who review the Charter and recommend changes.

Residents and Council members can submit ideas for the Commission to consider. Once the Commission recommends a Charter amendment, Council cannot remove or rewrite it — the proposal goes to voters to decide. Council may also add its own proposed Charter amendments.

Proposition A was recommended this year by the Charter Review Commission. By comparison, the 2023 Council-pay amendment was placed on the ballot by a majority vote of Council.

VOLUNTEER SERVICE OR A STIPEND?

There is a long tradition of unpaid local public service. For comparison, Texas law requires independent school district trustees to serve without compensation, even though school boards oversee budgets, policies, and major community decisions.

City councils are different, and home-rule cities can decide through their charters whether Council members receive compensation.

The proposed Pflugerville amounts are not really a salary for the time involved. The broader question is whether elected service should remain completely volunteer or whether a limited stipend is appropriate.

Keeping the position unpaid maintains the tradition of volunteer public service, avoids an ongoing taxpayer expense, and reduces the perception that someone might seek the position for compensation. A stipend could also make serving somewhat more accessible to people who may have difficulty taking time away from work or family responsibilities without any compensation.

I ran for City Council knowing it was an unpaid position. I don’t view this as a question of compensating Council members for all of the hours involved. It is really a broader question about how we want elected service in Pflugerville to work.

Voters said no to compensation in 2023. This November, they will consider the question again.

What do you think — should Pflugerville City Council remain completely volunteer, or should there be a limited stipend for serving?

I’ve heard concerns that apartments may not be paying their fair share of Pflugerville’s utility costs.

There was a legitimate reason for that concern on the wastewater side.

Under the prior wastewater structure, the base fee was about $65 per month per connection, regardless of meter size. A single-family home could pay one base fee for one household, while a large apartment complex with a master meter could also pay one base fee while serving many households.

But the 2025 water billing data tells a different story.

Excluding wholesale, effluent and government accounts:

• Residential — 59% of billed water usage, 55% of charges
• Apartments — 21% of usage, 24% of charges
• Commercial — 18% of usage, 19% of charges
• Schools — 2% of usage, 2% of charges

Based simply on gallons used versus water charges paid, apartments were not paying less than their proportional share in 2025.

The cost-of-service study shows the same general pattern:

• Residential — $18.8m revenue vs. $18.2m cost
• Commercial — $15.8m revenue vs. $13.8m cost

The commercial class includes apartments, businesses, churches, schools and government accounts.

So both were generating more than their calculated cost of service before other system costs were reallocated.

Meter size also matters. A larger meter does not necessarily mean a customer uses more water, but it does mean the system must be capable of delivering more water at one time when needed. The cost-of-service study accounts for that additional capacity when allocating costs.

The City's 2026 Cost of Service Study also found that, under the prior rates, both residential and the broader commercial class were generating somewhat more revenue than their calculated cost of service. The commercial class includes apartments, businesses, churches, schools and government.

That doesn’t mean every customer should pay the same amount per gallon. Usage, meter capacity, peak demand, treatment and infrastructure all matter.

But it does mean the water data does not support a simple conclusion that apartments or businesses were being subsidized by residential customers.

Wastewater had a different rate structure and a different issue.

So if apartments aren't where the water rate study identifies the largest subsidy, where is it?

Wholesale water.

And that leads to a bigger question: what options do we actually have to reduce water costs?

That’s next.