Councilmember Melody Ryan - Pflugerville City Council, Place 5

Councilmember Melody Ryan - Pflugerville City Council, Place 5 Melody Ryan serves on the Pflugerville City Council,Place 5, where she focuses on transparency, collaboration, & responsible growth. Welcome!

A CPA & longtime resident, she brings financial expertise & years of community service to her work on behalf of residents. I’m Melody Ryan, your Pflugerville City Councilmember for Place 5. This page is dedicated to sharing updates, city projects, and information about the work of the City Council and City of Pflugerville. My goal is to keep residents informed, promote transparency, and encourage

collaboration on the issues that shape our community. To contact me about city-related topics or to request a conversation or meeting, please use the Meet with Melody form here:
https://forms.gle/WbEUYChhN89tv3h39

If you prefer to reach me directly, you can email me at [email protected]. Stay up to date on city news by subscribing to the weekly Key to the City newsletter emailed each Friday and other information sources here: https://www.pflugervilletx.gov/184/Pf-Connect---Citizen-Communication

Review agendas, minutes and watch videos of meetings here: https://pflugerville.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

Messages or comments on this page are not monitored for official service requests. For city services or maintenance issues, please contact the City of Pflugerville directly at https://www.pflugervilletx.gov/686/Report-a-Problem. Comment Policy:
Respectful discussion is encouraged! Comments containing personal attacks, profanity, spam, or political campaigning may be removed in accordance with city communication guidelines. Note: Communications through this page, including comments and messages, may be subject to disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act.

Public Safety, Privacy, and Community TrustLast night, City Council voted not to renew the City’s Flock camera contract....
08/27/2026

Public Safety, Privacy, and Community Trust

Last night, City Council voted not to renew the City’s Flock camera contract.

This was not a decision I came to quickly. For the past several months, I have been reviewing the contract and Police Department policies, pushing for stronger safeguards, and talking with residents across the spectrum as well as our Police Department to better understand the public-safety benefits, privacy concerns, and civil-liberties implications.

I have confidence in our Police Department. Our officers put their lives on the line every day, and ALPR technology has been used here in cases involving violent offenders, shootings, gun theft, missing persons, and people experiencing a mental-health crisis. I also appreciate the time our officers spent explaining why they value the technology and how they use it.

At the same time, my concerns have never been limited to whether our officers are using the system appropriately. They include how much vehicle-location data is collected, how it can be searched and shared, what future capabilities could be added, whether the safeguards and audits are sufficient, and whether we have enough data to demonstrate the overall effectiveness of the system.

The day before our vote, a citizen received the results of a detailed public information request regarding searches of Pflugerville’s Flock data. The information showed that more than 459 agencies (80 had been authorized) had searched our data, including state and federal agencies, even though staff reviewed the City’s software settings, which reflected that state and federal access was turned off. That discovery deserves further review.

My decision not to support renewal had already been made before that information became available. But it reinforced why I have been pushing for stronger data-governance policies, meaningful audits, clear access controls, and safeguards that work not just on paper, but in practice.

Months ago, Councilmember Coffman brought forward a Citywide data-governance policy, which I seconded so Council could discuss it. I supported moving that work forward because this issue is bigger than Flock or any single technology. As cities adopt more tools that collect and analyze high-risk data, we need consistent standards for how that information is collected, retained, accessed, shared, audited, and protected.

I also believe the community should have meaningful input on major issues like this before a final decision is made. It was encouraging to see so many residents show up, speak, share different perspectives, and participate in the process. I personally related to many of the stories and concerns that were shared, because they reflected concerns I had also been weighing throughout this process. That kind of civic participation matters. Our system of self-government depends on people being informed, engaged, and willing to make their voices heard.

Public safety and civil liberties should not be competing goals. We need to find tools that help our officers keep Pflugerville safe while also protecting the rights and privacy of the people they serve.

I am confident that we can continue working with our City staff, Police Chief, and community to be innovative, use technology responsibly, and keep public safety at the center of what we do.

What Does Pflugerville’s Proposed Budget Mean for Your Tax Bill?The City Council will hold a public hearing on the propo...
08/24/2026

What Does Pflugerville’s Proposed Budget Mean for Your Tax Bill?

The City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed FY2026-27 budget on Tuesday, August 25 at 7 p.m. at 1611 E. Pfennig Lane.

The budget snapshot I’m sharing focuses on the General Fund, which pays for most day-to-day City services.

For FY26, the City is projecting about $62.9 million in recurring revenue and $63.0 million in recurring expenditures. For FY27, the proposed budget includes about $65.8 million in recurring revenue and expenditures, plus approximately $2.8 million in capital and other one-time costs funded from existing fund balance.

Some of the major FY27 cost increases include a 3% salary increase, a 2.5% police step-plan increase, operating costs for new facilities, and general cost increases. These are partially offset by reductions in vacant positions and some outside contracts.

The Monarch is also important to the comparison. The new recreation center is being accounted for separately as an enterprise fund, similar to the utility fund. Some personnel and operating costs that were previously in the General Fund are moving to The Monarch Fund, so part of the General Fund reduction reflects costs being shifted to a separate fund rather than eliminated.

The General Fund reserve is projected to decline from about 31% to 26%, compared with the City’s 25% minimum reserve requirement.

The tax graphic shows:
• FY26 adopted rate: $0.5350
• FY27 no-new-revenue rate: $0.5407
• FY27 proposed rate: $0.5436

The no-new-revenue rate is a statutory benchmark designed to generate approximately the same property tax revenue from property on the tax roll in both years, after required adjustments. It does not mean every homeowner would pay the same amount because individual tax bills also depend on taxable value.

The City’s average taxable homestead value is projected to decrease from $378,234 to $362,231, but individual homeowners may see something very different.

My home is an example. TCAD significantly increased its appraised value in 2022, and because of the homestead cap, my value increased by 10% each year until this year, when it finally caught up to the appraised value.

That’s why the most useful number in the tax graphic is your own taxable value.

The public hearing on Tuesday, August 25 is your opportunity to comment before Council adopts the final budget on September 8.

What do you think is the right balance between funding City services and keeping the property tax burden affordable for residents?

Water Billing Improvements: You Speak, We ListenAt the last City Council meeting, I followed up on two water and wastewa...
08/24/2026

Water Billing Improvements: You Speak, We Listen

At the last City Council meeting, I followed up on two water and wastewater billing issues that residents have raised with me.

Average Billing

I asked whether Pflugerville could offer an average billing option, similar to what many electric and gas utilities offer, to help customers have more predictable monthly bills throughout the year.

The Finance Department confirmed that our billing software can support this option. If Council approves an average billing policy, staff can begin training for implementation.

Wastewater Customers Outside the City's Water Service Area

These customers have historically been billed based on average City water customer usage rather than their own winter water usage.

Staff obtained updated information from the Manville agreement, and with additional coordination, it appears these customers' actual winter averaging usage can be used to calculate their City wastewater bills. If Council approves this additional work, this could provide rate relief for lower-usage customers and better align their bills with their actual usage.

I've been concerned about both of these issues, and I want to thank the residents who reminded me that they still needed to be addressed.

This is a good example of why your feedback matters. You speak, we listen — and sometimes a question or reminder from a resident can lead to a practical change that makes things a little fairer for our community.

Should We Start the Budget at No-New-Revenue — or the Maximum Tax Rate?Instead of starting with a tax rate that brings i...
08/21/2026

Should We Start the Budget at No-New-Revenue — or the Maximum Tax Rate?

Instead of starting with a tax rate that brings in substantially more property-tax revenue and then asking Council to find things to “cut,” I would like us to begin with the no-new-revenue rate.

So what does “no-new-revenue” mean?

Despite the name, it does not mean the City receives no new revenue. The no-new-revenue rate is calculated to produce approximately the same amount of property-tax revenue from properties that were on the tax rolls in both years, after accounting for changes in property values. Revenue from new construction and property newly added to the tax rolls is separate.

That creates a much clearer starting point: What would it cost to provide our existing services with roughly the same property-tax revenue from properties already on the tax rolls?

Then, if staff recommends additional priorities or investments, bring them forward so Council can evaluate and vote on them.

Salary increases, higher operating costs, service priorities, or opportunities for greater efficiency? What is driving the increase, what can be done more efficiently, and what is worth asking taxpayers to pay more for?

Then residents can see more clearly why taxes would need to increase above the no-new-revenue rate and what they would receive in return.

This approach is already being used nearby. Williamson County and Hutto have both used the no-new-revenue level as a starting point in this year’s budget discussions.

I believe that is a more transparent way to build a budget.

For years, Pflugerville’s budget discussions have generally started much closer to the maximum amount of additional property-tax revenue allowed without voter approval. Texas law previously allowed most cities to increase maintenance-and-operations property-tax revenue by as much as 8% before the rollback process applied. Beginning in 2020, that threshold was generally reduced to 3.5%.

Starting near that maximum and then describing anything removed as a “cut” can make it difficult to distinguish between actually reducing an existing service and simply deciding not to fund a proposed increase.

Starting at no-new-revenue changes the question from:

“What are we willing to cut?”

to:

“What are we willing to ask taxpayers to pay more for?”

There may absolutely be investments worth making. Staff has also identified areas where costs can be reduced and operations made more efficient. I think both should be part of the discussion: what truly needs additional funding, and where can we continue finding better ways to deliver services?

That way, an increase above the no-new-revenue rate is a deliberate decision tied to specific priorities residents can see and evaluate.

How would you prefer the City build its budget?

-Start at the no-new-revenue rate and vote on what should be added?

-Start with a higher proposed rate and decide what, if anything, should be taken out?

-Or continue generally budgeting up to the maximum 3.5% increase allowed in maintenance-and-operations revenue without voter approval?

When Is the Right Time to Build?I’ve heard the argument that infrastructure should be built sooner because it will cost ...
08/19/2026

When Is the Right Time to Build?

I’ve heard the argument that infrastructure should be built sooner because it will cost more later.

There is certainly truth to the idea that roads, utilities, parks and public facilities generally become more expensive to build over time. But future construction cost is only one part of the financial equation.

Building infrastructure earlier also means paying for it earlier—often with decades of debt service—along with maintenance, utilities, staffing or other operating costs, and eventual replacement costs. It can also use borrowing capacity that may be needed for other priorities.

Here’s a simple hypothetical example:

If an $85 million project could instead be built for $65 million today, with $20 million of future capacity added 10 years later, the City could avoid borrowing that $20 million during the first decade.

At roughly 4.5% interest over 30 years, that could mean about $1.2 million less in annual debt service for those first 10 years.

There could also be additional savings from not operating and maintaining that future capacity before it is needed. Those savings would depend on the type of infrastructure and how the project is designed.

Of course, the second phase would cost more later because of construction inflation, financing and the added cost of phasing. That’s exactly why both options should be compared financially.

The timing of the borrowing matters too. In Pflugerville, debt for remaining 2020 bond projects and Downtown East was issued in 2023, and portions of those proceeds remained unspent for multiple fiscal years while debt service had already begun. That meant residents were paying property taxes on debt before all of the borrowed cash was actually needed for construction.

Timing also has to reflect what residents can reasonably afford. A project may be worthwhile and still not be the right project to fully fund in a particular year. In those cases, the question becomes what must be addressed now, what can be phased, and what can wait without creating greater costs later.

The answer may also be different depending on the type of project.

For roads, it may make sense to acquire right-of-way or build certain improvements before development makes them much more difficult and expensive.

For water and wastewater infrastructure, building some additional capacity can be prudent because major lines, treatment facilities and pump stations can be difficult to expand incrementally.

For parks and public buildings, there may be more opportunities to acquire the land or build the core infrastructure now while adding amenities, buildings or additional space as the community grows.

And sometimes building everything at once really will be the least expensive long-term option.

The point is not that we should delay infrastructure. It is that there should be a financial analysis behind both when we build and when we borrow.

For major investments, I think we should be asking:

What do we need now?
What will we need later?
What can reasonably be phased?
When will the money actually be needed?
What does building or borrowing early cost us in interest, operations, maintenance and debt capacity?
And what would waiting actually cost?

Good long-term planning means preparing for growth while recognizing that resources are limited, affordability matters and priorities have to be weighed against one another.

What do you think? How far ahead should a city build—and borrow—for future growth, and what factors should be considered when deciding whether to build now or phase a project over time?

🧵 Creativity, craftsmanship, and community are on display at the Pflugerville Library!The Pflugerville Quilt Guild has s...
08/17/2026

🧵 Creativity, craftsmanship, and community are on display at the Pflugerville Library!

The Pflugerville Quilt Guild has some of its beautiful work featured in the Public Art Gallery at the front of the library through the end of August. The creativity is impressive, but so is the precision and patience that goes into every piece.

I have a special appreciation for fiber arts because I love to crochet and make blankets for friends and family—especially when we’re welcoming a new little one into the family. There’s something meaningful about creating something by hand, stitch by stitch, that can be enjoyed for years.

I love seeing our library provide a place to showcase the talent of local artists and celebrate the creativity found right here in our community.

If you’re at the library this month, take a few minutes to enjoy the Quilt Guild’s work! Plus cast a vote for your favorite two 🧶🪡

**Update on the Proposed 2026 Bond Election**City Council did not place any bond propositions on the November 2026 ballo...
08/12/2026

**Update on the Proposed 2026 Bond Election**

City Council did not place any bond propositions on the November 2026 ballot.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to provide feedback. The City received more than 500 responses to the three-day Flash Survey this past weekend compared to 375 during the two-week survey conducted in May, and the results indicated there was not enough community support for the proposed bond projects at this time.

Council discussed alternative locations for a future animal shelter and did not move forward with the proposal that would require demolishing the existing Recreation Center. I believe we need to plan a new animal shelter that the community will support, and I appreciate everyone who provided input on the location and other options.

Planning for high priority projects will continue in the future so options are "shovel ready" when we bring them to the voters.

The bond projects may be reconsidered in a future year. In the meantime, the City will continue moving forward with the 2020 bond projects and other previously approved major road and utility projects.

I look forward to seeing continued progress on these projects and residents being able to see and experience the value these investments will add to our community.

Thank you again to everyone who shared your perspective and told us which projects and priorities matter most to you. Your feedback made a difference.

Water Rate Update: Revised Plan Provides Relief for Most HouseholdsCouncil received another update Tuesday on the propos...
08/12/2026

Water Rate Update: Revised Plan Provides Relief for Most Households

Council received another update Tuesday on the proposed water and wastewater rate changes. Staff made several adjustments based on Council's previous feedback and provided more information showing how the proposed rates would affect customers at different usage levels throughout the year.

One important change is the addition of a lower-priced water tier that extends through 8,000 gallons of monthly usage. This helps keep typical household water needs more affordable before higher usage rates apply.

Under the revised proposal, approximately 75% of residential customers are expected to see either no increase or a decrease in their total monthly bill for FY2027. That's a significant change compared with the approximately 11% increase that would be needed in FY2027 if we maintained the current rate structure.

Staff also provided monthly bill comparisons showing how bills are expected to fluctuate for households that irrigate during the summer. The adjustments to the water tiers help reduce some of the increases that otherwise would have affected households with higher summer usage.

The proposed structure also changes how costs are distributed:

-Water base fees would decrease for all meter sizes, while more of the cost would be recovered based on actual water usage.

-Wastewater base fees would become more equitable. Under the current structure, residential, multifamily and commercial customers can pay the same flat $65 monthly wastewater base fee, regardless of meter size. The proposed structure would allocate wastewater base fees based on meter size, similar to water.

-Overall, the revised structure places greater emphasis on actual usage while reducing reliance on fixed base fees.

Although some customers will see increases, the revised structure provides real rate relief for smaller households and customers with lower water usage.

I also asked staff to explore an average billing option to help provide customers with more predictable monthly bills and reduce the impact of seasonal fluctuations. Staff will be researching options.

Looking Ahead

Our utility system still faces significant financial pressures. Water and wastewater revenue requirements are expected to increase in three of the next five years, driven largely by major utility infrastructure investments and growth that has been lower than originally projected.

We can't eliminate those costs, but we can be thoughtful about how those costs are distributed. The revised rate model is a meaningful improvement because it helps ease the burden for a large majority of our residential customers while more closely aligning charges with actual usage and customer size.

There is still more work ahead as we balance the cost of maintaining and investing in a reliable water and wastewater system with keeping an essential service affordable.

My goal is to make sure we're not simply asking everyone to pay more because additional revenue is needed. We should continue looking at who is paying, how much they're using, and how we can distribute those costs as fairly as possible.

$87 Million in Bond Proposals Comes Before Council TuesdayOn Tuesday, August 11, City Council will consider whether to c...
08/08/2026

$87 Million in Bond Proposals Comes Before Council Tuesday

On Tuesday, August 11, City Council will consider whether to call a November bond election totaling approximately $87 million for parks and trails, a new animal shelter, and downtown parking improvements.

The proposal includes $62 million for parks, $21 million for a new animal shelter, and $5 million for downtown parking. The estimated property tax impact of the full package is approximately $187 per year for the median taxable homestead plus additional costs of $900k annually for operations for these improvements.

I've spent a lot of time reviewing these proposals, and I wanted to share some of the factors I'm considering before Tuesday's vote.

Finishing What We've Started

I raised concerns about the timing of another bond program before this process began. I had advocated for waiting until 2027 or 2028 to convene another bond committee so we could make more progress on our existing major projects before considering another round of debt.

We currently have six major infrastructure projects totaling roughly $1 billion underway, in addition to projects remaining from the 2020 bond program. As of September 30, 2025, approximately 85% of the 2020 bond proceeds remained unspent. Significant progress has been made since then, but projects are expected to continue through FY 2029.

I believe one of the best ways to strengthen public trust is to finish what we've already committed to, let residents see and experience the improvements their tax dollars are providing, and then have a transparent conversation about what comes next.

Affordability Matters

I also have to consider whether this is the right time to ask residents to take on another property tax increase. Many households are already dealing with higher costs.

That doesn't mean we stop planning for our future. It means we should carefully consider what needs to be funded now, what can wait, and whether there are ways to keep our highest-priority projects moving forward without taking on the full $87 million in additional debt today.

🐾 Animal Shelter & Reunion Park

At this point, I see the Animal Shelter and Reunion Park in the Historic Colored Addition as the highest priorities among the proposed projects.

I believe Pflugerville needs a new animal shelter given the flooding and numerous repairs needed in recent years. I have also raised concerns about the current proposal of demolishing our current Recreation Center for the animal shelter (retrofitting was determined to not be a viable financial option).

I asked staff to evaluate alternative locations that would preserve the existing Recreation Center and a phased approach that could accommodate approximately the next 10 years of growth while allowing the shelter to expand later as additional space is needed.

Staff will be presenting additional alternatives Tuesday. I'm looking forward to reviewing them.

Communities in Williamson County contribute to a regional shelter. I did inquire about this option and I believe our community should have input and data about all viable options.

I do think we need more community stakeholder input on the location and scope of Reunion park.

One option I believe is worth considering is using available savings from our existing bond projects, if possible, to fund design for the animal shelter and Reunion Park. That could make these projects "shovel ready" for a future bond election after more of our current major infrastructure projects are complete.

📣 Please Share Your Feedback

The City's Flash Survey on all of the proposed 2026 bond projects is open through Sunday, August 9.

🔗 https://bit.ly/3ROAkuj

I encourage residents to review the proposals and take the survey. The Bond Advisory Committee considered these projects and recommended placing a bond before voters.

As I continue evaluating the options before Tuesday’s vote, I’d especially like to hear:

-Which projects do you believe should be the City’s highest priorities?

-Should we focus on completing more of our current major infrastructure projects before asking voters to approve additional debt?

-What do you think is the best path forward for Pflugerville’s animal shelter?

I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to provide input. These are long-term decisions, and community feedback is important as we determine what should move forward now and what may be better considered in the future.

Lower Water & Wastewater Base Fees—But Higher Summer Bills?Quick summary of the utility rate proposal presented on 7/14/...
07/31/2026

Lower Water & Wastewater Base Fees—But Higher Summer Bills?

Quick summary of the utility rate proposal presented on 7/14/26:

* The City must raise enough revenue to cover operations, debt service, reserves, and strict state and federal loan covenants.
* Utility revenue needs are projected to increase over the next several years due to the large infrastructure projects.
* The proposal lowers residential base fees but raises usage rates, which may reduce winter bills while creating much higher summer bills for households that irrigate.
* Council requested month-by-month comparisons at different usage levels because an annual average can hide summer bill spikes.
* The proposal also corrects a longstanding inequity: homes, apartment complexes, and businesses currently pay the same $65 monthly wastewater base fee.

I have been advocating for a full evaluation of our utility rates to provide relief from high base fees while still collecting the required revenue.

The Finance Department has identified the revenue needed, which is projected to increase over the next several years. The City’s state and federal loans offer lower interest rates and more flexible terms, but they also require utility revenues to provide 125% coverage of operations and debt service.
The question is not whether sufficient revenue must be collected—it is how that cost should be shared.

For a typical home, the proposal would:

* Lower the water base from **$50 to $16.20**
* Lower the wastewater base from **$65 to $42.10**
* Replace the current water tiers with a flat **$13.66 per 1,000 gallons**
* Increase the wastewater usage rate from **$6.50 to $11.43**

Current water tiers range from $6.95 to $13.60 per 1,000 gallons, depending on usage.

The impact depends heavily on usage:

| Monthly usage | Current bill | Proposed bill |
| -------------- | -----------: | ------------: |
| 3,000 gallons | $155.35 | $133.57 |
| 5,000 gallons | $185.75 | $183.75 |
| 8,000 gallons | $231.35 | $259.02 |
| 10,000 gallons | $261.75 | $309.20 |

Lower-use homes may pay less, while households with higher use—especially outdoor irrigation—could see much larger summer bills. That is why Council requested a month-by-month analysis at different usage levels. An annual average can hide the real impact on families during winter compared with peak summer irrigation months.

Under the current rate structure, the average bill would increase by approximately 11% overall next year to generate the additional revenue. Council still needs the detailed modeling to show how that would affect base fees, usage rates, and different customer types.

Another major issue is finally being addressed. Today, a home, an apartment complex, and a business all pay the same $65 wastewater base fee, regardless of meter size.

That inequity was not clear in previous rate summaries. It is one reason I have continued asking for more detailed information about the assumptions and structure behind our utility rates.

A 300-unit apartment property should not pay the same fixed wastewater charge as one household.

The proposed meter-based structure is more logical, but we still need to evaluate whether the resulting increases are reasonable and fairly allocated. City examples show:

* Apartment unit: **$50.30 to $110.09**
* Fast-food restaurant: **$939.25 to $1,576.80**
* Average commercial customer: **$1,913.25 to $3,065.55**

Historically, the City relied more heavily on predictable base fees because many utility costs—debt, staffing, treatment plants, maintenance, insurance, and system readiness—must be paid regardless of rainfall or water use. Higher usage charges can encourage conservation, but they also create greater bill volatility.

Before approving a new structure, I want Council to see the full monthly impact and compare several options—not just one proposal. Higher base fees can be especially burdensome for lower-use households, while sharply higher usage rates can create steep summer bills for families that irrigate. One option worth evaluating is a middle-ground structure with moderate base fees and graduated usage tiers that do not penalize a reasonable amount of household irrigation, while charging more for unusually high use.

We should compare several combinations of base fees, tiers, and usage rates to find a structure that is fair, affordable, and financially sustainable.

What do you think would be the fairest way to structure water and wastewater rates for homes, apartments, businesses, and nonprofits?

Address

Pflugerville, TX
78660

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Councilmember Melody Ryan - Pflugerville City Council, Place 5 posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category