Item 05: Meet and Confer Agreement -Memorandum of Understanding with the San Marcos Police Officers’ Association

[COSM_Admin]

Consider approval of Resolution 2025-211R, approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the San Marcos Police Officers’ Association to extend the current Meet and Confer Agreement to September 30, 2027, and to provide a five percent base pay salary increase for police officers beginning October 1, 2026; authorizing the City Manager, or her designee, to execute the Memorandum of Understanding; and declaring an effective date.

 

[arodriguez7]

Below are questions I have already submitted to staff via email, please include provided responses underneath for public viewing.

• Who initiated this extension request?
• What specific steps will be taken during the extension period by City staff, should council pursue an extension?
• What is the financial impact of extending the current agreement for another year? Including any calculations on respective salary increases attributed to the current percentages. Please include all past expenditures related to salary as a result of the current agreement and separate between Police and Fire.
• Does the current agreement limit civilian oversight, access to disciplinary records, or transparency in misconduct investigations further than State law already does? (Specific to police)
• What would happen if the city did not extend the agreement? Would the parties renegotiate or would it revert to state law defaults?

Below are new additional questions:

• Since the start of meet and confer, how much has the city paid to settle disciplinary lawsuits filed against SMPD/SMPD Officers?
• To expand upon my initial question determining financial impact, please provide the cumulative costs attributed to all obligations under Article 5, Wages and Compensation, during the current contract agreement. It would be preferable to break obligatory costs down by each section as applicable (eg. section for costs attributed to increases in base pay, shift differential pay, etc.).
• What is the current resident incentive determined by the city and what percentage of officers under civil service are currently eligible?
• How does the preemption provision found throughout this agreement counteract with HB 2127 (88R) (Death Star Preemption Bill)? Specifically, given the inclusion of “This Article preempts any conflicting state statutes..”?
  • Language under discussion: This Article preempts any conflicting state statutes (including Texas Local Government Code Chapters 141, 142, and 143), local ordinances, executive orders, civil service provisions, or rules adopted by the Chief of Police or City or by any division or agent of the City, including any City personnel board and the Firefighters and Police Officers Civil Service Commission, as provided by Texas Local Government Code Section 142.067 and 143.036.
• Of the sections applicable under Article 16, Protected Rights of Officers, which exceed what is currently allowed under Chapter 143?

 

[COSM_Admin]

• Who initiated this extension request?
  • The idea of extending the agreements was initially raised by City Management and Human Resources due to recent leadership changes in both departments, the ongoing EMS transition, and an uncertain financial outlook.

• • The October 8th Executive Session was held to gather City Council’s initial feedback and direction regarding a possible extension. Following Council’s comments at the October 8th Executive Session, City staff asked the associations to informally gauge their members’ willingness to consider an extension. The associations, however, indicated they would wait to poll their members until they received the input shared by City Council during the October 21st executive session.
  • At the October 21st Executive Session, City staff confirmed that association leadership supported moving forward with the extension and would conduct member polling if Council was in favor. Staff also outlined next steps, including the timeline for formal voting by the associations. Council requested to be informed of the formal vote, which were provided in an email earlier this week.
• What specific steps will be taken during the extension period by City staff, should council pursue an extension?
  • During the extension period, City staff will gather and review meet and confer agreements from our peer comparators to identify trends, best practices, and opportunities. Staff will conduct a comprehensive analysis of compensation, benefits, and operational provisions to determine where adjustments may be appropriate to maintain competitiveness and support recruitment, retention, and overall organizational effectiveness. In addition, staff will engage with department leadership and association representatives to outline priorities for future negotiations and begin preliminary discussions on key topics to be addressed in the successor agreements. City staff is expected to receive the final report from our consultant in late 2025 outlining recommendations for Emergency Medical Services following the dissolution of ESD partnerships with Hays County EMS. It will be essential to have adequate time to review and incorporate these recommendations before entering negotiations on new Fire agreement terms. Staff also has several town halls planned in the upcoming months and want to gather community feedback to help inform future negotiations.
• What is the financial impact of extending the current agreement for another year? Including any calculations on respective salary increases attributed to the current percentages. Please include all past expenditures related to salary as a result of the current agreement and separate between Police and Fire.
  • Below is the estimated cost for extending the agreement. We have also included the FY26 cost under the current agreement.

FY27

PD - $836,344 (5%)

FD - $638,047 (4.5%)

Total = $1,474,391



FY26

PD - $791,472 (5%)

FD - $606,393 (4.5%)

Total = $1,397,865

• Does the current agreement limit civilian oversight, access to disciplinary records, or transparency in misconduct investigations further than State law already does? (Specific to police)
  • No. The current Meet and Confer Agreement does not further limit civilian oversight, access to disciplinary records, or transparency in misconduct investigations beyond what is already established by State law. The agreement operates within the framework of Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code, which governs civil service procedures for police and fire departments. The current provisions in the agreement provide greater flexibility than current State Law.

• What would happen if the city did not extend the agreement? Would the parties renegotiate or would it revert to state law defaults?
  • If the City does not extend the current Meet and Confer Agreements, the next due date related to the agreements is February 1, 2026. By that date, the associations and City staff must have conducted their first full renegotiation meetings for new Meet & Confer Agreements. City staff will not conduct any renegotiation meetings without first receiving direction from City Council. If an extension is not approved by the City, then there will be Council agenda items related to Council’s approval for City staff to begin renegotiating new agreements. If no negotiations for a new agreement are underway by February 1, 2026, the affected departments would operate under the default provisions of Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code starting October 1, 2026. Chapter 143 governs employment, disciplinary, and promotional processes. The absence of an agreement would also remove any locally negotiated provisions that currently supplement or enhance those state defaults.

 

[COSM_Admin]

Question: Since the start of meet and confer, how much has the city paid to settle disciplinary lawsuits filed against SMPD/SMPD Officers?
The total cost is $96,500. The Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (TMLIRP) is a risk pool funded by premiums paid by participating Texas cities. The risk pool operates in much the same manner as an insurance company would by defending against and paying eligible claims filed against a member city. Similar to an insured with an insurance company, a member city that files a claim with TML pays a deductible. For police liability claims, the deductible is currently $1,000. The risk pool is viewed as beneficial versus private insurance because it specializes in matters common to municipalities at a generally lower cost than private insurance. The risk pool pays the cost of the claim including adjustors fees, attorney fees etc.

Question: What is the current resident incentive determined by the city and what percentage of officers under civil service are currently eligible?
We have had eleven Officers participate with an associated amount of $5,000.

Question: How does the preemption provision found throughout this agreement counteract with HB 2127 (88R) (Death Star Preemption Bill)? Specifically, given the inclusion of “This Article preempts any conflicting state statutes.”?
House Bill 2127 broadly preempts municipalities and counties from adopting or enforcing local ordinances that regulate conduct in fields already occupied by state law, such as labor, employment, and commerce, unless the municipality is expressly authorized by statute to do so. The preemption clause within the City’s Police Meet & Confer Agreement is rooted in such to express statutory authority. Under Texas Local Government Code Section 142.067, meet and confer agreements “supersede a conflicting statute, executive order, local ordinance, or rule adopted by the state or a political subdivision to the extent of the conflict.” This provision was intentionally included by the Legislature to allow local governments and public safety associations to negotiate employment terms that differ from Chapter 143 (Civil Service) and other related statutes. Accordingly, the Meet & Confer Agreement’s preemption language, although it references the preemption of certain state and local provisions, it does not conflict with HB 2127. Rather, it operates under an explicit legislative grant of authority that HB 2127 preserves. The Meet & Confer Agreement remains fully enforceable and continues to preempt conflicting provisions in Chapters 141, 142, and 143 of the Texas Local Government Code where specified. HB 2127 applies primarily to city ordinances, regulations, or policies outside the scope of a legislatively authorized agreement.

Question: Of the sections applicable under Article 16, Protected Rights of Officers, which exceed what is currently allowed under Chapter 143?

Provision in Agreement	Exceeds/Modifies Chapter 143	Explanation
Section 3(A) – 48-hour advance copy of complaint and written notice of additional allegations	Exceeds	Chapter 143.123 generally requires only that officers be informed of the nature of the investigation before interrogation, not necessarily 48 hours in advance or in writing for new allegations.
Section 3(B) – Right to review recordings, videos, or photos before giving a statement	Exceeds	Chapter 143 does not guarantee pre-interview access to video or photo evidence.
Section 3(C) – Officer entitled to a copy of their own statement after it’s finalized	Clarifies/Expands	143.123(f)(3) allows officers to record their interrogation but does not specifically require the Department to provide a copy. This guarantees delivery.
Section 3(D) – Right to review documents alleging false or inconsistent statements before interview	Exceeds	No equivalent requirement in Chapter 143. Provides early discovery rights not normally afforded.
Section 3(E) – Right to review the officer’s own prior reports related to the conduct	Expands	143.123 does not mandate access to the officer’s own prior reports before interrogation.
Section 3(F) – 48-hour pre-hearing review of all evidence (up to 5 hours)	Exceeds	Chapter 143 does not require any specific evidence review time before a disciplinary hearing.
Section 3(G) – 48-hour notice of alleged policy violations and range of discipline	Expands	143.052 requires written notice of disciplinary action but not advance notice of possible violations or range of discipline.
Section 4(A) – Reinforces confidentiality obligations tied to access rights	Clarifies	Consistent with 143.089(g), but broader access is provided.
Section 4(B)-(C) – Mandatory suspension for retaliation; limits Commission/Hearing Examiner authority	Exceeds & modifies	143.053(e)-(f) allow Hearing Examiners to modify or reduce penalties. This section explicitly removes that discretion.
Section 5 – Guarantees representation of choice during interviews and hearings	Clarifies/Aligns	Chapter 143 allows representation at interrogations and appeals, but this broadens it to all administrative inquiries.
Section 6 – Allows violations of this Article to be considered in appeals if they substantially impair defense	Adds Procedural Protection	Chapter 143 has no equivalent rule allowing procedural violations to mitigate discipline.
Section 7 – Alternative discipline (counseling, rehabilitation, education, or community service)	Adds Entirely New Option	Chapter 143 provides only for suspension/demotion/indefinite suspension.
Section 7 (continued) – Waiver of appeal rights if officer accepts alternative discipline	Modifies Appeal Process	143.052(f) provides appeal rights for any suspension; this provision allows voluntary waiver through mutual agreement.

 

[COSM_Admin]

To expand upon my initial question determining financial impact, please provide the cumulative costs attributed to all obligations under Article 5, Wages and Compensation, during the current contract agreement. It would be preferable to break obligatory costs down by each section as applicable (eg. section for costs attributed to increases in base pay, shift differential pay, etc.).

Please see attached, provided by Finance.