Six candidates have filed for two two-year terms on the Village of Salado Board of Aldermen. Salado Village Voice features candidate profiles and questions and answers with the candidates leading up to the election, which will be May 2. Candidates will appear on the ballot in the following format: Gail Allard, Michael McDougal, Linda Reynolds, Rick Marruffo, Kevin D. Shoun and Jeff Vancura. Question 1: What are your thoughts on economic development agreements with developers? Have previous EDAs been good or bad for Salado? What would you like to see in future EDAs, if any. (250 words) Question 2: The Village recently receive a detailed roads report that estimates the cost to repair and resurface roads in Salado at some $30 million. The board has discussed a bond package for November. What is your stance on this? What roads do you think should be priority? (250 words) Question 3: How will the Village pay its share of the $1 million EPA grant to expand its wastewater treatment plant? (250 words) Question 4: Some local residents have talked about a petition to have an election to disincorporate Salado as a whole. What is your position on this? (250 words)

Gail Allard

Question 1: I think we can learn from the missteps of a few recent agreements moving forward. If we enter into new EDA’s, I believe the development build out should have a finite time line and and receive incentives based on milestones that are met, not given before the final house is built. If milestones aren’t met in the contract, we pull back tax breaks and charge fines. If construction is putting heavy use on our roads, they need to compensate in cash to repair the damage or have their road crew do quality repairs. Make sure the engineers are planning to mitigate water runoff so that our existing communities aren’t getting buried in uphill sludge.
I don’t think we have the funds to hire an enforcement division for making sure developments are holding up their commitments, but we will quickly need to plan for continued growth pressure and make sure we have a good set of eyes on the field.
Question 2: I don’t think anyone wants to talk about or enjoy a new taxes bond, but thats how we will get the funds for road and infrastructure repair. MRB built the assessment on the roads and drainage and if we are going to do a bond, let’s do it once and get everything that needs to be done in one shot. Otherwise, costs are going to increase in the future and we will be paying double later on. Greatest population areas and heavily trafficked roads: Mill Creek Dr. and its offshoots. Thomas Arnold.
Question 3: Wastewater: Again, another infrastructure project that could be paid for by bond or a long term low interest 20+ year loan. The current sewer serves a small number of residents because most of our residents have septic and these funds will most likely come from the pockets of those that won’t get access to it. Any future development and tie in into the sewer system needs to pay into the wastewater fund, without any grace period.
Question 4: I imagine that the amount of residents that wish to disincorporate to be a small number and I believe there will be more confusion, less safety and uncertainty within our Village if we dissolve our Village Government.

Michael McDougal

Question 1: Economic development agreements are usually good arrangements for both the City and the development. They absolutely must be well planned in advance of any agreement and should not be influenced by any special interest individual or group. Previous EDA’s for Salado have not always followed this guideline. They have been well intentioned and fairly well planned, but have not been properly followed by the Builder or by the City. I would like for the City to be an active participant in future agreements. They will be a positive phase of city development if properly developed and followed by all parties involved. The key to a positive development is that both parties be straight forward in any and all operations. The City must absolutely ensure that this happens. EDA’S across Texas and the country have proven beneficial to all parties concerned.
Question 2: The recently completed detailed road evaluation must be the basis for any upcoming road program for the City. The report indicates that many roads need attention, well beyond the pothole category. Of course, potholes interrupt safety and many times more than dangerous. However, this road evaluation goes well beyond the pothole stage. It contains various levels of repair and should of course be priorities throughout the Village.Of course board packages offer the most repair and the quickest completion. However, the key to that is the cost and can the cost be afforded within our budget. At this point, being in the shape it is in and taxes being stretched as they are, I could not view a bond package in November. Further, road grants are always available from various state and government sources. These sources should be applied for immediately and current road funds must be implemented immediately. Road priority should have been outlined in the detailed road report
Question 3: The Village must obligate payment for its portion when the application for the grant is submitted. There are several sources -to choose from and the Board must select the one that is the most feasible for the City. This is assuming the Board has exhausted various and all payment options.
Question 4: I see no reason to petition to disincorporate Salado as a whole.

Linda Reynolds

Question 1: 1.All of our development agreements with four different developers (and their assigns) were negotiated by mayors and aldermen who had self-interest as their main priority(IMO). This means they were not concerned with the good of all the Village residents and taxpayers.
All of the developers are still building, and all of our sewer capacity is under contract. No more developers should be invited from outside the Village limits until all building has been platted, and the Village clearly knows what obligations we already have for sewer use and billing, street light electric bill responsibilities, and PID maintenance office work and/or legal requirements.
Question 2: Half of all possible voters in the Village live on new roads, with lighting, some curbs,and sidewalks. Why would those individuals want to vote for higher taxes, when many pay some of the highest taxes in the Village?
The Village government needs to focus on incentives along Main Street from Pace Park north, and Salado Plaza Drive. There are too many empty lots and buildings that might become sales tax producing businesses if we offer the owners/or developers some incentives to grow those areas.
Question 3: Today, The Sanctuary WWTP is only running about 30% usage. Although Congressman Carter obtained funding that Mayor Coggin requested, there is no pressing reason to enlarge the sanctuary WWTP.
What may be more important is for Salado to do a better job of sending cleaner water from the plant into Smith Branch Creek, and to our neighbors across the golf course to the East of Salado.
Do we have the approximately $300,000 matching grant dollars? Between lawsuits and give backs and lousy development agreements by past mayors and aldermen, I’d guess the matching funds would have to be borrowed, and I’d Vote…No more debt!
Question 4: One petition to disincorporate was signed by many in Mill Creek, but names were published in the Village Voice. Signers were harassed, and Mayor Skip would not allow the idea to be voted on.
Another petition was submitted to disincorporate a different portion of Salado, in hopes of canceling The Sanctuary contract, but Mayor Coggin would not allow the issue placed on a ballot for a vote.
Many days, I do think the whole incorporation has been a failed experiment. Certainly, since 2015 and the signing of The Sanctuary Deal, Salado has had to struggle to exist, while many have arrived to cash in on a possible real estate boom.
This is Texas. This is America. Petition signers simply believe that people should have the right to Vote on issues that affect them. I agree.

Rick Marruffo

Question 1: EDAs can be very beneficial, as they can be helpful in welcoming new neighborhoods that can benefit the village financially. They can also be harmful, as evidenced by the village’s current situation. EDAs are meant to stimulate growth by offering incentives for new developments to enter the village. If they are done wrong, they can cause undue financial strain on the village, as evidenced by the Sanctuary development and Stagecoach Inn redevelopment agreements. They should be reviewed VERY CAREFULLY, by the board, and by trusted SMEs. They should not be decided on or approved by members that have a direct interest in it or may have the appearance of such. Lastly the details of the EDAs should be made public to the limit of the law, BEFORE they are approved. Consideration of a town hall should also be considered if any EDA may have a “controversial” tone.
Question 2: Our roads are one of the most important services our city provides—but fixing them requires a smart, disciplined approach. Throwing money at the problem isn’t enough, and raising taxes should not be the first option.
My plan focuses on protecting what we have, bringing in outside funding, and making growth pay its fair share. First, we must prioritize preventative maintenance. Treating roads early with crack sealing and surface treatments costs a fraction of full reconstruction and extends their life by years. Second, we will aggressively pursue state and federal funding through programs offered by the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation. These funds exist to support communities like ours, and we need to compete for them. Third, new development must contribute to infrastructure. By strengthening development agreements and impact fees, we ensure growth helps fund the roads it uses.
We will also explore targeted tools like street improvement districts—so only those who directly benefit from specific projects share in the cost. Finally, we will partner with the county and nearby communities to reduce costs through shared services and better contract pricing. This approach is practical, responsible, and focused on long-term results—not short-term fixes.
Question 3: The EPA award is a $1.5 million grant + 20% local match. Salado’s share = ~$375,000. It’s a reimbursement model: if $100K of work is done, EPA pays $80K, Salado pays $20K. There are several places that the money can likely come from:
Utility revenues (most likely backbone). Salado already charges monthly wastewater rates, impact fees for new connections, and reservation fees for system capacity. These should fund system expansion by design.
The village will have to use some of its existing capital funds or reserves. There is the option of short term loans. Additionally and very likely there would need to be rate increases (adjustments). The increases would not have to be dramatic.
There is also growth. This could produce revenue through new homes, commercial growth, and expanding service connections where possible. But I also believe that wastewater impact fee waivers should not be offered, as they pay for the required maintenance and improvements that are necessary for the wastewater treatment plant.
Question 4: I personally am against Salado disincorporating. If Salado, Texas were to disincorporate, it would lose its local government. That brings some real tradeoffs:
1. Loss of local control. The village government (mayor, aldermen, boards) would go away. Decisions on zoning, development, code enforcement, and planning would shift mostly to Bell County, Texas. Counties in Texas have far less authority than cities, so growth could become less controlled.
2. Police and services change. Local police would likely be replaced by the Bell County Sheriff’s Office. Response times and coverage might change. Other services—like street maintenance, permitting, and code enforcement—would also move to the county, often at a lower service level.
3. Taxes might shift, not vanish. City property taxes would go away, but county taxes would still apply. In some cases, residents end up paying similar overall taxes but with fewer direct services.
4. Infrastructure and roads. Maintenance responsibility would fall more heavily on the county. Counties typically have tighter budgets and larger areas to cover, so road quality and upkeep could decline or take longer.
5. Utilities and districts. Water, sewer, and emergency services might be handled by special utility districts (MUDs/ESDs) or private providers. If those aren’t already in place, they’d need to be created or expanded.
6. Economic and identity impact. Salado’s charm and brand as a managed historic village could weaken. Without local zoning and oversight, you could see more inconsistent development, which might hurt tourism and property values.
First and foremost, Salado is a historic village that is treasured by everyone, including its longtime residents, as well as the visitors that travel long distances to visit.
Bottom line: Disincorporation gives up control to save on city government costs. In a place like Salado—where character, tourism, and careful growth matter—that tradeoff could have long-term downsides.

Kevin D. Shoun

Question 1: Economic Development Agreements EDAs aren’t good or bad on their own. The terms are what matter.
The 2015 Sanctuary agreements are a case study in what not to sign. Sitting aldermen have publicly called it a “sweetheart deal” and “one-sided.” The agreement gave the developer 15 years of property tax rebates, hotel occupancy tax rebates, sewer impact fee waivers, and the ability to shift land-use categories by 20 percent without a major amendment. Then the Village had to amend it again in 2024 just to get the term reduced and the math more balanced for taxpayers. The Stagecoach EDA from July 2024 is structured better, it ties incentives to specific, measurable returns in sales tax, hotel occupancy tax, and property tax base. Going forward, I want every EDA Salado signs to do four things. Define “major” versus “minor” amendments in plain language so the Board keeps real authority. Cap the total dollar value of any incentive package and put a hard end date on it. Tie incentives to performance, jobs created, taxes generated, certificates of occupancy issued, not to promises. And require a third-party financial review before signing, not after.
Salado is going to keep getting EDA requests. Mustang Springs is on the agenda right now. We can’t stop growth and we shouldn’t try to. But the Board’s job is to negotiate from the village’s side of the table. Past agreements gave away leverage we won’t get back. The next ones won’t.
Question 2: I support a bond only if it’s done right. The MRB Group road and drainage assessment estimated the cost at roughly $30 million. That’s not a campaign talking point, it’s the engineer’s findings, presented to the Board in March. Bond counsel Gregory Miller told the Board in January not to make “iron pipe promises” without sufficient data. He’s right. A bond election fails when voters don’t trust the package. We can’t afford a failed bond. Before the Village asks residents to take on debt, three things have to happen. First, MRB’s prioritized list needs to be public, with cost ranges per segment so people can see exactly what they’re paying for. Second, we must pursue and document every available grant, including federal pedestrian and safety grants, county partnerships, and TxDOT coordination. Federal money reduces the local share. Third, the Village needs a written maintenance plan so we don’t end up in another $30 million hole 15 years from now. I follow the engineer on priority. MRB recommended safety and traffic functionality first, then drainage and low-water crossings. That’s the right order. Roads carrying school traffic, emergency vehicle routes, and the village’s main commercial corridors take priority over cosmetic resurfacing. I support a bond package that’s honest about the cost, specific about the work, and thought out well past the next few years. Not just a number rushed onto a ballot.
Question 3: Federal grants don’t cover everything. The Village has to cover the local share, and how we do that matters. I will not support raising property taxes to fund it. We have three limited options.
Grant stacking comes first. If we have one federal commitment, we should apply for every adjacent program: Clean Water State Revolving Fund low-interest loans through TWDB, USDA Rural Development water and waste programs (Salado qualifies as a community under 10,000), and Community Development Block Grants. Layering reduces what the Village has to put up.
Existing wastewater fund reserves and impact fees come second. The plant expansion exists to serve growth. Sewer impact fees from new connections are the cleanest match source because the people creating the demand pay for the capacity. Past EDAs waived too many of these fees. Future agreements shouldn’t. Low-interest debt comes third. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund offers below-market rates with terms up to 30 years. That’s structured for projects exactly like this one and protects the general fund without touching property tax.
The Board’s job is to find the lowest-cost path that protects the project timeline and respects the people paying the bills. That starts with paperwork and discipline, not a tax increase.
Question 4: I’m not opposed to the conversation, but I am opposed to disincorporation as it stands today. The frustration behind this issue is real. We’ve seen it come up before, and it reflects concerns about taxes, governance, and trust. Those concerns deserve to be heard and addressed. But removing the Village structure without a clear, detailed plan doesn’t solve the problem, it shifts it elsewhere, often with less local control. My biggest concern is what we give up. Disincorporation opens the door for decisions about Salado to be influenced by entities and voters outside of Salado. That means less direct say from the people who live here, invest here, and care about preserving what makes this community special. With the growth we’re already seeing across Central Texas, I believe maintaining our incorporation is more important than ever. It allows Salado to retain its voice, protect its identity, and make decisions locally, where they belong. That said, I’m always willing to have an open and honest conversation. If this is something the community wants to seriously consider, it must come with a clear plan, one that addresses infrastructure, public safety, financial obligations, and long-term governance before any decision is made. This isn’t something to rush. It’s something to fully understand.

Jeff Vancura

Question 1: The houses I see being built across Salado are middle to high-end developments. I expect this is the audience we would expect to continue to pursue and attract for new developments. As such, I think EDA’s of the future would be for single family neighborhoods, ~0.5 acre or larger lot sizes, and appropriate deed restrictions commensurate to protect these home entry price tags and future values. We should maintain the benefits of our Village Community and strive to measure ourselves not with the quantity of housetops but rather the quality of the neighborhoods.
Question 2: My current House Tax Bill allocates about $1600 to the Village. This amount per home is enough to repair only a small section or pot-hole. I see no way that House Taxes alone would be enough to fuel a tens of Million $ road capital campaign. Personally I think there is not much appetite from the Village Residents I’ve talked with for additional taxes or bonds. I’m in the same boat. I do see that there are roads in worse shape than others. As a Village we’ll have to prioritize which areas need attention first because of their condition and their use rate. We’ll need a multi-year plan to tackle this problem. The benefit of the $30M assessment is that it gives us a good prioritized starting list which should be reviewed and commented on by the Residents as well.
Question 3: The good news is that the bulk of the Capital Expense is being paid for through a Federal Grant with the Village having to contribute a minor portion of the funds. I expect the Alderman in office at the time the Grant Proposal was submitted worked through how the Village would be able to fund the expansion as part of their consideration for the Grant Proposal to be green lighted to move forward. This is the level set I have for those in-office, the City Manager, and those applying as candidates – i.e. you have to have a Plan for how large expenses will be paid out before approving them to move forward.
Question 4: I think disincorporation would be a bad idea. I expect it would mean we would hand over responsibility for items such as permitting, zoning, new development, and events (e.g. Christmas Parade, Highland Games, Market Days, etc.) approval of what’s happening in Salado to some outside party – Bell County?, Belton? some other entity? We moved here because of the Community, Neighborhoods, Downtown Area, and Small Town / Small Community feel that Salado has. Disincorporation to me means that someone else outside of our Community is now responsible for determining what happens in our Community. Given a choice between (A) Salado directed, or (B) Outside directed, I’d choose (A).