Salado Village Voice presents questions and answers with the six candidates for a two-year term as the Village of Salado Mayor. They appear on the ballot as the following: Greg Windham, Michael Hudgens, Joann Purser, Jeff Ingrum, Zach Hurst and Stephen “Po” Powitzy. 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)

Greg Windham

Question 1: Economic development agreements (EDAs) are tools—neither inherently good nor bad. Their value depends on how disciplined and transparent the board is in structuring them. Salado has been boondoggled in the past by money grubbing billionaire pranksters, so we need to refrain from future EDAs until we get out of the ones we are into now.
I bring a different perspective to this than the other candidates. I’ve spent decades in real estate and development, negotiating deals, analyzing risk, and structuring agreements that have to perform in the real world—not just on paper. That experience matters. EDAs are complex, and without that background, it’s easy to accept terms that look good upfront but create long-term exposure for taxpayers. I won’t sell out our taxpayers to developers or big money puppeteers
My major opponents aren’t from Bell County, or Texas even. I’m from this area and I will not sell out to carpetbagging tools of the development industry .
Used correctly, EDAs can be effective. But they require experience, discipline, and accountability. That’s what I bring—and that’s how we ensure these agreements serve the people of Salado, not just the deal itself. We’ve been fooled and we won’t be fooled again.
Question 2: The roads report puts a clear number on something residents already feel every day—our infrastructure needs attention, and it needs a plan. A $30 million estimate is significant, and I do not support rushing into a bond without first earning public trust through prioritization, transparency, and cost control.
My stance is straightforward: fix what matters most, phase the work, and tie any bond directly to a clearly defined, voter-understandable project list. We should not ask citizens to approve a blank check. Before going to a November bond, I want a ranked list of roads based on objective criteria—safety, traffic volume, emergency access, and current condition. That list should be published, mapped, and explained in plain terms.
Priority should go first to roads that affect public safety and daily function: primary corridors, school routes, and emergency response paths. If a road impacts police, fire, EMS access or carries the bulk of local traffic, it moves to the top. Secondary residential streets come next, followed by lower-traffic areas in a phased schedule.
We also need to explore cost efficiency. That includes staging projects, leveraging county or state partnerships where possible, and evaluating whether certain segments can be maintained or patched short-term to spread costs responsibly.
If a bond is necessary, it must be disciplined—phased funding, clear accountability, and regular public reporting on progress and spending. As someone with a background in development and budgeting, I understand how quickly costs can escalate without oversight.
This is about stewardship. We fix the roads—but we do it with a plan the public can see, understand, and trust.
Question 3: I do not support expanding the wastewater treatment plant simply because funding is available. A grant does not make a project the right decision—especially if it drives growth that outpaces our infrastructure, strains our resources, or threatens what makes Salado unique.
We are only using 20% of the existing plant. Why would we spend a dime to expand something that will only invite more development to our crumbling infrastructure?
Question 4: I do not support disincorporating Salado. I don’t believe in tearing down what we’ve built or shifting our responsibilities onto Bell County. Incorporation gives this community local control—over planning, infrastructure, public safety priorities, and the character of our town. If we give that up, we lose our voice and our ability to shape our own future.
Disincorporation doesn’t make challenges disappear—it transfers them. Roads still need to be maintained, development still occurs, and services still have to be provided. The difference is those decisions would be made at the county level, where Salado becomes one of many priorities rather than the focus. That means less control, less responsiveness, and less ability to protect what makes this place special.
understand the frustration that’s driving this conversation. Concerns about taxes, transparency, and growth are real. But the answer isn’t to walk away from local governance—it’s to fix it. We need disciplined leadership, clearer communication, and better decision-making so residents can trust how their town is being run.
My background in real estate and development gives me a practical understanding of how policy decisions impact communities over time. Strong local governance matters. It allows us to manage growth, protect Salado Creek, invest in infrastructure, and support local businesses in a way that reflects our values.
The path forward is not to dismantle the Village—it’s to strengthen it. Keep control local, improve accountability, and make decisions that serve the people of Salado today and into the future.

Michael Hudgens

No response received before press deadline.

Joann Purser

Question 1: Obviously, we’ve had a couple of developer agreements that for different reasons had to be revised as recently as 2025. In other words, they were originally written in favor more toward the developer. Because we are wanting to control growth and standards that may be eventually annexed into the city working with developers in the ETJ is important. When we hire our next city manager, these are some of the traits and skills that he will have to have in order to bring a balanced agreement that is not necessarily performance generated, but may have to have timelines so that we are not relying on house starts to trigger fees paid by the developer. To the contrast a developer is going to want performance from the city as a sign of good faith for the new residents. We just need to be sure they are enforceable and fair to the city.
Question 2: That’s an interesting question because some roads are TXDOT roads, while others are partially controlled by the county. Therefore, we’ll need to consider prioritizing the roads on the study by crumbling infrastructure due to drainage issues, the economic impact on tourism, and strained growth patterns that are causing a public safety crisis. Depending on the road that requires repair, we’ll need to identify the entities we’ll collaborate with to secure partial funding and when the funds would be available. This funding will help us prioritize road construction timelines and determine which entities are financially contributing to the project and whom is leading the project.
Question 3: Sadly, we might need to cover the costs through a bond or higher rates. With the new city manager on board, perhaps he can take a look at our city budget and expenses and think of a fresh approach, but it’s probably going to be one of those two options. The EPA-backed wastewater expansion is a must-have and great infrastructure, but its long-term success hinges on whether Salado can handle growth, debt, and development challenges well.
Question 4: I’ve heard that there’s a push to implement this, and I’ve even been told that one of the mayoral candidates is advocating for “Belton” to take over our community. However, there are definitely flaws with this process. Firstly, our obligations remain unchanged, so there won’t be a significant tax reduction. Secondly, we’ll lose control over the development of our community, and preserving the culture that has made this area so special would be extremely challenging to protect. Thirdly the governance would be handled by the county, and as I’ve emphasized in forums, their standards are lesser to the current ones we have in place. I would be in opposition as a resident but would legally fulfill the process as your elected Mayor if a petition is submitted to the Village of Salado that met all guidelines. To avoid possible dissolution we must at some point have residents and tract owners annex into the village to be able to support obligations and infrastructure improvements.

Jeff Ingrum

Question 1: Economic Development Agreements (EDAs) are a necessary and powerful tool for managing our rapid growth. They allow communities like Salado to guide growth, attract investment, and ensure developers contribute to infrastructure and long-term tax base expansion-not just short-term gains. The reality is simple: it is vastly more efficient for the Village to negotiate infrastructure and standards with one developer on the front end than to try and retroactively annex and manage an entire subdivision of residents later. When utilized correctly, the math works in our favor. Smart development brings more rooftops, which broadens our tax base, drives commercial revenue, and allows us to provide better services without raising taxes on existing residents. Have previous EDAs been good for Salado? It is a mixed bag. Economic Development agreements are useful, but only if they include strong accountability. Past agreements have had both successes and shortcomings- largely depending on how clearly expectations were defined and enforced. In the corporate boardroom, you do not give away leverage without a guaranteed return on investment. In future EDAs, I will bring executive toughness to the negotiating table. Any agreement must ensure that new development pays its own way. Developers must contribute their fair share to our roads, water, and wastewater infrastructure so that the cost of their profit does not fall on the shoulders of Salado taxpayers. We will use EDAs to dictate how county growth impacts us, rather than letting that growth dictate our future.
Done right, these agreements are not giveaways-they are partnerships that protect taxpayers while shaping thoughtful, sustainable growth.
Question 2: The recently completed roads report gives the Village a data-driven estimate of roughly $30 million to fully repair, resurface and improve drainage issues on our roadways. The report however, is not complete or accurate as the assumptions use asphalt on all roads and do not take in the cost of inflation depending on the life of the project. With construction inflation historically running 4-6% annually that $30 million estimate in today’s dollars could be as much as $60 million over 15 years depending on the assumptions built into the study. Currently Salado does not have the tax base to support a bond package of that magnitude. As a former CEO and CFO, I know that you cannot fix decades of infrastructure backlog with one massive swing of the hammer. My stance is simple: I will not support a bond package unless it is grounded in a disciplined, transparent financial plan. We must evaluate what Salado can realistically afford by analyzing projected tax revenues, debt capacity, and potential grant opportunities. We should not increases taxes to our taxpayers without further study. Instead, we must incorporate realistic, incremental road upgrades into a 5-Year Business Plan. We need a phased maintenance strategy that upgrades our roads slowly and maintains our existing chip seal properly, preventing the need to rebuild half the Village at once. Our priority must be the critical arterial roads that drive local commerce and handle the highest daily traffic. By stabilizing those routes first, and funding them responsibly over time, we can improve our infrastructure without bankrupting the Village.
Question 3: EPA Grant & Wastewater Expansion Federal and state grants are vital for rural communities, but “matching funds” can become a trap if the Village does not budget for them correctly. Clarity on these obligations is essential to making a responsible decision. As a financial executive, my first step will be to aggressively verify the final grant obligations, the exact required match, and the true cost of expanding the plant. I will not sign off on a capital expenditure without a forensic review of the ledger. To pay our required share, my administration will not default to levying new taxes on our residents. Instead, we will fund this through strict Zero-Based Budgeting. We will strip out administrative waste, audit our current vendor contracts, and reallocate funds from redundant pet projects toward this core infrastructure need. Furthermore, expanding the plant’s capacity is an economic driver. We will leverage that new capacity to negotiate stronger tap fees, impact fees and EDAs with incoming commercial developments. The growth that necessitates this plant expansion must be the same growth that helps pay for it. Our infrastructure improvements will be funded through strategic financial restructuring, not by passing the burden to the taxpayer.
In short, my approach is to fully understand the financial commitment, avoid unnecessary tax increases, and align infrastructure investment with smart growth that strengthens the Village’s long-term financial position.
Question 4: I strongly oppose any effort to disincorporate Salado. While I understand the frustrations, disincorporation would ultimately reduce-not improve-our community’s ability to shape its future. While block-walking and speaking with families across Salado, I have heard loud and clear that disincorporation is highly unpopular. The people of Salado are fiercely proud of our small-town identity. We do not want to surrender our borders to the county or lose the ability to control our future. However, discussion of a petition to disincorporate is a glaring symptom of a deeper issue. It reflects the profound frustration residents feel regarding the current state of Village Hall—the budget strains, the year-to-year crisis management and the lack of transparent leadership from past administrations.
Salado sits directly along the I-35 corridor, one of the fastest-growing regions in Texas. Growth is not a question of “if” but “how”. If we disincorporate, we give up local control over zoning, development standards, infrastructure planning and public services. Those decisions would shift to the county, where our residents would have far less influence over outcomes that directly impact our daily lives.
People are tired of feeling like their government is failing them. This is why we have elections, and we must lean into our democratic process. The solution is not to dissolve our Village but to elect competent leadership to fix it. I bring 30 years of executive leadership experience to Village Hall. We will implement a 5-Year Business Plan, stabilize our finances, and lead Salado to sustainable financial growth.

Zach Hurst

Question 1: In the past, the decision-making process around Economic Development Agreements has not adequately protected the financial interests of the Village. While some agreements were intended to support growth, there are clear examples where the Village has taken on risk or given up revenue without receiving a fair or measurable return.
For example, agreements tied to projects such as the Stagecoach Inn redevelopment and other development agreements have included incentives like tax rebates or utility-related concessions intended to stimulate economic activity. However, these incentives, particularly those tied to sales tax, hotel occupancy tax, or wastewater infrastructure, can shift financial responsibility to the Village without guaranteeing a meaningful return for residents.
The Sanctuary development agreement, in my opinion, represents one of the clearest examples of this imbalance. It included financial incentives tied to sales tax and property tax that effectively return public revenue back to the developer, reducing their costs while shifting more of the long-term burden to the Village.
There are also examples where wastewater impact fees have been waived for extended periods, such as in the Eagle Heights development, where waivers were granted for a five year period and are tied to the property. When agreements allow those types of concessions, it can create situations where development benefits without fully contributing to the infrastructure it depends on.
I do not support waiving wastewater impact fees. These fees help ensure that growth pays for itself and should remain with the property regardless of ownership. Any prior waivers should not transfer to new owners, and future agreements should make that clear. I also do not support using hotel occupancy tax to return funds to private businesses without clear justification and measurable benefit.
Agreements like these highlight the need for enforceable performance standards so the Village can ensure it receives a fair return on any incentives provided.
Question 2: Before committing to a $30 million bond, I believe the Village should first engage the community in the decision-making process. I would support forming a road and drainage committee made up of Village citizens and led by two aldermen to review and build on the existing road study, which has already prioritized projects. This approach ensures transparency while keeping the process grounded in the work that has already been done, and gives residents a direct voice in determining what roads matter most to them.
At the same time, maintaining and improving our roads is essential, and it is a responsibility we need to address. However, we should not assume that long-term debt is the only solution. There are state, regional, and federal programs designed to help fund transportation improvements. The Royal Street project is a good example of how partnerships and grant funding can be used to complete major infrastructure improvements without placing the full burden on local taxpayers.
Additionally, the Village has an existing tax note of approximately $1.35 million that was originally intended to help fund the Royal Street project. Because that project is now funded through other sources, those funds remain available and should be considered as part of the solution before pursuing additional debt.
We should actively pursue all available funding opportunities and use existing resources responsibly. If borrowing is necessary, it should be done strategically and only after other options have been explored. In prioritizing roads, I would focus on safety, traffic volume, and those in the worst condition first to ensure we address the most critical needs.
We owe it to residents to address our roads, but we also owe it to them to do it in the most responsible way possible.
Question 3: The total cost of this wastewater expansion project is approximately $1.875 million, with the Village responsible for 20 percent, or roughly $375,000. This project will increase capacity from 200,000 gallons per day to 300,000 gallons per day, and the timeline has been extended through December 30, 2027.
To fund the Village’s share, I would take a balanced approach using a combination of existing resources, external funding opportunities, and growth-related contributions. Programs through the Texas Water Development Board offer low-interest financing and potential grant assistance that can help reduce the local burden. However, even low-interest financing is still long-term debt, so it should only be considered after other options have been fully explored.
As capacity expands, development should contribute through impact fees and related mechanisms so that growth helps support the infrastructure it requires rather than shifting that burden entirely to existing residents. This should be part of the solution, alongside responsible use of existing funds and outside resources.
This increase in capacity allows for growth without putting strain on existing infrastructure. While many residents are not directly on the wastewater system, improved treatment supports more efficient use of water resources by allowing non-potable uses, such as irrigation, to rely on treated water rather than drawing from potable water supplies that all Salado residents and businesses depend on. It also reduces the risk of untreated or partially treated wastewater entering natural waterways, helping protect local water quality. In Texas, where water is always a concern due to drought, this supports better long-term resource management.
This approach ensures we meet our obligations while protecting taxpayers and supporting responsible growth.
Question 4: Salado is a historic village with a unique character that residents deeply value, and protecting that identity should be a top priority. Thoughtful planning has long reflected a goal of preserving the historic core of the community, including directing more intensive commercial growth to the west side of the interstate while maintaining the character and integrity of the historic areas to the east. That kind of intentional planning is only possible when the Village maintains local control.
I understand that some residents are frustrated, and those concerns should be taken seriously. Discussions around disincorporation often reflect a desire for less regulation or dissatisfaction with recent decisions, and those concerns should be addressed through better communication, transparency, and leadership.
However, disincorporation would shift control away from the Village and to the county, where there are generally fewer tools in place to guide development. Without local zoning and planning authority, there is a greater risk of incompatible or out-of-character development occurring in areas where it would not align with the historic nature of Salado. For new development, the county generally has fewer requirements for features such as sidewalks or street lighting, which can impact both safety and community character. It would also limit the ability of residents to shape decisions at the local level.
In my view, the better path is to improve how the Village operates, not to dissolve it. By strengthening leadership, increasing transparency, and actively engaging residents, we can protect Salado’s character while addressing the concerns that led to this conversation.
We don’t protect Salado by stepping away from local control, we protect it by making it work better.

Stephen “Po” Powitzky

Question 1: I am sure the existing EDA’s were fine at their conception and implementation, but I noticed amendments have been made. Why is that? Because situations change.
Therefore, ALL EDA’s, such as the Existing Sanctuary Developement and Stagecoach Hotel EDA’s, should be renegotiated and amended for the sake of our Village’s finances, in order to help in digging out of our “Fiscal Hole. “ EVERYTHING should be on the table to fix our Financial Mess, starting with the Forensic Audit. Any new EDA’s should be negotiated to bring in significantly more income to the Village, especially in the next 2 fiscal years.
Question 2: As long as the Village residents will vote yes or no on this, neglected roads matter, I am good with that.
Personally I would NOT vote for it. We are a small community, which I believe should be on a pay-as-you-go strategy.
Example: Set up a location on the Village website to report potholes. Use the “Best Available” Pothole Repair System known to mankind, and fix the streets with the MOST potholes first! If more than one street is reported to have the most potholes, then the most heavily-traveled one gets fixed FIRST. As the Village’s Budget comes into balance, then and only then, we will consider how to move forward on the complete street renovation package. Until then, we do without…
Question 3: To pay for our Village’s share of the EPA wastewater grant, start with the Forensic and Revenue Recovery Audit to find any other misappropriated or unnecessary funds for more efficient use, such as the grant participation share. Also, we will establish consultation with private organizations and Texas State Government / Legislators to help explore options to bridge the financial gap.
Question 4: I believe that disincorporation of Salado is giving up too soon.
We have not come to that yet, unless these local aforementioned residents know something the majority of our residents do not know!
My guess is that, with such a disincorporation, Belton will annex Salado and you can say goodbye to any uniqueness you feel Salado currently has in the way of culture, history, small-town feel, architecture, limited development, minimal traffic, etc.. NO to that!