Crockett council hears $1.4M in capital requests, asks administrator for funding scenarios

Crockett’s council and department heads laid out an array of capital and maintenance needs at a June budget workshop, then directed the city administrator to model funding options before voting on any spending.

City staff told council the city’s combined budget is close to $12 million and that current annual debt service runs roughly in the mid‑hundreds of thousands of dollars. “Out of a close to a $12,000,000 budget, we have roughly 450,000 in, in debt payment,” said Speaker 3, the staff presenter, outlining existing bonds, a tax note for the municipal pool and a $6 million State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) loan tied to street and water‑line work.

Department heads pressed for equipment and staffing to keep pace with growth and to meet operational and regulatory needs. The police department asked for additional patrol vehicles and a new fleet of handheld and in‑car radios that are compatible with the regional 700/800 MHz system; the presenter said the radios would support officer safety and interoperability with neighboring agencies. “One of the big selling points for me is number one, officer safety,” said Speaker 7, who led the police presentation.

The fire department outlined a five‑year plan that includes replacing or refurbishing aging apparatus and adding two full‑time positions to reduce reliance on volunteers. Fire leadership warned of long lead times and price increases for new apparatus and requested flexibility to lock current pricing where possible.

Public works flagged water and wastewater priorities: replacement of corroded cast‑iron mains on Goliad and East Houston tied to a Texas Water Development Board package, and failing equipment at the wastewater plant that has left the city operating on a single clarifier. Staff framed those repairs as both service and compliance issues.

Staff estimated three high‑ticket items (police radios/vehicles and a new fire truck) at roughly $1.4 million combined. As one financing example, staff said packaging the items on a 10‑year tax note could add roughly $100,000–$150,000 annual debt service — an increase that, depending on assumptions, would equate to about 2.5–3 cents on the tax rate or roughly $28 a year for an average homeowner.

Council members discussed alternatives: shift some debt to utility rates, use reserve cash for certain projects, pursue grant funding where eligible, or cut other operating lines to avoid a tax increase. Multiple members said they want a utility‑rate study before approving any water‑rate changes.

Rather than make final funding decisions, the council voted to ask the city administrator, John, to prepare scenario‑based projections showing the impacts of (a) financing via tax notes, (b) funding from utility reserves, and (c) combinations of budget cuts and tax adjustments. The motion passed unanimously; council scheduled a follow‑up workshop to review the administrator’s projections and possible tradeoffs.

The workshop ended with council members praising staff for a detailed presentation and agreeing to reconvene with concrete numbers before committing to large capital outlays.