Haslet council reviews FY 2026–27 budget, flags roads and public‑works facility as priorities

The Haslet City Council held a special budget workshop on Aug. 8 to review the proposed FY 2026–27 budget and to prioritize capital projects, with particular focus on water/sewer projects, major road intersections and a proposed Public Works annex. Mayor (speaker 2) opened the session and staff presented details on debt service, special revenue funds and the city’s 10‑year water and sewer necessity plan.

City finance and engineering staff told council that reduced valuations and declining residential impact‑fee revenue will require new funding choices. ‘‘If we don’t anticipate much residential growth, that number becomes extremely high,’’ said Mike Anderson, the city engineer, describing how impact‑fee calculations can spike when new housing slows. Council members pressed staff for a 5‑year financial outlook and for clearer revenue assumptions.

The workshop included detailed line‑by‑line discussion of special revenue funds. Staff noted a long‑standing $62,400 annual general‑fund subsidy to the Park Board and described Park Board requests — including reinstating a rodeo and a $300,000 playground request — that prompted council questions about sponsorship assumptions. The council also reviewed the proposed EDC (Type A and Type B) budgets and a request to create a city economic‑development coordinator position that would initially be funded by multiple partners.

On capital projects, engineering outlined an immediate slate of water and sewer priority projects and described road projects that will stretch across multiple years, including designs and right‑of‑way work for Blue Mound Road/ FM‑156 and John Day Road. Council agreed in the workshop to add $1,000,000 to the budget for schematic design and right‑of‑way work on the southern portion of John Day Road to prepare for imminent development needs.

The Public Works annex — a fenced yard and three buildings estimated at about $5.1 million — was discussed as a two‑phase project. Engineering recommended moving forward with building design and procurement in the coming year while staging road, yard and utility work to follow, noting possible cost savings if reclaimed roadway material from county projects is reused.

Council members repeatedly returned to the same trade‑off: fund large capital needs now and draw on reserves, or preserve reserves and plan for a bond or other financing. Staff recommended moving the proposed rate up toward the statutory de‑minimis threshold if council wants to keep the full list of projects; council members signaled willingness to explore a proposed rate near the 7.99% de‑minimis but did not adopt a final rate at the workshop.

The council set follow‑up tasks (impact‑fee number checks, EDC and Park Board clarifications, and more detailed right‑of‑way estimates) and scheduled a public hearing and further rate discussion. The city manager and finance staff will present updated worksheets and a recommended proposed tax rate before formal action.