[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6484437,"mediaKeyId","5615235-063f9ea9c1ad31974bf9a261b4aa41ca","parentId",5615235,"title","City staff explain FY2026 budget trade‑offs after tax‑rate publication issue; council weighs raising rate to regain $215,000","audioSeconds",3839,"startMs",6869000,"endMs",10708000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5615235-063f9ea9c1ad31974bf9a261b4aa41ca&start=6869&end=10708","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5615235-063f9ea9c1ad31974bf9a261b4aa41ca/thumbnail_6869000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6484437/Temple/Bell-County/Texas/City-staff-explain-FY2026-budget-tradeoffs-after-taxrate-publication-issue-council-weighs-raising-rate-to-regain-215000","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6484437-f1972153921d1e9817ab3de8266f47e7/orig.mp4?Expires=1776081762&Signature=G9XG~qAgLo38WVMMB7SxEQFiWGbIZlWrHVmApVxzeS9qIpQUxyaJ7TQWMwMwqlPqxJ7CTwDvrW5EM9g6UiDUjW2yVdscB3j3m9tEakPzFe-1V2siS186Z5ni6mSvFDry5L5TnMov2EK6Z~rhOUbfcWe1DAomAAb19139Oas-g~8jIji07VCSTOAOHU9~HScjmOYSYnCJCNKlW4bhLEQEU9-H8Wl~1J-~jdhkVYP-hzcvxdFHREBEVFwXm-DxVnM~Ms5QMUY92urt4uTfsPrMeaW7RHNr4PMIUe9LSUsrMfaBQb4yw-92b2mBFrXZrQlUDbVDcn2yo2g-IyJRcl6EUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Temple","date","2025-08-21T21:17:19.62Z","article","City finance staff reviewed the proposed fiscal year 2026 general fund budget, the recently published tax notice and the impact of a corrected certified roll at a council workshop Aug. 21.

Staff explained the council previously adopted a cap and published a notice based on one calculation; after receiving the certified appraisal roll staff discovered a calculation/publication inconsistency. To avoid exceeding the published levy, staff initially adjusted the proposed rate down to 0.6975 per $100 valuation; doing so requires removing roughly $215,000 from the draft general‑fund spending plan. Finance staff said the council’s prior vote from Aug. 7 capped the rate at about 0.6999, and an attorney’s interpretation may allow the council to rely on the adopted rate rather than the published dollar amount; staff took the conservative path and prepared a budget that reflects the lower 0.6975 rate.

City budget staff (Tracy and Jennifer) walked council through the changes made to balance the draft budget under the lower rate: removal of a proposed public‑safety assessment fee and park fee, reductions to proposed new positions and operating adjustments, delaying some capital and consultant projects into FY2027, and trimming discretionary event and maintenance allocations. Staff also reported a reduction or reallocation of proposed positions from the filed budget (from 67 proposed positions down to a net 37 plus two), changes to contingency and a decision to smooth certain compensation/insurance changes across two years.

Finance staff said there is an estimated $405,000 of general‑fund savings tied to the city’s newly selected health‑insurance vendor (staff called this a one‑time available resource to allocate). Staff proposed programming those funds toward a real‑estate/program manager position to inventory and manage surplus city lots (places & spaces/real estate), and toward contract mowing/temporary mowing services while the city evaluates long‑term disposition of surplus properties. Council asked for details and timing of the health‑plan savings and asked that staff provide written confirmation of any vendor payment schedules before making allocations.

On capital, staff presented three six‑year scenarios: (1) the original CIP proposal (about $340 million total tax‑supported projects across six years), (2) a reduced middle ground, and (3) a constrained scenario that avoids any future tax‑rate impact (roughly $206 million of projects over six years). Staff cautioned that staying at or below a 70¢ tax rate this year would sharply constrain 2026 bond issuance capacity; under the constrained scenario only about $13.6 million of new tax‑supported capital could be issued in the coming bond cycle without producing a tax‑rate impact next year, compared with the $51 million the city had planned to issue.

Council discussed options: adopt the 0.6975 rate and accept the $215,000 reduction in available funds, or adopt the previously published 0.6999 rate at the final reading to restore about $215,000 for the general fund. Staff noted that if council re‑adopts the 0.6999 rate the additional revenue could be used to restore contingency or fund specific items such as AirFest, contract mowing, separation pay reserves or other priorities.

No final vote was recorded in the workshop. Staff said the formal first reading was on the regular agenda; council indicated preference to review written allocations and reconfirm the health‑plan savings before the final tax‑rate adoption. Staff will bring back written detail on the $405,000 health‑plan savings and on how the $215,000 could be allocated if council chooses the higher published rate at final reading.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Temple - City Council Workshop Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","City finance staff told council Aug. 21 that a correction to the certified roll and the published tax notice required reworking the FY2026 draft budget; keeping the previously published 0.6999 tax rate at final adoption would restore roughly $215,000 to the general fund versus the conservative 0.6975 rate staff prepared for.","taxTitle","Temple, Bell County, Texas","taxId",2770,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6484447,"Council weighs who should pay to upgrade Split View Road as nearby development proceeds",3924,2312000,6236000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5615235-063f9ea9c1ad31974bf9a261b4aa41ca&start=2312&end=6236","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5615235-063f9ea9c1ad31974bf9a261b4aa41ca/thumbnail_2312000.jpg","/articles/6484447/Temple/Bell-County/Texas/Council-weighs-who-should-pay-to-upgrade-Split-View-Road-as-nearby-development-proceeds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6484447-76b2aaab023c5cbd75afd86d35e84c2e/orig.mp4?Expires=1776081762&Signature=MnrUsXIPKM4v5SEZOvr2~Ik41lRwUJhH72-9JlnUTUG8-oDGPJ5vuCQi~DtkF5ysQoMxNfLstUQcwx82XAzBtDe3FWlH8XQUTAyQ2JsJqht00GVuHWxCCyhyKWUIDmcbYQRHnkI3TsPirQjn6lkVoUgNn61E7k4jOKoGloj8aWonW6Zk5zQ6Apg9DYTl~BTEYdR5vBYMxfq-JJdAXkcR0EAp3VPuMt7EyaXUQNj1htcutyVPleTtIYgEpod91YQ3J25gsZITUO7FwnFTbomQei-M0jynL3H8FoqaG2k6YRqQ31ZLJ8R2qdAoOCCHBOuRMfVTba7KsAQNCtVTzjd6uw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Temple staff and council spent extended time on Aug. 21 discussing Split View Road — a short, county‑era pavement left behind after a previous realignment — and whether the city or nearby developers should pay to bring it up to city standards before planned housing and neighborhood services development proceeds.

David (staff project lead) told council the existing section is roughly 31 feet back‑of‑curve to back‑of‑curve in places but was built to county specifications and lacks edge protection in others. He said the street’s pavement section and unknown foundation increase the risk that higher traffic volumes from proposed development will accelerate deterioration. Staff estimated reconstructing the full section to a city local‑street standard would cost roughly $1.0 million (design approximately $100,000; construction just under $1.0 million), with additional unknowns such as a water line relocation and drainage work.

David and staff presented projected traffic from nearby Northgate and Northridge development plans: the townhome component alone could generate roughly 1,000–1,900 average daily trips, and the neighborhood‑services portion could add several hundred to more than 1,500 trips. Given those volumes and the road’s current narrow, chip‑seal/asphalt overlay construction, staff said reconstruction is likely required if parcels along the road develop.

Council and developers discussed a range of responses: do nothing (defer), require the developer to reconstruct the perimeter street as a condition of platting, negotiate a cost‑share participation agreement, partially abandon a middle section and reroute access, or have the city fund reconstruction. Staff explained the city used to assess perimeter‑street fees but no longer does; absent that mechanism the options fall to either developer responsibility, city funding or negotiated participation agreements.

Developer representatives present (Josh and others) offered a hybrid approach: build interior streets as part of the subdivision and temporarily route traffic to existing alignment while final arrangements are made; they asked for staff and legal to explore parcel/right‑of‑way trades that could shift alignment into the development footprint. Staff cautioned that rechanneling a section into private development could leave an unimproved portion for other lots that would still require access.

Council members repeatedly emphasized two constraints: (1) the city does not currently have identified capital funding to pay for a full reconstruction, and (2) the council was reluctant to spend approximately $1 million of city funds on a local street without a clear funding source. After substantial back‑and‑forth, council provided direction that the city will not commit general‑fund capital dollars now to rebuild the full length of Split View Road; instead staff should continue to work with developers to seek a developer‑led or cost‑shared solution that does not require the city to front the full construction cost. Staff was asked to convene a stakeholder group (city staff, planning, legal, the developer and property owners) to produce concrete options and a recommended agreement within weeks.

No final ordinance or formal council vote was recorded in the workshop; the discussion produced a staff direction and a request for a specific follow‑up process. Council members stressed that if development proceeds without a developer agreement the city could face faster road deterioration, repeated complaints and future higher expense to repair the road.

","Temple staff told council Aug. 21 that Split View Road — a county‑era segment left after a prior realignment — is not built to current city standards and could cost roughly $1.0 million to rebuild if nearby housing and neighborhood services developments proceed.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6484451,"Temple officials outline Tanglefoot festival plans, ticket sales and logistics; festival funded by hotel‑motel tax",1281,892000,2173000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5615235-063f9ea9c1ad31974bf9a261b4aa41ca&start=892&end=2173","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5615235-063f9ea9c1ad31974bf9a261b4aa41ca/thumbnail_892000.jpg","/articles/6484451/Temple/Bell-County/Texas/Temple-officials-outline-Tanglefoot-festival-plans-ticket-sales-and-logistics-festival-funded-by-hotelmotel-tax","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6484451-3a310e9acb33b7c6014adae9cb3024aa/orig.mp4?Expires=1776081762&Signature=QpqloaaV8ry7crCqZnic9bz0O5E4S10~7dFKcO7y8nLF0T-2uwy5UwZDCsBUH-7GVZnkgT-bB7qN48MCozDQoSVxpM~h0K9WFjc0MWv1pKTvr98T6kFk1MlKqllld89aB2zVqy0smn5ztmjRuwyVKCWHKbKp5F2gbPVliSBsQultrGCKU5I~OtNNl5yq8wIcbi9anJXI7nIxLjb9EIBw40PQ-udsmuTpSBQy~Ab~mTBEAMneoDjwDLMcFrA2EZfte9OXoV9HANcnKU4~m4kpRyl9JjSNBfZOZtq~PmPrkLYhcNXNPesLns30byH8iVBvZU55qfR9qKnhICitctZioQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Temple city staff and the event promoter Sound Skills presented an update Aug. 21 on Tanglefoot Music & Barbecue Festival logistics, marketing and finances, saying a two‑day festival Sept. 19–20 at the MLK Festival Grounds is expected to draw roughly 11,000 attendees.

The city’s events lead, Heather (staff member), told council the promoter has sold about 3,100 tickets so far and reported about 76,000 visits to the festival ticketing page. Sound Skills is managing talent procurement, site logistics, vendor and sponsor recruitment, ticketing and marketing; the promoter subcontracted PR to Painting Pictures and digital marketing to Grayscale.

Heather said organizers increased the event’s talent budget to attract more recognizable acts and added advertising, a VIP deck and shuttle service after reviewing the parking and traffic plan. She said sponsorship fundraising has exceeded an initial $150,000 goal and that Sound Skills expects roughly 60% of ticket sales to occur in the last two weeks before the event.

On food programming, staff and the promoter described the barbecue component as a tasting‑style experience (not a competitive cook‑off) with vendors representing regional barbecue traditions. The barbecue area will be ticketed; attendees must purchase an event admission ticket to buy barbecue tasting tickets.

Staff described the parking and mobility plan: paid parking will be available at Santa Fe Plaza and the Fourth Street garage, with reserved parking for certain ticket levels and dedicated spaces for downtown business staff. A shuttle hub is planned at Wilson Park. Council members raised concerns about on‑street parking taking up merchant spaces; staff said they are coordinating with downtown businesses, providing staff parking lists and encouraging businesses to run promotions to capture festival foot traffic.

Heather reminded council that the festival is paid for from the Hotel‑Motel Fund, a restricted revenue source that can be used only to promote tourism and increase hotel room nights. \"This source of funding is not available to provide additional police officers or firefighters, fill potholes, street crews, mowing crews, parks crews,\" Heather said.

Council asked about revenue sharing and vendor/contract details. Staff said the city’s agreement with Sound Skills includes ticketing and sponsorship revenue provisions; in the briefing staff noted a 70/30 split referenced in presentation materials (\"70 to the city, 30 to the promoter/visitor entity\"). Council asked staff to confirm payment timing, installment schedules and the exact revenue split in writing before the regular meeting. Staff also said final vendor and driveway/site plan adjustments for Cheddar’s and nearby properties are being coordinated with traffic and code staff.

Officials said event marketing targets both local attendance and regional road‑trip visitors and includes Amtrak landing‑page promotion, regional advertorials and influencer outreach. The city’s Discover Temple team will publish local hospitality content and a special Tanglefoot train travel landing page.

Staff listed remaining operational tasks: finalize shuttle and parking details, confirm vendor footprint and finalize site safety and traffic mitigation. Council members emphasized the need for clear communication with downtown businesses about staffing and enforcement during the event. The briefing did not include council action; staff will return with contract and revenue‑share details for the regular meeting.

","City staff and the event promoter Sound Skills briefed the City Council on the Tanglefoot Music & Barbecue Festival, reporting 3,100 tickets sold so far, marketing reach and planning updates; the festival is funded from the restricted Hotel‑Motel Fund and will use shuttles, paid parking and vendor arrangements to manage crowds.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6484442,"Council hears staff reports on West Adams zoning, Palladio industrial expansion and Cheddar’s site plan",791,53000,844000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5615235-063f9ea9c1ad31974bf9a261b4aa41ca&start=53&end=844","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5615235-063f9ea9c1ad31974bf9a261b4aa41ca/thumbnail_53000.jpg","/articles/6484442/Temple/Bell-County/Texas/Council-hears-staff-reports-on-West-Adams-zoning-Palladio-industrial-expansion-and-Cheddars-site-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6484442-032b8c0971777746dfbaadcd3f36084a/orig.mp4?Expires=1776081762&Signature=Qmed~OHWi2YJRfHtLfXXnB5YfYlFp1~7Oz3K4NMx4O1zWL9jcZtOg4CGXiaiCXwAGHRg72zsXV0tamBr5ZC-CrSxzqZ4sa9Y2xDRJkWx9UOhRYWkkMr-ccJEIM5Gi5A~71~2RyHVOpg3M4JphMtp9pVwq23PjKUyxxB4dUUrUuR5JiGpiqEBJMahxW1jraDT-nZxc9XXk1WfmqrHDa5tDUNdvGzq4L6murghanHQKamWufnCTugi4zGFZ6BBAhPHFFKvHWUomUEAuDop-rsYpchi9gst6eE1vsFwZTCYxztMW208k5n6YYbvpjel9d4RxtFNvjD6BZS3wi-LwbyVPQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Temple planning staff briefed council Aug. 21 on several development items that will appear on the regular agenda, including a West Adams rezoning/public hearing, an industrial expansion for Palladio and a Cheddar’s restaurant site plan.

Staff said the West Adams project near FM 1771 (a second reading/public hearing) produced one written opposition; planning staff noted the developer had limited building height adjacent to the Lakewood neighborhood, proposed a 20‑foot vegetated buffer and committed to restricting uses adjacent to the neighborhood to non‑restaurant uses. The Planning & Zoning Commission approved the case 7–1, the one dissent being traffic and neighborhood concerns. Staff said sidewalks on West Adams will be extended per city code.

Separately, staff described a new conditional‑use application for an expansion of Palladio’s facility in Northwest Industrial Park. The expansion would broaden operations and increase rail access; because the heavy‑industrial zoning does not specifically list a \"chemical plant\" use, the expansion requires a conditional‑use permit and an additional Development Engineering review. Staff said Palladio has generally been a compliant neighbor and that outreach to a nearby Performance Food Group (ESG / Performance Food Group) did not produce a formal objection.

Cheddar’s site plan is before council as a conditional‑use and site‑plan matter tied to alcohol sales and driveway layout. Staff said the proposed second driveway near an interstate access point is closer than the city’s engineering standard (20 feet from curb return) and is less than TxDOT’s spacing practice; although the roadway is not on a TxDOT facility the proximity is less than optimal for turning movements. Staff and council discussed options: require the driveway be eliminated, require the developer to move it 20 feet to meet city engineering standard, or allow an adjusted site plan contingent on the developer meeting engineering requirements before final plan approval. Staff advised they will ensure the final site plan meets city engineering standards; council suggested a motion condition requiring compliance before final approval.

Planning staff asked whether the council wanted in‑person presentations for any of the items. Council requested a presentation for the West Adams second reading/public hearing and suggested that the Cheddar’s site plan include a condition requiring the driveway change or elimination to meet engineering standards if necessary.

The workshop discussion did not include formal council votes on these items; staff will present the cases for action at the regular meeting with recommended conditions and findings.","At a workshop briefing, planning staff previewed several regular‑agenda development items: a West Adams second reading/public hearing with one neighborhood opposition, a conditional‑use expansion for Palladio’s industrial operations and a Cheddar’s restaurant site plan raising driveway spacing concerns near the interstate.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

City staff explain FY2026 budget trade‑offs after tax‑rate publication issue; council weighs raising rate to regain $215,000

Council weighs who should pay to upgrade Split View Road as nearby development proceeds

Temple officials outline Tanglefoot festival plans, ticket sales and logistics; festival funded by hotel‑motel tax

Council hears staff reports on West Adams zoning, Palladio industrial expansion and Cheddar’s site plan