City of El Campo staff presented a proposed fiscal year 2026 budget of about $28.7 million at a Sept. 15 workshop and said the draft keeps the tax rate at or below the state-allowed “no new revenue” rate while absorbing a sales-tax shortfall. No formal action was taken; the council must adopt a budget ordinance next week under the city charter. "The first time you see it is in June," City Manager said, describing an internal, months-long budgeting process that starts with department-level reviews each spring. "We start meeting with each department head in May." Staff said the package before the council includes a $12.6 million general fund and roughly $5.5 million for water and sewer. Revenues are described as predominantly taxes (about $15.9 million), charges for services (about $6.67 million), intergovernmental revenue (about $2 million) and transfers (about $2.7 million). The draft shows approximately $28.7 million in combined appropriations across funds. Why it matters: City officials said the FY2026 draft reflects mandatory choices driven by revenue decline rather than policy expansion — council members pressed staff for clarity on cuts, departmental detail and next steps ahead of the charter-mandated adoption deadline. Nut graf: Staff said they trimmed roughly $222,000 from the general fund and removed proposed raises and new positions to avoid exceeding the no-new-revenue tax rate after sales-tax receipts came in about $656,000 below projections. The city manager told the council every department made reductions and that the budget presented is a policy document as well as a financial plan. Details: Presenter Britney (staff member) walked the council through fund-by-fund appropriations and department-level line items. Among the figures offered at the workshop: general fund $12.6 million; water and sewer $5.5 million; EMS $3.097 million; debt service $3.2 million; solid waste $2.9 million; transportation user fee fund $210,000; civic center $174,500. Presenters said personnel costs across the city total about $11.2 million and that capital outlay is about $1.1 million. Staff also listed active grants not included in the operating budget, saying the city currently manages roughly $22.2 million in active grants (administrative work and reporting for those awards are handled outside the operating appropriation). Staff emphasized that revenues must equal expenditures under the city charter and that the council cannot rely on using fund balance to create that balance. The workshop is informational; no motion was taken. The city manager asked councilmembers for direction and said staff will prepare a budget ordinance for council consideration at the next meeting. Council concerns and next steps: Councilmembers asked for clearer summaries showing total street-related spending across multiple funds, more detail on grants and confirmation of where transfers originate. Mayor and council discussed timing and urged earlier review in future years so members have more time to vet departmental detail. The manager said staff would return next week with the ordinance for adoption, which the charter requires. Ending: Staff and council agreed to continue the discussion at the next regular meeting; no changes were adopted at the workshop.