City of Mineral Wells staff presented revisions to the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 annual budget on Sept. 2, updating revenue and expenditure estimates, proposed organizational changes and projected fund balances; the City Council set a public hearing on the budget and property tax rate for Sept. 16 and made no final adoption that evening.

City staff said the general fund fund balance is projected at 30.9 percent (about 111 days) under the revised proposal, up from the 28.8 percent (104 days) projection shown at the council’s Aug. 5 budget workshop. The water and sewer fund’s projected fund balance rose to 26.8 percent from 17.8 percent, narrowly above the city’s 25 percent (90-day) target.

The budget presentation described three pillars that guided preparation—customer service, communications and transparency—and listed priority areas including public safety, infrastructure, information technology and financial stability. Staff reported a personnel reduction (three positions) that yielded about $384,280 in savings and said some frozen positions remain, producing net savings of roughly $224,000. Staff proposed revisiting employee pay adjustments in December or January if year‑end revenues meet projections.

On taxes, council members previously rejected an option to increase the rate by 4 cents tied to unused tax increment funds and directed staff to prepare a “flat” voter‑approval tax rate of 0.5717 per $100 valuation. Staff said the median home value used in the roll rose from $174,000 to $178,000; at the proposed rate staff estimated the city portion of taxes for a $178,000 home would increase by $21.53 compared with last year.

The presentation also addressed the city’s water and sewer finances. Staff reported an $8 million cash transfer into the water fund to improve starting cash for capital work and support debt coverage needed for a Texas Water Development Board loan. Staff said those changes lowered the draft utility rate increase for a typical residential account: the consultant’s prior scenario showed a monthly bill rising from $189.78 to $246.34 (a $56.56 increase, about 29.8 percent); after the adjustments staff said the projected increase dropped by $10.11 to $46.45 (about 24.5 percent). The council did not adopt new rates that evening.

Staff identified several causes for the city’s tighter finances: an end‑of‑year general fund actual that was about $2.2 million below an earlier projection; decision packages and ongoing public‑safety costs programmed into the current year; and revenue lines that came in lower than budgeted (for example, swimming‑pool receipts and franchise fees). Staff outlined next steps including monthly financial reviews, a strategic financial plan, and possible program or service reductions if midyear revenues fall short.

The council was reminded that charter rules require a public hearing on the budget; making any substantive changes at the public hearing would trigger an additional hearing. The council scheduled the public hearing and the budget and tax‑rate adoption votes for Sept. 16, when it will also consider related budgets for the Chamber of Commerce tourism program, the Economic Development Corporation and the municipal water district.

Ending: The council took the item as a discussion and direction to staff to continue preparing final documents for the Sept. 16 public hearing; no formal budget or tax‑rate adoption occurred on Sept. 2.