Weatherford — The City Council held a public hearing Aug. 26 on the city manager’s proposed fiscal‑year 2026 budget and voted to formally propose the no‑new‑revenue tax rate that underlies the budget.
Assistant City Manager Ashley Esquivel said the proposed FY‑26 general fund includes $55.8 million in revenues and $55.7 million in expenditures, leaving a projected surplus of about $47,000 and an estimated ending fund balance of $32.6 million. Esquivel told the council the budget was prepared using the no‑new‑revenue tax rate and that “our reserve level will remain more than 120 days of operational funding.”
The council thereafter voted to propose a tax rate of 0.392246 per $100 of taxable value (39.2246¢), which Esquivel and staff said equals the no‑new‑revenue rate used to build the budget. Tom Brooks presented tax‑rate numbers and explained the proposed rate would generate an estimated tax liability of $1,154.46 for the average home valued at $294,000. The council’s vote to propose the rate will be published and the public hearing and final adoption are scheduled for Sept. 9.
During the public hearing, resident Lynn Baber asked for more public visibility into several items listed in the budget book, including the status of a regional sports complex (noted as “in progress” and anticipated for 2027), plans to sell the old police station and references to convention center planning. Baber also asked about bond obligations and whether recently approved series were reflected in the published budget; Esquivel and council members acknowledged those questions will be addressed as the budget process continues.
Separately under agenda item 7b, staff presented the city’s outside‑agency grant requests and the hotel‑occupancy tax (HOT) funding rules. Council discussion focused on a potential contribution to the Weatherford Chamber of Commerce building fund. Councilmembers noted the chamber’s role in tourism and economic development and discussed the legal limits on HOT funds under state guidance known colloquially as the “Texas two‑step” for allowable HOT uses. One councilmember asked staff to consider a $250,000 HOT contribution; another proposed $500,000. The mayor instructed staff to prepare the budget for approval in two weeks reflecting $500,000 in HOT funds dedicated to the chamber building fund, noting that staff would include accountability measures and that HOT funds are legally restricted for tourism‑related uses, not for general operations such as roads or public safety.
Why it matters: The council’s fiscal decisions set the city’s operating priorities and reserves for the coming year. The vote to propose the no‑new‑revenue tax rate starts the statutorily required truth‑in‑taxation process; a final tax‑rate adoption will follow public notice and a second hearing. The proposed HOT contribution, if adopted with the budget, would allocate restricted tourism dollars to a local capital project that council members said aims to support visitor services and economic development.
Discussion vs. decisions: The council conducted the required public hearing (discussion). The council voted to propose the no‑new‑revenue tax rate (formal action). Council directed staff to include the recommended HOT contribution for council consideration at the Sept. 9 meeting (direction to staff).
Next steps: The budget process continues with required publications and a Sept. 9 meeting for the public hearing on the proposed tax rate and final adoption of the FY‑26 budget and tax rate.