Wichita Falls previews FY26 budget with small property-tax rate cut, one-time investments

Wichita Falls — City staff presented the draft fiscal 2026 budget at a special Wichita Falls City Council meeting on Aug. 12, proposing a modest cut to the property-tax rate while using fund balances for one-time capital and employee pay increases.

The budget presentation said certified property values were “just shy of $8,000,000,000,” an increase of 3.73% from the prior year, and proposed a tax rate slightly below the current rate of 0.6848. Steven Calvert, the budget presenter, told council members the proposed rate in the FY26 draft is 0.6825, “about 0.34% lower than the current tax rate,” and that the document also uses fund balances and new local revenue to support one-time projects.

Why it matters: property values and the tax rate determine how much homeowners pay; the draft also sets staff pay increases and capital spending that will affect service levels and future rate-setting.

City staff framed the budget as fiscally conservative but targeted to address staff pay and capital needs. Caitlin Leveser, a finance department staffer identified in the meeting, described three changes she made to the budget document aimed at public access and internal accuracy: adopting an online budget tool (ClearGov), refreshing internal allocation categories, and updating departmental allocations. Calvert said those changes helped the city produce a budget that “takes care of our staff” and that the pay and benefit changes “make progress” toward market competitiveness.

Key figures and mechanics discussed at the meeting: - Certified property valuation: just under $8.0 billion (up 3.73%). - Current tax rate cited by staff: 0.6848. Draft FY26 tax rate presented: 0.6825 (staff called this a small decrease of about 0.34% from the current rate). - Staff noted that a 1% change in the tax rate equals roughly $500,000 in property-tax revenue for the city. - General fund: a portion of the projected fund balance (about $14,000,000) is designated for future capital; staff described the remaining reserve as healthy.

Staff cautioned that the draft “raises more taxes” language in public disclosures refers to an accounting distinction between the rate and rising property values; Calvert explicitly explained that, because assessed values rose, the average homeowner’s levy could be higher even if the proposed rate is lower. Using the city example shown in the presentation, staff said the average homeowner’s monthly net change would be about $2.68 per month after accounting for higher property values.

The presentation also summarized non-property-tax revenues and constraints. Sales tax receipts have been largely flat year to year in the city’s budget forecast, though staff reported a single-month uptick of 7% in the latest data and said they budgeted conservatively. Staff also reported new payment-in-lieu-of-tax (PILOT) arrangements with businesses just outside the city’s jurisdiction that add revenue to the general fund.

Discussion vs. decisions: council heard the draft and asked questions about exemptions, voter-approval tax thresholds, and next steps. No final vote on the budget or tax rate occurred at the Aug. 12 special meeting. Staff said a public hearing and an “intent to vote” on the tax rate would be placed on the agenda for the council’s next regular meeting, with a scheduled adoption vote planned for Sept. 2.

Ending: Staff asked council for guidance on rate choices and next steps; the council recessed for executive session later in the meeting and returned without taking votes on the budget at that session.