Sweetwater council hears detailed water-utilities update and preliminary FY‑26 budget priorities

City of Sweetwater officials and outside consultants presented a status update on the municipal water system and the city’s preliminary fiscal‑year 2026 budget during the City Council’s May 20 meeting.

The presentation, led by Sage Dillard of engineering firm EHT and budget presenter David Bailey, outlined current water‑supply conditions, ongoing and planned capital projects, regulatory and sampling cost increases, and budget assumptions that will drive next year’s revenue and expenditure planning.

Dillard said Oak Creek Lake remains well below historical highs, noting a multi‑year cycle and that the lake was about 28% full at the time of the presentation. “You do have two sources of water,” Dillard told the council, referring to the city’s surface supply at Oak Creek and its groundwater well field; that conjunctive use, he said, is “a huge benefit.”

The consultants briefed the council on recently completed and planned projects: backup generators for the well field and treatment plant implemented after the 2021 freeze; a contract awarded this meeting for raw water pump‑station improvements (see separate item); and planned waterline replacements funded in part by Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) programs. Dillard recommended continuing water‑loss reduction work and noted the city’s replacement of old meters contributed to a reported system water loss near 5% this year.

Bailey framed the update in budget terms. He presented high‑level numbers for all city funds and the general fund, noting approximately $43.7 million in budgeted revenues across all funds and $51 million in budgeted expenditures for FY‑25 (all funds). On the general fund, he said property tax and sales tax are key revenue sources and that the city’s preliminary net taxable value for tax year 2025 was roughly $705 million. He said staff used the current tax rate for planning but that a final recommendation will come later in the process.

The presentation flagged several items that could affect next year’s budget: continuing increases in chemical and electricity prices for treatment operations, higher laboratory sampling frequency required by regulators (including UCMR‑5 and lead/copper sampling), and construction‑cost inflation that has pushed TWDB‑funded project bids above earlier estimates. Bailey also summarized outstanding capital requests from departments (ambulance, fire engine, personnel, equipment) and noted the council will evaluate which items to approve during the budget process.

Council members and staff discussed wastewater reuse and effluent value for industrial customers; Dillard said industrial reuse is possible but may require additional treatment and infrastructure paid for by the industry. The consultants also described planned wastewater collection improvements, rerouting a vulnerable crossing at Neff and Lewis, and upgrades at the wastewater treatment plant currently under design review by TWDB.

Bailey identified EMS fund performance as a budget concern, showing several years of deficit activity and recommending deeper financial review and possible outside analysis to find solutions. He reiterated the budget calendar that leads to a proposed budget presentation on Aug. 12 and public hearings in September, with final adoption before the Oct. 1 start of FY‑26.

The presentation closed with a reminder that longer TWDB review timelines and construction inflation may reduce the amount of waterline work that grant funds will cover and that staff will prioritize projects accordingly. Council took no final budget action at this meeting; staff will return with additional budget detail and rate/revenue recommendations.