City Manager Lizzie presented the City of Commerce'proposed fiscal 2026 budget in a council workshop, saying the plan is balanced if the tax rate remains at 79¢ per $100 of assessed value and that the proposed budget would increase total general-fund revenue from a projected $8,303,745 for fiscal 2025 to $8,395,542 for fiscal 2026, a roughly 1.1% rise.

Lizzie said the administration used three guiding principles when preparing the budget: the city is a service organization, every dollar the government spends belongs to the public, and trust is the community's most valuable asset. "We serve the community," Lizzie said, adding, "Every dollar we spend is somebody else's dollar." He emphasized efforts to keep spending responsible while funding agreed council priorities.

Why it matters: the budget keeps the current tax rate and funds public safety, operations and several capital projects while leaving little room for a cost'of'living adjustment (COLA). Council members debated whether to accept the balanced budget as presented, raise the rate to fund pay increases, or use a mix of targeted raises and delayed hires.

Key figures and structure: the proposed general fund would be $8.395 million in revenues and $8.396 million in expenditures (roughly a 2% projected increase in general-fund spending year'over'year), with public safety consuming about 51% of the general-fund budget (fire ~25.7%, police ~24.9). Staff said 65% of general-fund spending is salaries and wages (industry'typical for service organizations), and 69% of the proposed revenues come from taxes (property, sales and franchise).

Property-tax choices: staff laid out three tax-rate options required by state law. Keeping the rate at 79¢ produces the balanced budget presented; the state'calculated "no new revenue" rate (used to show whether taxing units are raising revenue beyond prior collections) was about 82¢ and would yield roughly an additional $107,000; the voter-approval rate (3.5% over the previous year) was about 83.5¢ and would yield roughly $239,000. Staff warned that the state's certified numbers reflect appraisal adjustments and protest settlements and can make the system appear to show a decline in the taxable base even when actual values rose. Lizzie described the appraisal math: the appraisal district'adjusted, protested and certified values can create apparent year'to'year declines that are driven by how protests are accounted for, not strictly by new construction or sales.

COLA and trade-offs: staff calculated the general-fund impact of different COLA levels: roughly $39,757 for a 1% increase, $79,513 for 2% and $119,269 for 3% (these are the general-fund amounts staff cited). Because of timing and the size of the budget gap, council members discussed that a 3% across'the'board COLA would require either spending cuts or a tax-rate increase in the range of roughly 0.82¢–0.83¢ per $100 to cover the additional cost. Staff cautioned that using one-time fund balance to pay recurring salary increases would be risky and could harm the city's bond rating.

Utilities and rates: the proposed utility fund budget projects fiscal 2025 revenues of about $7,700,980 and a proposed fiscal 2026 budget at $7,464,098 (staff noted this is lower because FY25 included some outlier insurance recoveries and stronger sales). To help smooth future cost increases (staff flagged a major raw-water cost increase expected in 2027), the staff proposed a 3% water/sewer rate increase. Staff gave examples of customer impacts: a residential customer at the typical 4,000 gallons per month would see a $2 monthly increase (from $80 to $82); a 10,000'gallon residential user would see about a $5 monthly increase; a commercial account using 125,000 gallons would increase by about $67.

Capital and vehicle fleet: capital requests include $423,208 in general-fund capital (minor improvements and department equipment), an $88,000 public utilities capital request and two larger planned borrowings: a $2 million certificates-of-obligation issuance for downtown improvements and a proposed $6 million certificates issuance to complete wastewater treatment plant work. Staff described a city fleet-management contract with Enterprise (the rental/ fleet company) that shifts purchase, life'cycle and maintenance management off city mechanics to a fleet vendor and results in an "enterprise user fee" line in each department; that fee rose partly because of clustered police vehicle purchases and recent public-safety equipment buys (three new fire vehicles and a full public-safety radio system).

Code enforcement, vacant buildings and revenues: staff proposed converting an unfilled in'house building inspector position into a code'enforcement role and planned to hire a code-enforcement officer in January 2026 to support a proposed vacant'building registration program. The administration estimated that properly staffing and implementing the vacant'building registration could produce roughly $70,000 in new revenue (staff said the city has roughly 600 vacant properties and would aim initially to register a subset).

Animal-shelter services and county negotiations: staff described current Hunt County payments of about $70,000 for county animal-control services and said county leaders have agreed the payment should rise; staff told council they expected Hunt County to increase its annual contribution to about $100,000 under ongoing talks but that a county request for the city to provide 24/7 countywide responses would require substantially more staff and a proposed contract that could push county payments to roughly $250,000 if the expanded level of service were accepted. Staff said the FY26 budget assumes the county contribution will rise from $70,000 to $100,000 but does not assume the $250,000 scenario.

Donations and capital commitments: staff explained the accounting path for gifts and donations. Donations are recorded in department donation revenue lines and, if the council commits funds for a particular project (for example, a concession stand or animal-shelter fund), the council can move donated dollars into a committed fund balance earmarked for that project. Staff said the city can and does accept donations earmarked for specific projects, but governmental accounting rules limit how staff may treat them in operating accounts.

Other items: staff reviewed the library donation level (the city owns the building; operations are run by a nonprofit and the city provides annual support), municipal-court matters (the municipal judge operates independently; staff are tracking the possibility that a nearby university might send more citations through the city's court), street-maintenance choices (staff described lower'cost maintenance options vs full street reconstruction and noted the cost tradeoffs and useful life implications) and emergency-management costs (the city is moving to HyperReach for alerts).

What'next: council asked staff for more detail about the tax'rate consequences of several COLA options and about the operational and fiscal consequences of any new agreements (for example, Hunt County animal control or expanded utility customers). Staff said they would bring refined numbers to future meetings, including the effect on a homeowner of each tax'rate option and the fiscal impact if the council chose a particular COLA or rate path.

Ending note: Lizzie repeated the administration's framing: "Every dollar we spend is somebody else's dollar," and said the proposed budget reflects an attempt to protect core services while keeping the tax rate unchanged. The council left the workshop with follow'up questions on tax-rate wording mandated by state law, the use of fund balance for one'time expenses, and additional detail on staffing timing and anticipated county agreements.