Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wichita Falls CFO lays out FY25 budget choices, tax‑rate tradeoffs and reserve posture
Summary
At a pre‑budget workshop, City CFO Steven outlined FY25 budget landmarks: a roughly $100M general fund, a projected $38M year‑end balance, tax‑rate reference points (current 0.68, no‑new‑revenue ~0.6563), and options that would raise or lower revenue by hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
At a pre‑budget workshop, City Chief Financial Officer Steven presented the city’s financial picture ahead of the FY25 proposed budget and walked council through tax‑rate choices, fund‑balance targets and next steps in the calendar.
Steven said the general fund is approximately $100,000,000 and staff project an end‑of‑year fund balance near $38,000,000, while reminding the council that portions of that sum are nonspendable or designated for liabilities and capital. He described a $10,000,000 capital set‑aside established in the prior budget cycle and emphasized the city’s move from borrowing toward saving.
Why it matters: tax‑rate decisions drive the size of the revenue pie available for pay raises, new positions and capital projects. Steven presented five tax‑rate reference points to illustrate the revenue effect: the current rate (0.68), a no‑new‑revenue reference rate (~0.6563), and example points above or below those marks. He highlighted two practical rules of thumb used in the presentation: each one‑cent change in the tax rate near current levels generates roughly $750,000 of general‑fund revenue, and a one‑percent citywide wage increase costs the city about $900,000 in personnel expenditures.
On sales tax and property values, Steven said the appraisal district’s preliminary valuation increase for 2024 is 4.9% (five‑year average ~7.56%). He noted a strong June monthly sales‑tax report (up more than 9% versus last June) but advised caution because a rolling 12‑month look shows sales tax running about 1.71% below the prior 12 months.
Staff cautioned that exceeding the voter‑approval tax rate (a statutory benchmark informed by legislative methodology) would trigger additional notice requirements and likely require a voter election; council feedback would be needed promptly if members favored that path. Steven asked council to consider the tradeoffs—more revenue for pay or positions versus the administrative and electoral steps required to go above the voter‑approval threshold.
What’s next: staff will deliver the proposed budget on July 19, hold member briefings the week of July 29–Aug 2, conduct a proposed‑budget workshop in August, follow with a public hearing and intent‑to‑vote session on the tax rate, and return for formal budget and tax‑rate adoption on Sept. 23.
Representative quote: “Each one‑cent change is about $750,000,” Steven said when summarizing the fiscal arithmetic that will guide council choices.
The workshop did not include formal votes; it was an informational session intended to frame decisions for the coming months.
