Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Haslet charter subcommittee proposes budget rules, fiscal-year and public‑hearing procedures
Summary
The commission’s financial subcommittee recommended draft charter language on fiscal year (Oct. 1–Sept. 30), city-manager-led budget preparation, public-hearing notices, month-to-month continuation if a budget is not adopted and rules for amendments, transfers and filing adopted budgets as public records.
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the April 22 meeting, the commission’s financial procedures subcommittee presented draft charter language covering the city’s fiscal year, budget timeline, public hearing process and related procurement and audit rules.
Matt Hayes, presenting the packet, said the subcommittee assumed a strong‑council/city‑administrator framework for drafting and borrowed language from other Texas cities where relevant. The proposed fiscal year runs Oct. 1–Sept. 30. The draft makes the city manager responsible for preparing the proposed budget and submitting it to the council in compliance with state law; the council then holds a public hearing, may amend the budget and must adopt a final budget prior to the fiscal year start. The packet also includes a provision that if no final budget is adopted, the current budget remains in effect on a month‑to‑month basis until adoption.
The commission discussed practical questions raised by the language: when proposed documents must be filed with the city secretary; whether the public‑hearing stage should be the point for final council deliberation; and how to constrain last‑minute additions at the council meeting. The subcommittee also described recommended language on transfers of appropriations, emergency budget amendments, independent annual audit requirements, purchasing thresholds, and depository procedures. On PID (public improvement district) matters, staff explained the city collects a modest administrative fee (approximately $8,600 per PID annually in examples) but does not receive the PID principal revenues.
Commissioners asked staff to clarify some sequencing (proposed vs. adopted budget filing) and to ensure the draft reflects state statutory steps for tax levies and rollback limits. No formal adoption occurred; the subcommittee will refine the packet for future review.

