The city reported $364,060 in public works spending for FY2024, but that total does not establish which streets were repaired—or when remaining work will happen.
COMBINE — Combine budgeted more than $421,000 for roads, brush removal and signs in fiscal year 2024, then reported spending approximately $57,709 less than that amount.
For someone waiting for a street repair, the financial statement supplies a spending total. It does not supply a repair date.
The city’s website acknowledges the question directly in its FAQ: “When will my street get fixed?” Its answer starts with maintenance responsibility, whether the road belongs to the city’s maintenance system, the county’s or private property owners.
A review of the accessible financial statement, FAQ and street-list text confirms the spending figures and the importance of that distinction. It could not establish a complete inventory of finished projects, deferred repairs or the remaining backlog.
What the money shows
Combine’s budgetary comparison for the year ended September 30, 2024, reports:
| Public works measure | Amount |
|---|---|
| Budget for roads, brush removal and signs | $421,768.71 |
| Actual spending | $364,060.03 |
| Amount below budget | $57,708.68 |
| Share of budget spent | Approximately 86.3% |
This is a combined category, not a paving-only account. Treating all $364,060 as street resurfacing would overstate what the schedule establishes.
The difference also does not identify a particular postponed project. The financial schedule does not explain whether it resulted from lower costs, scheduling changes, reduced work or another cause.
Nor is the $57,709 automatically an estimate of money presently available for repairs. It is a variance for a fiscal year that ended two years ago.
The report was prepared by a certified public accountant, but the accompanying letter says it was not subjected to an audit, review or compilation engagement.
It should be described as the city’s financial statement, rather than an audited confirmation of project completion.
A spending category without an in-house crew
The public works label can suggest a municipal department equipped to dispatch road crews. According to Combine’s FAQ, the city does not have a public works department, employees or equipment to perform the work described there.
Instead, the FAQ says road repairs go through bidding and council approval when the budget permits.
That helps explain the process residents must navigate. It does not establish why any individual street has waited or whether a particular delay was avoidable.
A budget allocation authorizes spending; residents still need information connecting that allocation to a specific scope, contract and construction schedule.
The road map matters
Combine publishes a map and street list revised May 19, 2025, distinguishing city, county and private roads. It separately identifies FM 1389 and FM 3039 as TxDOT routes.
The list also separates the Kaufman County and Dallas County portions of Haines Road and distinguishes segments of Lanier Road. Those entries illustrate why a road name alone may be insufficient to establish maintenance responsibility.
The accessible text did not preserve the alignment of the city, county and private columns reliably enough to classify every street. A complete, verified map of city-maintained streets therefore could not be reconstructed for this article.
A city-limit boundary, truck-route map or list of street names should not be substituted for a maintenance-responsibility map.
Completed work and the backlog remain unverified
The financial total does not identify project locations, quantities of pavement repaired, contractors, completion dates or outstanding work orders.
Several linked council documents could not be retrieved during this review. Consequently, no specific street can responsibly be labeled completed, deferred or overdue on the strength of the spending figure alone.
That limitation does not establish that Combine lacks project records. It means the available evidence did not support a verified street-by-street accounting.
An approval would also need to be distinguished from completion. A contract award can establish that work was authorized; an acceptance record, final invoice or completion report can establish that the contracted work was finished.
Similarly, a remaining backlog requires a list of unresolved needs, rather than an assumption that every road absent from a completion list is awaiting repair.
What would answer the resident’s question?
A useful accounting would connect each city-maintained road segment to its condition, proposed treatment, estimated cost and current status.
For completed projects, it would identify the contractor, final expenditure and completion date. For deferred work, it would give the reason for postponement and any revised schedule.
For unresolved requests, it would distinguish an isolated repair from resurfacing or reconstruction.
Those records would allow residents to assess whether the city is addressing its highest-priority needs and whether budgeted work is being delivered.
For current city-road concerns, the FAQ directs residents to the city manager. Combine’s website lists Jack Gilbert at jgilbert@combinetx.com and 972-476-1532. A report should identify the exact location, nearby intersection, nature of the problem and photographs when available.
The verified conclusion is narrower than the question suggested by the budget: Combine reported substantial public works spending and an underspent allocation.
Those figures alone do not explain an individual street’s wait. That answer requires the project records, maintenance responsibility and repair schedule for that location.
