Dallas County adopts FY2026 budget; earmarks $2 million for homelessness and approves judge supplements with one exception

The Dallas County Commissioners Court voted to adopt the FY2026 budget and approved two amendments to how portions of that budget will be used.

The court moved to earmark $2,000,000 in the county budget for homelessness programs rather than immediately designating the funds to a single contractor; the court said the ultimate recipients and programmatic uses will be determined later and returned to the court for a vote. The court also approved a $25,000 judicial supplement for judges, with the exception of one judge who was excluded from receiving the supplement in the amended motion.

The budget presentation was given by Dr. Ron Watkins, who said the proposed total FY2026 budget is $828,270,635 and identified programmatic additions that sum to $38,050,000, including new staff positions, a Dallas Eviction Advocacy Center allocation, homeless programs, a sheriff mobile command unit and an electric vehicle infrastructure upgrade for fleet operations. "The total FY 26 proposed budget is established the current rate of 0.2155 is $828,270,635," Dr. Watkins said while reviewing the materials.

Commissioner Price raised concerns about providing funds to Housing Forward without additional contractor oversight and cited a June audit that, in his view, showed areas needing improvement. "I've got some issues with that," Commissioner Price said of the Housing Forward materials and audit findings, and asked that his objections and related documents be entered into the record. The motion on the floor, he and others clarified, was to reserve the $2 million for homelessness generally and to require any specific allocation to be returned to the court for approval.

Several speakers and members of the court pressed for more data and accountability on programs receiving county funds. Commissioner Price asked for more program-level metrics from the Dallas Eviction Advocacy Center (DEAC/DIAC) and the Perryman evaluation so the court could assess types of cases represented, post-assistance housing stability and safeguards for county funds. Commissioner Daniel noted the importance of verifying productivity and peer comparisons before fully committing funds.

On judicial pay, the court debated how supplemental pay would be applied across judicial categories and the statutory effects of awarding supplements to certain judges. After discussion and an amendment to remove one judge from the universal supplement motion, the court approved the supplement as amended.

The court took public comment on the budget. Brian Toney, executive director of the Dallas Housing Coalition, urged continued county investment in housing and homelessness services, noting recent reductions in homelessness and that prevention work must continue. Sylvia Lagos, a resident and taxpayer, urged the court to look for cost savings and to limit tax increases.

The court also completed the formal steps required by the Texas taxpayer notice statutes for the county tax rate and later voted on the tax rate tied to the budget (the tax-rate action is recorded separately). The adopted budget includes the two amendments described above; court minutes indicate the budget motion passed and the amendments were incorporated before adoption.

Decisions recorded in the meeting included the earmark of $2,000,000 for homelessness with the requirement that specific expenditures be returned to the court for approval, and approval of the judicial supplement with an exception for one judge. Other budget line-item questions and requests for more detailed breakdowns — for fines and fees, mileage and consolidated accounts — were raised and staff said they would provide further detail.

The court did not adopt final allocations for the earmarked homelessness funds at this meeting and directed staff and members to return with recommendations and required documentation before any contract awards or payments were made.

Notes: this article summarizes the budget adoption, recorded amendments, public comments and directions for follow-up reporting. It does not presuppose the outcome of future votes on specific allocations that the court said must return for approval.