The Friendswood City Council adopted the city’s fiscal year 2025–26 budget on Aug. 25, approving $116,810,629 in projected revenue and $116,000,810 in appropriations and later ratifying a property-tax rate above the statutory no-new-revenue level.
The budget vote followed a public hearing and staff presentations on revenue assumptions, decision packages and “forces at work” that increased costs. Mayor Pro Tem Elisor moved to adopt the budget; Council Member Hanks seconded. The motion passed 6‑1.
City staff told the council that total proposed revenue across funds is $116.8 million and that the general fund revenue is projected at $45.9 million. Staff said the proposed tax rate was reduced in the draft to 51.42¢ per $100 of assessed value; the no-new-revenue rate discussed in the presentation was cited at about 50.112¢. Staff also presented a tax-bill example showing a homeowner with a $460,000 house would pay about $47.82 more annually under the proposed rate — about $3.99 a month.
The council’s discussion emphasized two revenue shifts used to hold the tax rate roughly flat: recognizing more sales-tax receipts in projections and using $500,000 of unassigned fund balance to pay deferred maintenance rather than property taxes. Staff said sales-tax receipts were higher than previously forecast and that recognizing that gain allowed a reduction of slightly more than one penny on the ad valorem rate. Council members thanked staff for reworking the assumptions.
Council members also discussed long-term cost drivers. Staff described “forces at work” — contractual and market-driven obligations such as debt service, a planned fire‑truck purchase and other items that together pushed the budget upward by roughly $1 million compared with prior forecasts; staff said many of those costs are contractual and difficult to avoid.
The adopted budget includes decision packages totaling $2.8 million; one funded item added since the August 4 presentation was a $30,000 allocation for a social‑media post boost intended to increase visibility of emergency and priority messages. Finance staff said the full $30,000 is not expected to be spent in a single year and that smaller boosts (for example, $15–$20 on individual posts) have been used previously to widen reach.
Council heard a brief overview of the water and sewer fund, which staff projected at $23.5 million in revenue with related decision packages and “forces at work.”
After adopting the budget, the council considered and approved a separate action to ratify the property‑tax increase reflected in the budget; under state law, that ratification is required because the proposed rate exceeded the no‑new‑revenue rate. Council Member Grafon moved to ratify the tax increase and Council Member Hanks seconded; the motion passed.
No amendments to the budget line items were adopted during the meeting. City staff said a public hearing on the tax rate will be held on Sept. 8, when the council will set the corresponding tax rate needed to fund the budget.
Less critical details: staff emphasized that tax‑rate calculations and the city’s tax-bill example depend on appraisal values set by the appraisal district, and officials encouraged residents to raise valuation concerns with the appraisal district if they believe assessments are incorrect.