Hunt County commissioners debate budget shortfall, weigh drawing from capital reserve versus smaller tax increase

Hunt County Commissioner's Court met in special session on Sept. 4 to continue deliberations on the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget, with judge Stovall presiding and commissioners Hutchins, Monroe, Smith and Harrison present. The court considered options to close a projected budget shortfall — including transferring capital improvement money into contingency, using fund balance, or modest tax-rate increases — and asked staff to produce revenue-run scenarios for 0.5‑cent, 1‑cent and 1.5‑cent adjustments.

The county’s proposed budget, filed Aug. 15, was presented to the court as containing no cost-of-living raises for employees and including the addition of four deputies in the sheriff’s office and equipment to outfit them. Judge Stovall said the filing reflected department and public input but noted the budget had been adjusted since filing and now included a shortfall he described as “the million 180,000” (a $1,180,000 deficiency as stated in open court). He also said the court moved $1,000,000 from the capital improvement fund into the general administration contingency line so that transfer would be funded from savings and not from tax rate revenue.

Why it matters: the court must balance maintaining services — including public safety, facilities maintenance and court operations — with keeping the tax rate low. Commissioners repeatedly framed the choice as a short-term use of savings versus higher recurring costs in future years if raises or precinct budget restorations are approved.

Most substantive facts and options discussed - Funding changes and shortfall: Judge Stovall said the budget as filed included a $1,000,000 transfer from the capital improvement fund to contingency and that, after later adjustments and state-mandated increases (for judges and prosecutors) the projected deficiency was about $1,180,000. He characterized the current approach as “kicking the can down the road” if recurring expenses are funded with one-time reserves. - Revenue scenarios and timing: staff (Bernice) was asked to prepare scenario runs showing the revenue impact of lowering the court’s proposed change to the tax rate by 0.5¢, 1.0¢ and 1.5¢; the court noted legal posting deadlines mean the earliest vote is next Tuesday and additional special meetings would require timely filing. - Capital improvements and fund balance: commissioners discussed repurposing undesignated capital-improvement funds (the court noted approximately $14 million in capital-improvement fund balance and an estimate that Pudding/Puddendale Hill construction would cost about $8.3 million). Several commissioners urged that undesignated capital funds be reserved for one-time capital projects rather than recurring maintenance or personnel costs. - Facilities and deferred maintenance: commissioners and staff described multiple recurring and one-time facilities needs (e.g., jail HVAC units, elevators, roof and grease-trap repairs) and the difficulty of distinguishing “maintenance” from capital replacement for aging county buildings; one commissioner said facilities had a roughly $642,000 increase in the proposed budget, and that moving those one-time items to capital would materially reduce the recurring deficit. - Public safety and staffing: the proposed budget included four new deputies for the sheriff’s office; public commenters and at least two commissioners said cutting public-safety staffing to meet short-term targets would be harmful to county residents. - Jail costs and state responsibilities: Judge Stovall highlighted a person housed locally pending a bed at a state mental health facility who “has been in there for so long… over a thousand days,” and said the county has paid more than $100 per day to house that individual; he said the state’s capacity shortfall is adding county expense. - ARPA and one-time federal funds: the court noted American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds and earlier COVID-era federal aid contributed to the existing capital-improvement balance and have funded some projects; commissioners debated whether those one-time receipts should be used to cover recurring needs. - Revenue from new property: the court discussed modest net new property revenue in recent years (figures cited by various speakers as about $2 million on average annually), and cautioned against assuming large future gains.

Public comment and internal debate: several residents urged the court not to unduly cut public safety or delay repairs. Resident John Kelso told the court, “I’m disgusted that you guys won’t have a conversation,” urging more direct discussion of options. Resident Andy Talley said he opposed cuts that reduce public safety coverage in rural areas. Commissioner Mark Hutchins and other commissioners proposed either transferring one-time capital funds to pay nonrecurring projects or pursuing a small tax-rate adjustment; some commissioners pushed back that frequent use of fund balance to pay recurring expenses will deplete reserves.

Next steps: staff will produce the requested revenue runs (scenarios for a 0.5¢, 1¢ and 1.5¢ change) and provide updated budget worksheets; the court noted the earliest lawful action would occur at the next public meeting. No formal budget vote took place at the Sept. 4 session.

Ending note: the court framed the choice as a multi-year tradeoff — using one-time capital or fund balance to avoid a near-term tax-rate increase versus preserving reserves and seeking recurring revenue to cover ongoing personnel and operations costs. The court scheduled follow-up runs and additional consideration at its next meeting.