A string of outside organizations presented program updates and funding requests to the McLennan County Commissioners Court, outlining needs that range from homelessness housing and behavioral‑health contracts to arts programming, alternative dispute resolution and small‑business lending.

Mission Waco asked the court to join the city in matching nearly $2 million to finish Phase 1 of Creekside Community Village, a permanent supportive housing community on a 68‑acre tract the nonprofit purchased in 2023. "We don't believe that housing alone is going to solve homelessness in our community, but community will," John Callaway, executive director of Mission Waco, said. Mission Waco said Phase 1 costs are roughly $15 million; the organization reported it has raised almost $11 million and has a $2 million line of credit.

Health services and diversion: Heart of Texas Behavioral Health Network (HOTBHN) described four contracts supported in part by county dollars — outpatient (comprehensive) services, emergency psychiatric services, medical‑clearance support for the county’s diversion center and re‑entry programs. CEO Ryan Adams offered performance data: triage assessments increased modestly while bed‑day utilization at the diversion center rose about 68.7% in the first nine months year‑over‑year; HOTBHN requested continuation of contract dollars (the transcript records an example figure of $178,600 for comprehensive services and $92,400 for emergency psychiatric services).

Creative and cultural programs: Creative Waco requested $75,000 for four program areas — strengthening Downtown Waco as a cultural district, expanding apprenticeship/workforce programs countywide, supporting events across McLennan County, and leadership/capacity building for arts organizations. Fiona Bond, Creative Waco CEO, said the nonprofit regrants roughly $300,000 annually and supports a cultural district that draws more than 35,000 weekly visitors during major events.

Small‑business capital and reentry: McLennan Community Investment Fund (MCIF), the county’s certified Community Development Financial Institution, asked for $100,000 to build lending capital and operations so it can scale lending from under $700,000 to a multi‑million dollar program over five years. Chris Houston, MCIF executive director, said MCIF has deployed roughly $696,916 in 48 loans to date and that about 80% of borrowers are in low‑ or moderate‑income census tracts. Separately, advocates for a community reentry coordination effort (a "reentry roundtable") described a model from Tarrant County and asked the court to help convene local stakeholders; no specific funding request was made in that presentation.

Other requests and updates: Mission Waco explained Creekside’s mix of studio, micro and park‑model homes and said full build‑out would accommodate roughly 346 units. The Animal Birth Control clinic (ABC) reported it expects roughly 14,000 surgeries this year and continues to expand mobile transport to reach county residents; the clinic asked the county to continue support for sterilization and microchipping programs. The Dispute Resolution Center asked the court to continue support for mediation services and noted sharply rising family‑law mediations; it reported being able to run much of its work with volunteer mediators. The Advocacy Center for Crime Victims and Children asked for $20,000 to help cover gaps caused by reductions in other grants and wrote that the center provided more than 2,300 people with counseling and advocacy services in 2024. The Cove (youth homelessness) requested $60,000 for a youth‑advocate position and program director support; Meals on Wheels asked for a 10% increase to support growing waitlists (the organization reported 349 homebound McLennan County residents on its waiting list). Crime Stoppers and the Dispute Resolution Center also briefed court members about operations and recent achievements.

What the court did: Commissioners did not take votes on any outside funding requests during the session. Members asked staff to compile a list of contractually required commitments and to remove or isolate non‑recurring program asks, so the court can see a baseline of fixed obligations before deciding how to allocate new funds in the FY2026 budget. Several commissioners said they want staff to return with a prioritized, line‑item view of obligatory versus discretionary expenditures.

Ending: Commissioners scheduled next‑week budget work sessions to continue prioritizing and assembling the FY2026 budget; staff was asked to return with a contract/recurring expenditures rollup to help the court compare requests against the county’s fixed obligations and available revenue.