Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County budget update: revenues ahead year-to-date but collective-bargaining increases add pressure for FY26
Summary
County budget staff reported Jan. 23 that fiscal-year revenues were ahead year-to-date and expenses low for Q1, but multiple previously approved increases — prominently collective bargaining costs — will raise FY26 obligations by several million dollars and may constrain options for FY26 budgeting.
County budget staff briefed the Commissioners Court on Jan. 23 about fiscal‑year 2025 financials and early drivers for fiscal‑year 2026. Melissa Carrillo (County Operations) and Jessica Garza (Assistant Budget and Finance Director) presented month‑to‑date revenue and expense snapshots, projections and a register of items likely to affect next year’s budget.
Carrillo said about 41% of adopted FY25 revenues had been collected by the close of December, while about 18.75% of expenses had been spent. She noted December and January typically account for a large share of annual revenues and that the court should expect revenues to jump near February. The presentation showed a year‑to‑date net favorable position (revenues over expenses) of roughly $74 million at that point, based on projections.
Garza identified a list of approved items and carry‑forwards that will materially affect FY26, totaling roughly $6.4 million in increases the county currently anticipates rolling into next year’s base. Court discussion emphasized one large recurring item: an estimated $5.2 million increase tied to collective‑bargaining and salary obligations that will be carried forward into FY26; commissioners noted that such recurring obligations reduce flexibility unless offset by new revenues or cuts elsewhere. Staff reminded the court that the FY25 adopted budget included a planned draw from fund balance (reported elsewhere as approximately $20 million that year) and that restoring prior cuts would be a focus when discussing FY26.
Commissioners also raised a separate item: a $1 million match the county had set aside for a downtown "deck park" application that, according to Garza and follow‑up Commissioner questions, was not awarded by the external grantor; staff said they would confirm official status and, if the grant was not awarded, reclassify that money on the register and return with details.
Staff reiterated that this briefing was part of an ongoing monthly series and said they would return with more historical comparisons and updated projections. No appropriations or tax‑rate decisions were made at the Jan. 23 session.
Ending: Staff will follow up with a confirmed status on the deck‑park match, refine FY26 projections and present additional historical and projection tools to assist commissioners in upcoming budget decisions.
