Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Federal County auditor presents revised FY2025-26 budget showing $244,000 gap; recommends tapping contingency
Summary
Field County Auditor Crystal Marquez presented a second draft of the FY2025-26 general fund budget, describing department cuts and transfers that reduced an initial $403,000 shortfall to about $244,033 and recommending use of contingency reserves to balance the budget before final adoption.
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Field County Auditor Crystal Marquez told the Federal County Commissioners Court on a special called meeting that a second draft of the county’s FY2025–26 general fund budget reduces the shortfall from about $403,000 to roughly $244,033 and recommended using contingency reserves or targeted cuts to balance the budget before final adoption.
Marquez, the county auditor, said the change followed a review of departmental requests and several targeted transfers from reserve accounts, including shifting funds for courthouse security and district-clerk projects into the proposed budget. “Once I plugged in courthouse security, we were looking at about cutting the budget by $403,000. After further adjustments and transfers, we reduced that to $244,033,” Marquez said.
The auditor said she increased a planned transfer from reserves to cover three district-clerk projects — book binding, final phase restoration and mold cleanup — as a single transfer of about $97,562, and removed a final contract payment totaling $164,174 that will be paid in the current year and therefore need not be included in next year’s proposed transfer from reserves. She also described a $45,000 reduction in an initially projected transfer for courthouse security and a $26,221 increase tied to district-clerk needs, netting a reduction of $182,953.20 to transfers from reserves.
Major departmental edits described by Marquez included: election office cuts totaling $38,300 mainly from supplies, travel and vendor support; a $17,500 reduction in building-maintenance requests after re-prioritizing equipment purchases and uniform arrangements; and a $15,000 net reduction in the sheriff’s operating budget after reclassifying some motor-vehicle and fuel expenditures. Marquez said the sheriff reduced planned noncapital purchases for courthouse security and scaled back several line items because the county’s Justice Center may not be ready in the next budget year.
Marquez said juvenile placements have driven recent overages in the juvenile board’s accounts and required a small transfer from contingency earlier in the year. “We were over on placements. Those placements are for juveniles and I think they pay, like, $150 or $300 a day per juvenile,” she said, adding she moved roughly $6,000 from contingency to cover the immediate shortfall while the juvenile board rebalanced other lines.
To close the remaining $244,033 shortfall, Marquez recommended reducing the county’s contingency line item or asking commissioners to identify additional reductions in discretionary project spending. “I can cut contingencies down by $244,000 and we will have a balanced budget,” she said, while also noting contingency is ordinarily used for unforeseen circumstances and recommending the court retain some contingency before final adoption.
Marquez also reported progress on a separate, parallel personnel item: HR has been working with the sheriff’s office and county staff to align pay scales. She said the pay scales have been “married together” and that Human Resources will present a proposed pay scale and explanatory language in August after the county’s certified revenue numbers are available.
The court did not take a final vote on the budget at the special meeting; commissioners asked for time to review the revised draft and reconvene for further budget discussion. The court had earlier approved the meeting agenda by motion and later adjourned by voice vote.
Votes at a glance: Adopt agenda — motion made by Commissioner Quezada, second by Commissioner Cano; outcome: approved by voice vote (tally not specified). Adjourn — motion and second recorded on the record; outcome: approved by voice vote (tally not specified).
