Hidalgo County budget workshop: appraisal growth, staffing and capital requests outlined

Douglas Soto Jr., Hidalgo County budget officer, briefed commissioners on the fiscal 2026 budget calendar, recent certified appraised values from the appraisal district and department budget submissions.

Soto said the appraisal roll shows an approximate 9.8% increase in taxable appraised value for the coming year and estimated this could yield about $30 million in additional revenue for operations and debt service if the county captures the full taxable base. He noted a portion of the increase—his office estimated roughly 2–3 billion dollars of appraised value in the roll—represents newly taxed property and that new property can account for roughly 20–25% of annual growth when compared with reappraisals and valuation changes.

Calendar and legal posting: Soto went through the county’s budget calendar: appraisal certification was received; on August 1 the tax assessor will calculate benchmarks for the no‑new‑revenue tax rate and the voter‑approval rate; compensation notices to elected officials are scheduled for August 13; and a proposed tax‑rate vote and required public notices were outlined ahead of a possible September adoption. He also flagged a recent change in the law about publication timing (business days versus calendar days) and advised the court to note new posting requirements.

Requests summarized: The budget office summarized department submissions received in June and July. Highlights included: - Operating/expenditure requests: roughly $16.4 million in new operating requests (about 15% of last year’s budget in aggregate submissions). - Salary requests: a combined increase of about $8.6 million, which Soto said includes 112 proposed new positions and 61 requested salary adjustments. - Capital improvement requests: a consolidated, multi‑year list totaling approximately $76 million (Soto characterized this as a 3–5 year need list, and said the submission was a raw roll‑up that would be prioritized later).

Commissioner remarks and follow‑up: Commissioners pressed for detail and prioritization. Several asked for more granular breakdowns of capital requests and a precinct‑by‑precinct plan for paved vs. unpaved roads; one commissioner said unpaved‑road maintenance and paving need more funding and enforcement of the road‑inventory study the county previously completed. Commissioners also discussed the jail and court‑related staffing: Soto confirmed many new positions and much of the salary request are concentrated in law‑enforcement and court operations and suggested HR follow up on requested grade/step changes.

Fiscal context and options: Soto reported mid‑year collections and reserves: revenues were near 98% collected at mid‑year and the projected beginning available fund balance for FY 2026 was about $37 million for one‑time or contingency uses. Commissioners asked for scenarios that allocate portions of the rainy‑day fund to capital priorities and requested that Soto and legal staff identify abatements/exemptions that should be excluded from collectible value when modeling revenue availability.

Next steps and meetings: Soto said the budget office will follow up with department detail, and the county will schedule individual briefings with each commissioner before budget workshop number two (Soto proposed August 12 for one‑on‑one meetings). Commissioners and staff asked for a breakdown of capital requests, the history and size of tax abatements to show true collectible value, and a clearer plan for addressing maintenance backlogs and pavement needs. Commissioners also asked that any staffing/grade adjustments be routed through HR for standards consistent with the county’s grade/step process.

Ending: The court closed the workshop after the presentations and a short question-and-answer period; the clerk recorded a motion to adjourn and the court approved it without further business.