Titus County commissioners table transfer of $320,000 in transportation funds amid transparency, legal questions

Titus County commissioners on a November 2025 meeting at the Titus County Courthouse tabled consideration of moving $320,000 (less a $5 wire fee) received from NetRMA into the county Road & Bridge fund after public comment and multiple commissioners asked for legal and budgetary clarification.

The transfer was introduced as Agenda Item 3. County staff and the county auditor explained the money is tied to a transportation/right-of-way project and said it had been recorded in Fund 75 and set up in prior years as a debt or CD. The auditor described Fund 75 as a fund established for the right-of-way project and said a third party had purchased property to set up the right-of-way.

‘‘So anytime you get an unbudgeted revenue for full transparency, we have to put it on the court and receive it in, because we didn't have that knowledge at the time of the budget,’’ the county auditor said, explaining why the item appeared on the court agenda.

Audience member Jerry O'Connor urged caution and greater transparency before moving funds. ‘‘We deserve transparency on all of that stuff,’’ O'Connor said, asking whether the money should instead be placed in an interest-bearing account until a specific, budgeted project is identified.

Commissioners also debated whether the money was a loan, a reimbursement or funds that should be returned to Road & Bridge. One precinct's fund balance was cited at about $418,449.06; staff said the county has previously recommended maintaining a reserve (historically cited at 10%) and that one staff member suggested 25% as a fund-balance policy recommendation.

After discussion, Commissioner Parker—who had moved to transfer the funds—rescinded the motion and proposed tabling the matter until the court could obtain further legal and budget guidance from County Attorney John Mark and other resources. The presiding official closed debate by saying the item would be held until legal review; the court voted ‘‘all ayes’’ to table the transfer.

The court did not adopt any transfer at the meeting. The presiding official said the item will return after staff and legal counsel provide clarification about whether a special budget amendment or other formal action is required.

The meeting also included routine business and several unanimous voice votes on minutes, reports and payments; the court announced a special meeting for Nov. 17 at 9:00 a.m. to canvass the election results.

What happens next: The transfer remains tabled pending review by county legal staff (John Mark, named in the meeting) and further information from accounting staff about the original source and appropriate budgetary steps.