Coryell County commissioners debate FY2026 budget items including judge supplements, courthouse repairs and a $1M FEMA line

The Coryell County Commissioners Court met in special session to review the proposed FY2026 budget and aired competing views over optional judge supplements, capital-improvement planning and whether to count a $1,000,000 FEMA reimbursement as budgeted revenue.

Speaker 2, a commissioner, said the supplements being proposed for judges total “about $28,000,” and argued that removing them would modestly reduce the proposed tax-rate increase. “$28,000 is a pretty big deal to me,” Speaker 2 said, urging caution on discretionary spending in a year when the county faces a higher tax bill for property owners.

The presiding official, Speaker 1, framed the court’s discretion under state law, citing Local Government Code Chapter 111.008 and noting that some state actions must be reflected in the budget. Speaker 1 said a recently passed House bill requires certain probate bonds to be set at $500,000 and that the county must include that new, state-mandated cost in its calculations.

Commissioners also discussed capital needs for the historic courthouse. Commissioners identified an elevator project (cited at roughly $150,000 in discussion) and roof repairs as priorities that require planning and funding in the capital improvement fund. Speaker 1 described the capital improvement fund as including projects submitted before Aug. 15 and said some courthouse costs are specialized and thus potentially expensive.

A $1,000,000 FEMA reimbursement is listed in the Road & Bridge revenue but drew skepticism. Speaker 2 said the county included a similar FEMA estimate in the previous year’s proposed budget that did not materialize and argued the current number should not be treated as guaranteed revenue. “I’d rather be honest with them,” Speaker 2 said about the public, urging conservatism in revenue estimates.

The county clerk’s proposed supplement and an apparent transfer were questioned by commissioners and clarified by Miss Newton, who said the additional $15,000 requested for her office is a salary supplement to allow modest raises and that a $40,000 transfer supports a land-management position. “I keep a minimum staff... The $40,000 that is transferred out is for the land management position,” Miss Newton said, explaining why some line items appeared duplicated.

Commissioners debated reducing contingencies for pretrial services from $180,000 toward $100,000 based on auditor input; the auditor’s conversation with department staff was cited as supporting a lower contingency figure. Several commissioners described a desire to avoid last-minute budget amendments and to reach consensus where possible, but Speaker 2 said he would accept the decision of the court if it went 3–2.

No formal motions or votes on budget items were recorded at the workshop. Speaker 1 indicated the court will post any meeting cancellations as needed and said staff (Mr. Wood) would prepare possible adjustments for the court to consider after the public hearing set for next Tuesday. The court adjourned with the expectation that some budget items would be revisited after the public hearing.

What’s next: the public hearing on the proposed FY2026 budget will occur as scheduled; Speaker 1 said the court will consider proposed amendments following that hearing and may publish a notice canceling the next-day workshop if it is redundant.