Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brooks County says it must cut $500,000 from 2025–26 budget; layoffs and new revenue options discussed
Summary
At a June 26 special meeting, Brooks County officials said they need to cut about $500,000 from next year’s budget, discussed 10% departmental reductions, potential elimination of positions, and explored revenue options including bids for trash pickup, solar projects, and reassigning certain tax revenues.
Brooks County officials told the Commissioners Court on June 26 they expect to trim roughly $500,000 from the 2025–26 budget amid lower-than-expected taxable values and what the judge called overbudgeted revenue estimates.
County Judge Eric Ramos said the county is still waiting on preliminary taxable values from the appraisal district, which is guided by the State Comptroller, and said current estimates are behind expectations (he stated roughly $400+ million compared with a projected $600 million). Chief Deputy Terri A. Silvas reported some property records were last appraised in 2014 and said County Attorney David T. Garcia is working on updates that likely would not take effect until 2026.
Ramos told commissioners the county needs to make immediate spending adjustments: the auditor is working to produce more realistic revenue numbers; the court is targeting a 10% cut from each department; and because roughly 90% of the county budget is payroll, the court discussed personnel options. Those options included eliminating about 10 positions overall (with five targeted for October and others sooner), a systemwide percentage pay cut, or other reassignments. Ramos said four positions would be identified and staff notified the next day with two weeks’ notice, giving an anticipated end date of July 15 for those positions.
The court also discussed a range of revenue and service‑delivery alternatives: soliciting bids to privatize trash pickup (noting privatization could raise costs while reducing county revenue), applying health and sales/use tax revenues to cover some salaries (e.g., indigent services, pharmacies, landfill, fire chief), a solar project proposal behind the sheriff’s office that might generate future revenue (Judge Ramos said it would not produce revenue until about 2027 and referenced a site near Hwy 285), and $2.2 million referenced for “OLS” (the acronym is not defined in the transcript).
No formal budget vote was recorded at the June 26 meeting; the item was handled as a workshop and the court proceeded to executive session for personnel matters. Public comment during the meeting included a request from Irma Menchaca to ensure high‑value homes in the county are being taxed and to address local drought and groundwater concerns; Menchaca also referenced a local School Board meeting discussion about raising taxes. The transcript does not record formal decisions to adopt specific cuts at this meeting, only the court’s direction to prepare for them.
Next steps recorded in the transcript include further auditing of revenue projections and presentation of worksheets to commissioners; the court indicated it would pursue bids on services and consider an employment study to refine staffing decisions.
