Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harris County commissioners weigh revenue assumptions, water rate and fee changes in budget workshop
Summary
At a May 19 work session, Harris County commissioners debated whether to adjust FY26‑27 revenue forecasts — including a proposed increase in projected property‑tax collections — and discussed Waterworks rate increases and modest fee adjustments to reduce reliance on reserves.
Harris County commissioners spent the bulk of their May 19 session reviewing the FY26‑27 proposed budget and considering modest adjustments to revenue assumptions that staff said would reduce pressure on the county’s reserves. Chair (S1) opened the meeting and turned budget questions over to county and finance staff.
County staff reported a set of proposed Waterworks base‑rate increases — the packet showed a current base rate of 16.32 with a 5% proposal to 17.14, and a commercial rate shown as 39.02 rising to $40.97 with a 5% increase — and stressed Waterworks is an enterprise fund separate from the general fund. Elizabeth (S5), the CFO identified in the meeting packet, told commissioners the 5% rate increases were not yet included in the budget packet’s revenue figures and that the office had taken a conservative approach to revenue forecasting.
Commissioners argued about whether to reflect known or likely rate and fee changes in the FY26‑27 numbers. Commissioner (S4) said reflecting a near‑certain 5% rate increase would allow the Waterworks fund to build reserves for future capital needs; staff and the chair cautioned that adding projected income typically also increases projected expenses and that the packet as printed was conservative by design.
The board reviewed year‑to‑date figures presented in the packet (one line showed 15.597) and discussed receipts expected in May and June. Several commissioners signaled support for increasing the projected property‑tax collection figure in the packet from 14.7 to 15.7 to reduce reliance on reserves; staff confirmed fee adjustments (community center rentals and other small fee changes) were not included in revenue projections. The transcript records the board’s discussion of these numbers without specifying the monetary units in every line of the packet; the packet’s formatting suggests those figures are the revenue line items printed for board review.
Other budget items discussed included indirect‑cost allocations from enterprise funds (an increase of about $100,000 noted by staff), insurance‑premium‑tax receipts, and one‑time capital items that had been moved between funds. Commissioners asked staff to provide a layout of historical monthly revenues and expenses for the next session so the board can better estimate the likely June 30 position before the public hearings.
What’s next: staff said they will update the packet with the changes discussed and circulate it in advance of the June 2 public hearing so commissioners and members of the public can review the revised revenue and fee proposals.
