Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Fund Balance And Debt topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council hears FY2025 fund balances, recent bond issuances and rising net position

Missouri City Council · March 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Auditors and the CFO told the council the city's net position increased and cited recent debt issuances; the general fund ended FY2025 with $48.8 million and capital projects fund $75.3 million.

Auditors presented multiple fund and balance‑sheet highlights for FY2025, telling the council the city's net position is trending upward as the city reinvests in infrastructure and capital assets.

"What I wanted to illustrate here is that the city's net worth is increasing year over year," engagement partner Lupe Garcia told the council while walking through four years of comparative balances. Garcia said total assets and deferred outflows were $637,800,000 and that capital assets (net of depreciation) accounted for $343,300,000 of that amount.

Garcia detailed recent debt activity: the city had $146,800,000 in general obligations outstanding, driven in part by issuance of just under $20,000,000 in permanent improvement bonds during FY2025, and $56,000,000 in certificates of obligation after issuing $11,000,000 of series 2025 certificates. He also noted a net pension liability of $46,200,000 and total long‑term liabilities of $303,900,000.

On the fund side, the general fund closed the year with $48,800,000 (a 4.6% increase from the prior year) and about 25.5% of that balance was unassigned and available for spending; the city aims to maintain 20–30% unassigned each year. The capital projects fund had $75,300,000 and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone No. 2 held $32,200,000 in fund balance.

Council members asked for clarifications on where smaller funds (such as TERS3 and management districts) appear in the report; auditors pointed to the combining schedules in the published ACFR for more detail.