Skip to content

7. Is spending being hidden? An assessment

The fair answer is: disclosed, but dispersed. Harris County publishes more than most Texas counties (a two-volume budget book of ~1,750 pages with per-department change tables, monthly Auditor reports by department, an audited ACFR, and Tax Office worksheets), and its budget presentation won a GFOA award. Yet the items a taxpayer most needs to see are spread across separate votes, separate tables and non-departmental line items, and several key totals are never added up in one place. The specific findings, with evidence:

  • Two "budgets". County press materials and the budget book's summary say $3,095M (+11.8%). The Tax Code Sec. 26.18 posting on the same website says the FY27 budget is $3,351,376,287 (+7.6%). The difference, $256M of "working capital", is an appropriation the county can spend but does not assign to any department (Vol. I v3 p. 105; Budget & Tax Rate Information).

  • The 75% rollover. The County Judge and four commissioners are budgeted a "75% of estimated ending balance" carry-forward ($88.9M in FY26, $93.4M in FY27) on top of their line-item budgets, in a separate table (Vol. I v3 p. 74). The Auditor confirms it is carved out of working capital (June 2026 report, p. 61 note). Precinct 1's FY27 line item is $47.7M; its total authority is $81.4M. The Baker Institute found $568M of such allocations since FY21, only $6.5M of which was actually spent above line-item budgets in FY22-FY25, so the practice has mostly built unreconciled balances rather than hidden spending; but the authority exists and is not itemized.

  • General Administration (Dept. 202) as a catch-all. $221.3M in FY27 (up from $193.9M) carrying TIRZ payments $91.3M, jail outsourcing $39.8M, the pay-equity pool $21.4M, litigation $18M, building security $11.3M, and negative "hiring freeze" (-$5M) and "transferred expenses" (-$4.7M) offsets (Vol. I v3 pp. 75-76). The FY26 version held $50M of pay-equity money, $24.5M of county-funded contract patrol and -$25M of hiring-freeze savings. Volume II's change table for the same department opens at $338.6M and closes at $366.0M while Volume I shows $193.9M to $221.3M: the $27.4M change agrees, the bases differ by $144.7M, and the fund overview on the same Vol. II page gives a third FY26 figure ($450.0M); none of this is explained. Baker also found ~$115M of "Universal Services" IT and facility costs that are not allocated to the departments that use them.

  • Decisions made outside the budget vote. The pay-parity commitment (May 22, 2025) was a motion with no funding source; the negotiation committee to find the money was created the same day. The $305,000 salaries were set on Aug. 6, 2026, eleven days before the proposed budget was released. The removal of employee premium increases was a Sept. 8 amendment. Each is public, but none is visible in the "adopted budget" total as a discrete decision.

  • One-time money and residual math. OMB itemizes $82.9M of one-time revenues and a $16M surplus drawdown, but publishes no reconciliation from the $181M gap to the adopted plan; $62M of the closure in Figure 4 can only be derived as residuals. The county also lists $39.1M of "Five-Year Plan options" (fee increases, HCTRA and Harris Health cost recovery) that overlap the same revenue items.

  • Contract patrol. Presented as a customer-funded program, it now costs the General Fund $90.8M (FY27) versus $27.9M in FY21: $39.8M because contract rates lag the parity raises and $51.0M for contracts covering less than an officer's full time, where the county keeps the rest of the service; 1,344 officers are on contracts. Revenue from contracts is appropriated directly to law-enforcement budgets, which inflates their apparent size (Vol. I v3 pp. 20-21, 43).

  • Position counts. Vol. II's "Positions by Department" tables carry the disclaimer that they "should not be used to determine available and budgeted positions"; audited FTE counts (ACFR Table 19) lag by a year. The public therefore cannot see the FY27 headcount the budget funds. Baker found 2,020 positions added in FY24-FY25 and 184 manager/supervisor titles among Public Health's 518 positions.

  • Document versioning. Three "proposed" versions were posted (Aug. 17, Sept. 2, Sept. 17); the adoption-day book is still titled "Proposed" and carries its change list on page 2. As of Sept. 21 no "Adopted" Vol. I had been posted; the Auditor's Sept. 17 certification (FEAR) is bound into the "Proposed" v3 book at PDF pp. 141-453 rather than posted as its own document, and neither book reconciles OMB's $3,079.4M revenue forecast to the Auditor's $2,964.3M certified revenue.

  • Audited control weaknesses. The FY2025 ACFR's schedule of findings (pp. 296-301) reports two material weaknesses (2025-001: about $10.1B overstated in both additions and deductions of the fiduciary statement when interbank transfers during a bank transition were recorded as activity, corrected before issuance; 2025-002: an incorrect assumption in the OPEB valuation, corrected) and two significant deficiencies (2025-003: $147.8M of completed capital projects left in construction in progress; 2025-004: indigent-defense grant reports submitted without documented review, $0 questioned costs). The statements received an unmodified opinion. These are reporting-control findings, not missing money, and the budget book does not mention them.

  • Non-General-Fund spending. $180M of Toll Road surplus goes to the four precincts' Mobility Fund with no project-level detail in the budget (a third-party statutory audit was authorized in Dec. 2025 after legislative questions); more than 300 non-general funds totaling about $18B are listed in seven pages (Baker, Vol. I p. 107).

Counterpoints the county would make. The budget book discloses every item cited above, including a one-page table of elected-official raises and a full change table per department; the county says the elected-official raises are absorbed within existing budgets; the working-capital mechanism has existed since FY21 and the Auditor reconciles it; the state's 3.5% cap, unfunded mandates (new courts, SB 9, inmate outsourcing) and the end of $915M of federal ARPA aid are outside the county's control; and Harris Health's $1.9B reserve and the county's AAA rating show the consolidated entity is solvent (although neither is available to the General Fund). The Baker Institute similarly concluded the county is "operationally stable at a consolidated level" while facing a growing General Fund structural deficit.