The Lead’s Editorial: Three candidates peddle false narratives about Kerr County finances

The Republican Women of Kerr County performed an important job on Monday night by hosting a rational, well-planned candidate forum that focused on public policy issues tailored to the realities of governing Kerr County. It was a stark contrast to the mess that the Kerr County Republican Party cooked up in an incoherent show last week that was more about partisan loyalty than running county government.

While the Kerr County GOP has already picked its winners through its ill-conceived voter guide, the Kerr County Republican Women haven’t said a peep about their preferred candidates. Instead, the group let the candidates do the talking during the Monday night forum, and it was revealing about at least three candidates who are seemingly bent on not being truthful or, for the benefit of the doubt, oblivious to the complexities of county finances.

Candidates Jack Stewart, who is running for county judge, and Precinct 1 candidates Clayson Lambert and George Baroody—a persistent Kerrville City Council gadfly and former councilmember who routinely accuses the city of baseless illegality—seemed bent on depicting the county budget as wasteful and that county residents are overtaxed by the county.

However, the facts don’t align with the narrative of all three.

What the budget data actually shows
An analysis of Kerr County’s adopted budget documents from fiscal years 2022-23 through 2025-26 reveals a very different story than the one these candidates are telling voters.

On tax rates: Kerr County has reduced its tax rate by 6.4% over the past three years—from $0.43 per $100 valuation in FY 2023-24 to $0.4024 in FY 2025-26. But here’s the critical context these candidates ignore: tax rates have declined because property valuations continue to skyrocket across the Hill Country. The county reduced rates to partially offset the increased tax burden from rising property values—a political necessity as homeowners saw their assessments surge.

Yet even with higher total revenue collections driven by those increased valuations, the county is still struggling financially. If skyrocketing property values can’t solve the county’s fiscal challenges, that tells you this isn’t a spending problem—it’s a structural cost growth problem that’s outpacing even robust revenue increases.

On fund balances: The county isn’t hoarding taxpayer money. General Fund balances have declined from $14.2 million in September 2022 to a projected $10.5 million by September 2026—a drawdown of $3.7 million. As a percentage of expenditures, reserves have fallen from 40% to 23.2%, now sitting below the 25% best practice threshold that provides counties financial flexibility for emergencies and economic downturns.

On the structural deficit: The county has drawn down $34.9 million from reserves over three years to cover the gap between revenues and expenditures—even while property valuations increased and delivered more total revenue. This is mathematically unsustainable.

Deconstructing the candidates’ claims
Let’s examine what each candidate said and why it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny:

Jack Stewart: The “$74 Million Surplus” That Doesn’t Exist
Stewart claims the county runs a “fairly big surplus” totaling $74 million over eight years by “overbudgeting” and collecting “more taxes than needed.”

The reality: If the county had accumulated a $74 million surplus, it would show up in one of two places: growing fund balances or tax rate reductions. Instead, we see fund balances declining by $3.7 million and tax rates reduced only in response to \surging property valuations—not because the county is awash in cash.

Here’s what Stewart doesn’t tell voters: even as property values have skyrocketed across Kerr County, increasing total tax revenue collections, the county is still drawing down reserves. If the county can’t make ends meet even with revenue growth from booming property values, how can Stewart claim there’s a $74 million surplus hiding somewhere?

Stewart appears to conflate prudent budget-to-actual variance (underestimating revenues and overestimating expenditures as a safety buffer) with actual operating surplus. These are not the same thing. The former is standard government budgeting practice; the latter would mean the county is accumulating excess funds.

The numbers prove Stewart wrong: you cannot simultaneously claim the county has collected $74 million more than needed while fund balances decline and the county draws down reserves to balance its budget—even during a period of strong property value growth.

Follow-up question Stewart needs to answer: If a $74 million surplus exists, where is it? Show us the audited financial statements demonstrating this accumulation, because the adopted budgets show the opposite—declining reserves despite increased revenue from rising property valuations.

Clayson Lambert: The “30% Overbudget” Misdiagnosis
Lambert claims the county is “not running deficit budgets” but is simultaneously “grossly overbudget by up to 30%” and “taking in too much revenue.”

The reality: Lambert is technically correct that Texas counties cannot legally run deficit budgets under state law. But this is a legal technicality, not a fiscal reality. The county “balances” its budget by using fund balances to cover the gap between revenues and expenditures, which is functionally deficit spending.

On the “30% overbudget” claim, there is evidence of a budget-to-actual variance in FY 2021-22, where actual expenditures were about $11 million below budget. However, this variance did not create a surplus. The fund balance still declined by $2.2 million that year. The “savings” from spending less than budgeted were consumed covering revenue shortfalls.

Here’s the logical flaw in Lambert’s argument: you cannot simultaneously be:

• Overtaxing (collecting too much)
• Overbudgeting expenditures by 30% (spending far less than planned)
• AND depleting reserves

If the county were truly collecting too much revenue while spending 30% less than budgeted, fund balances would be growing, not shrinking. The math doesn’t work.

The property valuation reality Lambert ignores: The county has been collecting more total revenue as property values surge across the Hill Country. Even with that increased revenue, reserves are still declining. If the county were genuinely “taking in too much,” those higher collections would show up as growing fund balances. They don’t. They’re being consumed by rising costs—primarily market-driven personnel expenses and healthcare costs.

The real issue: Budget variance protects against revenue uncertainty and unexpected costs. Eliminating this prudent cushion would leave the county vulnerable to violating Texas’s balanced budget requirement the moment revenues fall short or emergency expenses arise.

Follow-up questions Lambert needs to answer:

• If 30% variance means overtaxation, where’s the accumulated surplus? (Fund balances are down $3.7M despite rising property values)
• What specifically are the “wrong budgeting procedures” you’d implement?
• How do you explain spending less than budgeted while simultaneously depleting reserves even as property valuations increase total revenue?

George Baroody: The “fat to eliminate” fantasy
During the forum, Baroody suggested there are “inefficiencies to remove” and “fat to eliminate,” while acknowledging the county may need to cut services.

The reality: An examination of county expenditures reveals no evidence of bloated spending. In fact, the budget shows fiscal stress:

• Tax rates reduced 6.4% (not increased)
• Reserves depleted $34.9M over three years
• Fund balance falling below best-practice levels
• Personnel costs driven by market wages, not excess

The county budget consists primarily of:

• Personnel costs (60-70% of budget): Salaries, benefits, FICA, insurance—the largest category
• Debt service: Contractually obligated payments
• Mandated services: Courts, law enforcement, roads, elections, emergency services
• Operational expenses: Relatively fixed costs

Here’s the mathematical impossibility Baroody faces: you cannot simultaneously cut or freeze tax rates, maintain current service levels, stop depleting reserves, and cut significant spending. The county is already cutting tax rates while drawing down reserves.

The market wage reality: A comparison of Kerr County wages to private sector compensation shows county employees are not overpaid. Heavy equipment operators in the county earn $52,695-$55,363, competitive with the private sector average of $53,315. Road maintenance technicians earn $45,439, which is actually 11% below the market average of $50,824. Anyone with a CDL can leave tomorrow for private sector jobs paying $67,000-$100,000+.

These aren’t lavish salaries for positions requiring CDL certification, heavy equipment operation skills, physical labor in Texas heat, and emergency response capabilities. They’re market-competitive wages necessary to recruit and retain qualified workers in a tight labor market where H-E-B pays $15-18/hour for entry-level positions.

Follow-up question Baroody needs to answer: “The General Fund budget for FY 2025-26 is approximately $45 million. Please identify which specific departments, programs, or line items you would cut, and approximately how much savings you believe could be achieved without affecting service delivery.”

Why this matters
Voters deserve honest conversations about county finances, not magical thinking.

The real fiscal challenge Kerr County faces is straightforward: market-driven wage pressures and rising costs (particularly healthcare and insurance) are growing faster than revenue, creating a structural mismatch. And here’s the sobering reality: this is happening during a period of robust revenue growth driven by skyrocketing property valuations. The county has been managing this by reducing tax rates (to offset valuation increases) while drawing down reserves—a strategy that buys time but isn’t sustainable long-term.

Think about what that means: even with property values surging and delivering more total tax revenue to county coffers, the budget still can’t keep pace with costs. If the Hill Country real estate boom can’t solve the county’s fiscal problems, what makes anyone think “cutting fat” will?

There are only four real options:

• Cut personnel costs – But paying below-market wages means unfilled positions and service degradation
• Cut services – Specify which: slower road maintenance? Reduced sheriff patrols? Limited court hours?
• Raise revenue – Increase tax rates or find alternative funding sources
• Continue drawing down reserves – Until they’re depleted, then face a crisis

What there isn’t room for is the fantasy that significant “fat” exists to be trimmed, that the county is overtaxing while simultaneously running surpluses, or that simple “efficiency” will solve a structural revenue-expenditure mismatch.

Stewart, Lambert, and Baroody are offering voters a comforting fiction: that fiscal problems can be solved without hard choices. But the budget data exposes this as fundamentally dishonest—or, charitably, fundamentally ignorant of how county finances actually work.

The honest platform these candidates won’t offer
Here’s what intellectual honesty would sound like from these candidates:

“We will freeze or reduce county wages, understanding this may impact our ability to recruit and retain qualified employees, potentially degrading service quality.”

Or: “We will cut the following specific services: [detailed list]. We understand this means slower emergency response times, deferred road maintenance, and reduced availability of county services.”

Or: “We will increase revenues through [specific mechanism] to maintain current service levels while building reserves back to best-practice levels.”

Instead, they’re offering voters the political equivalent of a free lunch: somehow, we’ll cut costs without cutting services, all while tax rates fall and reserves grow.

The budget math doesn’t support it. The market wage data doesn’t support it. The fund balance trends don’t support it.

Voters heading to the polls for early voting starting February 17 should ask themselves: Do I want candidates who understand the actual fiscal challenges facing Kerr County, or do I want candidates peddling comfortable fictions that fall apart under basic scrutiny?

The Republican Women of Kerr County did voters a service by creating a forum where candidates’ claims could be heard clearly. Now it’s up to voters to do the harder work: fact-checking those claims against reality before casting their ballots.

The data is public. The budget documents are online. The truth is available to anyone willing to look.

These three candidates are banking on voters not looking.

Don’t give them that luxury.