Five cities, two balance sheets
Five Texas cities report positive General Fund balances and negative governmental unrestricted net position. The difference matters when deciding what a city can afford.
Dallas reported $399.6 million of unassigned General Fund balance at the end of FY2025. Its governmental unrestricted net position was negative $4.854 billion. Both figures describe the same city. One measures current financial resources left after fund-balance classifications; the other includes long-term obligations and deferred accounting items. Dallas FY2025 basic statements, PDF pages 59 and 62.
Austin, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio show the same combination. A reserve headline can overlook obligations that will claim future revenue. A deficit headline can suggest an immediate cash shortage that the reported net-position figure does not establish. Budget decisions need the connection between the two: when payments fall due, which recurring revenues meet them, and what can legally move between separate funds.
This comparison follows those connections across five cities and 55 city-years. The strongest finding is the accounting distinction itself. A single ranking would obscure the utility structures, pension measurement dates and changes in city operations that drive the reported differences.
Method & limits
Reporting window: FY2015–2025; latest common audited year FY2025. Houston ends June 30; the others end September 30. Thirty FY2025 financial cells reconcile to audited basic statements. Historical statistical tables and pension supplementary schedules are unaudited. Figures preserve fund, utility and pension reporting boundaries.
A reserve and a long-term deficit can coexist
The General Fund uses modified accrual and a current-financial-resources focus. Its unassigned balance is the residual after the relevant classifications; cash, receivables and other current items sit behind it. Governmental unrestricted net position uses full accrual. It includes long-term obligations and deferred accounting items, after separately classifying net investment in capital assets and restricted net position. Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio.
The practical difference is the time horizon and the resources included. A city may have resources available to meet current obligations while reporting a much larger long-term pension or retiree-health burden. Conversely, a movement in an actuarial liability can improve reported net position without depositing an equal amount into the operating fund.
Austin’s report illustrates the scale: its $3.116 billion governmental unrestricted deficit accompanies about $2.2 billion of net pension liability and $771.7 million of OPEB liability. Those obligations help explain the reported deficit; they are not all payments due in the next budget year. A decision about current spending still needs the actual contribution schedule and cash forecast. Austin FY2025 report.
| City | General Fund unassigned balance | Governmental unrestricted net position |
|---|---|---|
| Austin | $192.1 | −$3,116.1 |
| Dallas | $399.6 | −$4,854.2 |
| Fort Worth | $249.4 | −$1,641.8 |
| Houston | $527.1 | −$4,517.6 |
| San Antonio | $381.1 | −$803.0 |
Nominal FY2025 stocks, rounded to $0.1 million. Different accounting bases: do not add or net these columns. The download includes the exact amounts and physical PDF page of each basic-statement cell in audit_tieouts.csv.
Population changes the scale, not the accounting
On a resident basis, Dallas’s two reported amounts are about $301 of unassigned General Fund balance and negative $3,651 of governmental unrestricted net position. Austin’s are about $192 and negative $3,108. The chart puts the same nominal FY2025 stocks on a common population denominator; its panels deliberately use different scales. Basic-statement tie-outs; population estimates.
Per-resident values put differently sized cities on a common scale. They are not individual tax bills. Visitors, commuters and businesses also contribute revenue and use services; a municipal utility can serve customers beyond the city limits. Census July 1, 2025 resident estimates provide the denominator, rather than a modeled service population.
The utility can sit in a different place in the accounts
San Antonio reported $527.7 million of utility receipts in governmental funds in FY2025, 18.4% of their revenue. CPS Energy and SAWS are discretely presented component units. Austin’s electric and water utilities are within primary-government business activities; transfers into governmental funds appear as other financing sources rather than in the governmental-revenue denominator used here. San Antonio; Austin.
That makes a seemingly simple revenue-mix comparison surprisingly delicate. Tax and franchise revenue comprise about 53% of San Antonio’s governmental-fund revenue and 78% of Austin’s. It would be a mistake to infer from those percentages alone that Austin’s municipal finances depend less on utilities. The transfer route and the reporting perimeter differ.
Positive business-type unrestricted net position also needs a transfer policy before it can support an operating-budget argument. Austin reported $1.124 billion, Fort Worth $617.9 million and Houston $816.6 million in that category; Dallas and San Antonio reported negative amounts. Bond covenants, utility capital needs and legal restrictions govern the connection to governmental services. The business column is retained separately in the download. Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio.
A pension liability can fall while contributions remain short
Dallas’s pension schedules provide a second reason to separate stock from flow. The Employees’ Retirement Fund’s reported net pension liability fell from about $3.0 billion at the December 2023 measurement to $1.9 billion at December 2024. Yet the FY2025 contribution schedule records $83.4 million contributed against a $130.6 million actuarially determined contribution. Dallas pension supplementary schedules, PDF pages 174–176.
The combined police and fire plan records $205.6 million against a $248.1 million actuarially determined amount. Together with ERF, the difference totals $89.7 million. The supplemental plan met its listed actuarial amount. These are differences against the report’s actuarial benchmark; the table does not assess compliance with statutory contribution rules.
Across the 12 selected plans reported in FY2025, calculated GASB funding ratios range from about 36.1% for Dallas’s combined police and fire plan to 99.98% for Houston firefighters. Their measurement dates, benefit terms, assumptions and employer populations differ. Houston’s municipal plan schedule, for example, needs an employer-allocation bridge before its entire reported liability can be treated as the primary city’s balance-sheet exposure. Dallas; Houston.
For the next budget, follow the scheduled cash contribution, its growth and its funding source. For the balance sheet, follow the remaining obligation after plan assets and accounting adjustments. A smaller liability and a contribution below the actuarial benchmark can occur in the same reporting year, as the Dallas schedules demonstrate.
| Plan | Actuarial amount | Actual | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employees (ERF) | $130.555 | $83.380 | $47.175 |
| Police and fire | $248.142 | $205.616 | $42.526 |
| Supplemental | $3.354 | $3.354 | $0.000 |
Difference = actuarially determined contribution minus actual contribution. Source: unaudited required supplementary contribution schedule, physical PDF page 176. The two main plans account for the $89.701 million total.
A revenue decline also needs a decomposition
Governmental-fund revenue declined from FY2024 to FY2025 in Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, by 1.4%, 4.5%, 2.6% and 2.8% respectively, in nominal terms. Fort Worth increased 2.5%. In each declining city, the decrease in intergovernmental revenue exceeded the total revenue decline, meaning other categories collectively offset part of it. FY2025 reports, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio.
Dallas’s total decline was $128.6 million, while intergovernmental revenue fell $168.1 million. The other revenue lines collectively rose $39.6 million. The same offset appears in Austin, Houston and San Antonio. Before calling the total decline a permanent loss of tax capacity or a pandemic-funding cliff, identify the underlying grants, recognition dates and recurring portion. Replacing a one-time grant creates a different budget problem from losing a continuing tax source.
Fort Worth’s total increased by $42.4 million, including $4.5 million more intergovernmental revenue. Its operating scope also changed: MedStar EMS operations transferred to the city on July 1, 2025 and had not previously been part of it. The table reports the published totals; it does not isolate the transfer’s revenue effect. Fort Worth Note A.15, physical PDF pages 87–88.
| City | Total change | Intergovernmental | All other revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Austin | −$30.8 | −$46.6 | +$15.8 |
| Dallas | −$128.6 | −$168.1 | +$39.6 |
| Fort Worth | +$42.4 | +$4.5 | +$37.9 |
| Houston | −$107.6 | −$229.2 | +$121.6 |
| San Antonio | −$81.2 | −$132.1 | +$50.9 |
Total change = intergovernmental change + all other revenue change. Nominal dollars; rounding can affect displayed sums. Borrowing and transfers classified as other financing sources are excluded. “All other” is the remainder across revenue categories, not a measure of recurring tax revenue.
A decade of revenue growth contains changes in the city itself
After adjusting revenue for each fiscal year’s inflation window and the reported population, the FY2015–2025 endpoint changes are about +39% for Austin, +24% for Dallas, +19% for Fort Worth, −2% for Houston and +15% for San Antonio. Those describe the reported governmental footprint, including grants and changes in which operations appear in the accounts. They do not measure service quality or constant-scope economic growth. City reports, CPI, Census.
Dallas moved sanitation to enterprise funds in FY2016 and stormwater in FY2024. Its balance history restates FY2023 for stormwater; its flow history explicitly does not. Fort Worth’s EMS transfer adds another perimeter change. The population series also crosses Census estimate vintages at 2020, so the chart breaks its lines there. Reading these as a clean race between city economies would erase changes in the measurement itself.
A debt total needs a reporting boundary and a payment schedule
The Texas Bond Review Board reports issuer principal at August 31. City financial statements use their own fiscal ends and carrying-value definitions, which can include premiums, discounts, leases and other obligations. Utility and component-unit boundaries add another difference. A larger issuer total therefore needs an issuer-to-financial-statement bridge before it can support a comparison of city budget burdens. Texas BRB city records.
For FY2025, the cities’ reported governmental debt-service ratios range from 11.1% to 17.9% of their noncapital expenditure denominators. A ratio can move because debt payments change or because the spending denominator changes. The report-specific capital definitions matter too. The download retains these ratios separately from BRB principal.
The historical source check found a more immediate problem: Fort Worth’s printed debt-service percentages for FY2016–2023 do not match a direct calculation using the principal, interest/issuance costs, expenditures and capital figures printed in those schedules. For FY2016, the calculation gives 11.57%, compared with 12.41% in the source. Those eight observations remain flagged and are excluded from historical debt-ratio conclusions. FY2015, FY2024 and FY2025 reconcile at the printed precision. Fort Worth report.
Ask what changes next year’s claim on resources
Start a budget comparison with current recurring revenue and current recurring commitments. Then attach the dated cash payments for pensions, retiree health and debt, plus the transfers connecting utilities or component units to governmental services. The unassigned fund balance is a starting resource measure. Those schedules explain the future claims on it.
The source check compared 459 overlapping metric-years across the FY2024 and FY2025 reports and retained 24 published differences. The download preserves the source vintages, reporting dates and unresolved discrepancies, together with 30 current basic-statement tie-outs. That record makes a comparison inspectable without pretending all historical boundaries are identical.
For these five cities, positive fund balances and negative governmental unrestricted net position coexist. The useful next question is which payments and recurring resources connect those two views of the same city.
Sources
- Austin FY2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
City of Austin
Verified Oct 21, 2026
Physical PDF pages 45 (net position), 48 (fund balances) and 50 (fund flows). Historical statistical schedules are unaudited. Electric/water operations are primary-government business activities.
- Dallas FY2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
City of Dallas
Verified Oct 21, 2026
Physical PDF pages 59, 62 and 64 (basic statements); 174–176 (unaudited pension RSI). Sanitation and stormwater changes remain explicit; FY2023 balance and flow histories have different restatement treatment.
- Fort Worth FY2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
City of Fort Worth
Verified Oct 21, 2026
Physical PDF pages 47, 50 and 53 (basic statements); 87–88 (MedStar transfer, Note A.15). Eight historical debt-ratio discrepancies remain flagged. Accrual sales tax is grouped with other local taxes in the selected history.
- Houston FY2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
City of Houston
Verified Oct 21, 2026
Physical PDF pages 45, 48 and 51 (basic statements). Fiscal year ends June 30. Pension plan scope requires an employer-allocation bridge before aggregation as a primary-city obligation.
- San Antonio FY2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
City of San Antonio
Verified Oct 21, 2026
Physical PDF pages 59, 61 and 63 (basic statements). CPS Energy and SAWS are discretely presented component units; utility pension plans are outside this primary-city plan set.
- Vintage 2025 incorporated-place population estimates, Texas
U.S. Census Bureau
Verified Oct 21, 2026
Vintage 2025 incorporated-place estimates, Texas. Used for FY2020–2025 year labels. FY2015–2019 uses the retained Vintage 2019 Texas place file; the vintage break is shown at 2020. July 1 populations are scale denominators, not fiscal-year service counts.
- CPI-U, all urban consumers, all items, U.S. city average
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Verified Oct 21, 2026
Unadjusted monthly CPI-U, 2014–2025. Revenue flows use city-specific fiscal-year averages; stocks use ending-month CPI. Exact factors and the frozen API response are retained.
- Texas Bond Review Board city issuer debt records
Texas Bond Review Board
Verified Oct 21, 2026
Issuer principal at August 31, 2025, separated by tax/revenue support. Not interchangeable with ACFR carrying value. No completed issuer-to-ACFR bridge or debt-stock ranking.
Supporting material
- Download the research and reproducible calculations
CSV data, definitions, source hashes and page locators, five full-size figures, methods and Python scripts. Original city PDFs are linked by frozen URL and hash rather than duplicated.
- Read the methods and remaining limits
Fiscal calendars, inflation windows, population vintages, pension scope and source discrepancies.
- Inspect the FY2025 basic-statement tie-outs
Thirty reconciled values with exact physical PDF page locators.
- Inspect the revenue-change bridge
Exact total, intergovernmental and remaining revenue changes underlying the displayed table.