Did Leander spend what it budgeted in 2024-25?

In short

• Leander’s main fund spent about $67.5 million in 2024-25. The final budget allowed about $72.2 million. That is about $4.7 million, or 6.4%, less.¹²
• Public safety spent about $0.8 million more than its budget. The audit names it as the one area over budget.¹
• The budget planned to use about $4.4 million of savings. Instead savings grew by about $4.3 million, to about $41.7 million.¹

Numbers marked “our math” are our estimates, not official figures. The notes show the inputs and the steps.

How it works

• The city council adopts a budget before the year starts. The city manager can move money between lines inside a fund. Changes to a fund’s total need a council vote.¹
• The audit compares the budget with what happened. It shows the first and the final budget for the main (general) fund.¹
• This page covers the general fund only. Water, sewer, debt and building projects have their own funds.¹

What the numbers show

Main fund, 2024-25	Final budget	Actual	Difference
Money in (revenues)	$71.1M	$75.3M	$4.1M more
– Property tax	$36.9M	$39.0M	$2.1M more
– Sales tax	$11.8M	$12.3M	$0.5M more
– Permits and fees	$7.5M	$6.6M	$0.9M less
– Interest earned	$1.0M	$2.5M	$1.5M more
Spending	$72.2M	$67.5M	$4.7M less
– General government	$21.0M	$17.8M	$3.3M less
– Public safety	$31.8M	$32.6M	$0.8M more
– Public works	$11.4M	$9.7M	$1.7M less
– Parks and recreation	$5.1M	$4.7M	$0.4M less
Change in savings	−$4.4M	+$4.3M	$8.8M difference
Savings at year end	$32.9M	$41.7M	$8.8M more

Source: City of Leander audited annual financial report, fiscal 2025, general fund budget and actual schedule. Rounding is ours.¹

• The city lowered its property tax estimate during the year, from about $38.5 million to $36.9 million. It then collected about $39.0 million.¹
• Permit and fee money came in short, about 13% below the budget (our math).¹²

The other side

• A budget is a limit, not a goal. The audit shows how much went unspent. It does not say why.¹
• The audit flags the public safety overrun. Its budget notes say spending went over the final budget in public safety. The fund as a whole stayed under its total.¹
• The city’s budget book counts this year a bit differently. See city budget fy2027 for how its totals compare with the audit.

Questions to ask

• What drove public safety over its budget, and did the council amend the budget to cover it?
• Why did the city lower its property tax estimate during the year?
• How does the city set permit and fee estimates for later years?

What we still don’t know

• What caused each gap. The audit gives the numbers, not the reasons.
• How 2025-26 turned out. That audit is not out yet.

Changes to this page

• Nov. 2, 2026: Rewrote the questions to ask so each is open, neutral and addressed to the public body.
• Nov. 2, 2026: We removed a line about budget rules that the audit does not support, and quoted the audit on the public safety overrun instead.

Footnotes

1. City of Leander, Texas, Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2025, “Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual (With Variances), General Fund” (p. 78) and “Notes to Budgetary Schedule” (p. 79). Final budget: revenues $71,137,408; property tax $36,942,191 (original $38,459,491); licenses, permits and fees $7,514,500; expenditures $72,165,790; public safety $31,779,626; net change −$4,408,946; ending balance $32,897,983. Actual: revenues $75,251,063; property tax $39,043,063; sales tax $12,325,778; licenses, permits and fees $6,569,747; investment earnings $2,481,588; expenditures $67,514,556; general government $17,757,674; public safety $32,569,572; public works $9,728,976; parks and recreation $4,691,066; transfers out $5,888,405; net change $4,348,220; balance $37,306,929 to $41,655,149. Notes: “actual expenditures exceeded final budget in public safety.” Public copy: https://emma.msrb.org/P11938164.pdf (MSRB EMMA). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹

2. Our math. 4,651,234 ÷ 72,165,790 = 6.4%. Permits and fees shortfall 944,753 ÷ 7,514,500 = 12.6%. ↩ ↩²