Every figure traces to a source; every correction is published here, not hidden.
Check our work
Every number above came from somewhere. Here is where.
Every figure this site publishes carries a source and a page reference, and every correction is printed here in full. This record carries 48 published corrections: 32 to figures in the ledger and 16 to page text. It also carries 43 source discrepancies. A fact corrected twice counts once.
Corrections — entries we revised after publishing (32)
Each of these is an entry this site published and then revised. Some are figures that changed. Some are the same figure with a fuller account of where it comes from and why we publish it over another source. What it says now, when it was revised, and why — in full, not summarised.
Our first count of city land missed parcels that pay city tax but sit outside the map's city line. Counting all 127 of them shrinks the city's yearly gap by about $1.1 million (5%), to -$21.5 million.
The old label called this the complete figure. The city's audit treats the Crime Control and Fire/EMS districts as legally separate governments, so the city-only figure (-$4,443,928) is the main number and this combined one is context; the figure itself did not change.
This line was labeled red delicious apples, but the federal price series behind it is for navel oranges. The government has published no Southern apple price since 2017, so the apple line is withdrawn and the line now carries the name of what it measures.
One basket line was labeled red delicious apples, but its federal price series is navel oranges. We renamed the line and used orange calories, so the day has 1,991 calories instead of 1,997; prices did not change.
We resized the day's basket to a realistic adult day of about 2,000 calories: more bread and rice, same ten items, same prices. A bigger day costs more, so it takes more minutes of work at the average wage to pay for it. The wage did not change.
We resized the day's basket to a realistic adult day of about 2,000 calories: more bread and rice, same ten items, same prices. A bigger day costs more, so it takes more minutes of work at the median wage to pay for it. The wage did not change.
We resized the day's basket to a realistic adult day of about 2,000 calories: more bread and rice, same ten items, same prices. A bigger day costs more, so it takes more minutes of work at a low (10th-percentile) wage to pay for it. The wage did not change.
The price on the basket's "apples" line is the federal series for navel oranges. With orange calories in place of apple calories the day has slightly fewer calories, so 1,000 calories cost $3.0379 instead of $3.0287; the day's cost did not change.
At the national average price, we enlarged the same day of food from about 1,800 to about 2,000 calories, a more realistic adult day, by adding bread and rice; the ten items and their prices did not change, and two items were renamed to match the federal price titles. The earlier, smaller day stays on record.
We resized the day's basket to a realistic adult day of about 2,000 calories: more bread and rice, same ten items, same prices. A bigger day costs more, so the average meal (the day's cost divided by three) rose from $1.9315 to $2.0161.
We first took this name from the city's list of election results, which ends in 2025 and still showed Ron Martin in Position 5. We now cite the August 18, 2026 council agenda, which lists every sitting member; this name did not change.
We first took this name from the city's list of election results, which ends in 2025 and still showed Ron Martin in Position 5. We now cite the August 18, 2026 council agenda, which lists every sitting member; this name did not change.
We first took this name from the city's list of election results, which ends in 2025 and still showed Ron Martin in Position 5. We now cite the August 18, 2026 council agenda, which lists every sitting member; this name did not change.
We first took this name from the city's list of election results, which ends in 2025 and still showed Ron Martin in Position 5. We now cite the August 18, 2026 council agenda, which lists every sitting member; this name did not change.
We first cited the city's Position 5 web page, because the city's election results list ends in 2025 and still showed Ron Martin there, and our page pointed out the difference. The August 18, 2026 council agenda lists Eric Ripley in Position 5, which settles it.
We first took this name from the city's list of election results, which ends in 2025 and still showed Ron Martin in Position 5. We now cite the August 18, 2026 council agenda, which lists every sitting member; this name did not change.
We first took this name from the city's list of election results, which ends in 2025 and still showed Ron Martin in Position 5. We now cite the August 18, 2026 council agenda, which lists every sitting member; the mayor's name did not change.
This count, 7 for and none against, is correct and stays on the record as first captured. The same vote is now shown member by member in our record of the August 18, 2026 council meeting; read it there.
This list of the seven members voting for is correct and stays on the record as first captured. The same vote is now shown member by member in our record of the August 18, 2026 council meeting; read it there.
We first said 'Watch the meeting,' but the city posts this meeting as audio only. We had fixed the same mistake on the August 18 meeting but not here, and the tool that writes these lines is now fixed for every meeting.
We first said this vote was most likely taken at the August 18, 2026 meeting, because the tax notice gives the vote but not the date. The city's own index on its recording places the item, agenda item 6, at 8 minutes 11 seconds, so it is no longer our guess.
We first called this recording a video. It carries a picture, but the picture is a still card reading 'MEETING AUDIO ONLY,' so there is no video of the room.
We withdrew our earlier entry on how this vote was taken, because it rested only on the city's meeting audio. The city has published no minutes for this action, so the page now says the manner of the vote is not reported.
We first showed the round amount the city budgeted for the Crime Control district ($2,000,000). It now shows what the Crime Control district actually collected in sales tax in fiscal 2025, $2,588,831, from the city's audited annual report.
We first showed the round amount the city budgeted for the Community Development Corporation ($4,000,000). It now shows what the Community Development Corporation actually collected in sales tax in fiscal 2025, $5,190,905, from the city's audited annual report.
We first showed the round amount the city budgeted for the Fire/EMS district ($2,000,000). It now shows what the Fire/EMS district actually collected in sales tax in fiscal 2025, $2,580,330, from the city's audited annual report.
Now marked Conditional. The count of 11 upkeep projects is the Council's reading of the city's list, which titles one project "SCADA Expansion"; the count itself did not change.
Our first count of city land missed parcels that pay city tax but sit outside the map's city line. With every parcel the county taxes for the city counted, commercial land comes out at -$6,980 an acre instead of -$7,634.
Our first count of city land missed parcels that pay city tax but sit outside the map's city line. Adding them puts about 153 more acres in the money-losing group, so the share of land that costs more than it pays rises from 53.1% to 54.3%.
Our first count of city land missed parcels that pay city tax but sit outside the map's city line. With them counted, the city's service costs are spread over 3,363.1 acres instead of 3,209.8, so each apartment acre's loss shrinks to -$4,033.
Our first count of city land missed parcels that pay city tax but sit outside the map's city line. With them counted (87 more single-family homes) and costs spread over more acres, each single-family acre's loss shrinks to -$6,244.
This figure was not updated when we switched from appraised value to taxable value (after homestead exemptions), and it also used the incomplete parcel count. Fixing both gives -$1,425 an acre: homes still lose money even if all the city's sales tax is credited to them.
Source discrepancies — where our figure differs from another source (43)
These are not corrections to us. Another source — a city page, an earlier brief — carries a different figure, and this records why ours differs. We never published the other number.
Our earlier version named the Council's own working notes on the visible source line, so the page seemed to cite itself. The source line now names the original source that the figure actually rests on, and the working notes moved into the page reference as "derived via" instead of being removed, so the calculation can still be repeated from them. No value changed.
Our first version listed the Council's own working notes as the visible source, so the page seemed to cite itself. The source line now names the original source the figure is based on. The working notes are now in the page reference as 'derived via' and have not been removed, so anyone can still repeat the calculation. No value changed.
Our first version named the Council's own working file as the visible source, so the page appeared to cite itself. The source line now names the original source the figure actually rests on, and the Council's working has been moved into the page reference as "derived via" rather than removed, so the calculation can still be reproduced. No value changed.
This is a record-keeping fix, not a correction: the figure, its label and its page reference are the same as in the first version. The FY2025 annual financial report this figure has always cited is now archived by the Council and can be opened from the page, so the source link now points to it. Because only background information changed, this is deliberately left out of the count of published corrections.
This fixes the source link and is not a correction: the figure, its label and its page reference are the same as in our first version. The text has always cited the FY2025 annual financial report (ACFR), and the Council has now archived that report so it can be opened from this page, which means the source link now points to it. We recorded this as a change to background details only and on purpose left it out of the count of published corrections.
This fixes where the figure's source can be found. It is not a correction: the figure, its label and its page reference are the same as in our first version. What changed is that the Council has now archived the FY2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) that this figure has always cited, and you can open it from this page, so it is not counted as a published correction.
Label only: the day basket is now v4 (navel oranges named for their series); the cost is unchanged.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the current Harris Central Appraisal District (HCAD) records file, which was posted 2026-09-27. The figure is unchanged. The page reference now gives the file's date.
We pulled this again on 2026-09-28 from the latest Harris County Appraisal District property file (posted 2026-09-27); the figure is unchanged. The page reference now gives the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the current Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) property appraisal file, which was posted 2026-09-27. The figure did not change. The page reference now shows the date of the file.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the current Harris Central Appraisal District property appraisal file (posted 2026-09-27), and it has not changed. The page reference now shows the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we re-checked this figure against the latest Harris County Appraisal District property records file (posted 2026-09-27), and the figure is unchanged. The page reference now shows the file's date.
Retrieved again on 2026-09-28 from the current HCAD property records file (posted 2026-09-27); the figure is unchanged. The page reference now shows the file's date.
We pulled this figure again on 2026-09-28 from the current Harris County Appraisal District property file (posted 2026-09-27), and it is unchanged. The page reference now gives the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the current HCAD property appraisal file (posted 2026-09-27), and it did not change. The page reference now gives the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the current Harris Central Appraisal District (HCAD) records file, which was posted 2026-09-27. The figure is unchanged. The page reference now gives the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the Harris County Appraisal District's current property records file (posted 2026-09-27). The figure is unchanged. The page reference now gives the file's date.
We pulled this figure again on 2026-09-28 from HCAD's current property appraisal data file (posted 2026-09-27), and it did not change. The page reference now shows the file's date.
We pulled this figure again on 2026-09-28 from HCAD's current property appraisal data file (posted 2026-09-27), and it did not change. The page reference now shows the file's date.
We pulled this figure again on 2026-09-28 from HCAD's current property appraisal data file (posted 2026-09-27), and it did not change. The page reference now shows the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the current Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) property appraisal file, which was posted 2026-09-27. The figure did not change. The page reference now shows the date of the file.
We pulled this figure again on 2026-09-28 from HCAD's current property appraisal data file (posted 2026-09-27), and it did not change. The page reference now shows the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the current Harris Central Appraisal District (HCAD) records file, which was posted 2026-09-27. The figure is unchanged. The page reference now gives the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the Harris County Appraisal District's current property records file (posted 2026-09-27). The figure is unchanged. The page reference now gives the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we re-checked this figure against the latest Harris County Appraisal District property records file (posted 2026-09-27), and the figure is unchanged. The page reference now shows the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the current Harris Central Appraisal District property appraisal file (posted 2026-09-27), and it has not changed. The page reference now shows the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we downloaded the county appraisal district's (HCAD) current property file again, which was posted 2026-09-27. The figure is unchanged. The page reference now gives the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the current HCAD property appraisal file (posted 2026-09-27), and it did not change. The page reference now gives the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the latest Harris Central Appraisal District (HCAD) property records file, posted 2026-09-27, and it is unchanged. The page reference now shows the date of that file.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the current Harris Central Appraisal District property appraisal file (posted 2026-09-27), and it has not changed. The page reference now shows the file's date.
Downloaded again on 2026-09-28 from the current Harris County Appraisal District property file (posted 2026-09-27); the figure is unchanged. The page reference now gives the file's date.
Pulled again on 2026-09-28 from the current Harris Central Appraisal District (HCAD) property records file, posted 2026-09-27. The figure is unchanged. The page reference now gives the file's date.
On 2026-09-28 we pulled this figure again from the latest Harris Central Appraisal District (HCAD) property records file, posted 2026-09-27, and it is unchanged. The page reference now shows the date of that file.
We re-pulled this on 2026-09-28 from the current Harris Central Appraisal District property records file (posted 2026-09-27); the figure is unchanged. The page reference now gives the file's date.
City Industrial District webpage states a flat 63%; the FY2025 ACFR PILOT ($14,884,571) implies ~65%. Prior published/webpage figure 63% corrected to 65%.
Provenance repair, not a correction: the figure, its label, its unit and its note are unchanged from revision 1. Revision 1's locator cited the analysis write-up deer_park_isd.md Gap 1 as its source; it now cites the TEA workbook itself, re-opened 2026-09-12 (sha256 64c1d2c0...) and matched to the dollar. Causation Gate sweep ANL-DPISD-CAUSGATE-SWEEP-001 (DR-2026-09-12-004): the write-up is no longer a citation of record. Recorded as change_class = metadata and excluded from the published-corrections count.
We removed an explanatory note; the figure is unchanged. Our first version said the jump came from Ch. 313 value caps maturing or expiring, which returned plant value to the school tax roll, but no source shows that link, so under a Council ruling the note was replaced with a description of the data series, and the page reference, which cited Gap 1 in the Council's own analysis, now cites the Texas Education Agency (TEA) workbook itself (re-opened 2026-09-12 and matched to the dollar). This is logged as a record change, not a published correction, because the removed note never appeared on any Deer Park page (it was absent from everything the site served as of 2026-09-13) or in any export or link on the site, per a Council ruling of 2026-09-13 at step 2 of rolling out the Council's review sweep 001.
This fixes the source citation, not the figure: the number, its label, its unit and its note are the same as in version 1. Version 1 cited the Council's own analysis as its source; it now cites the Texas Education Agency (TEA) workbook itself, reopened on 2026-09-12, checked with a sha256 digital fingerprint and matched to the dollar, after a Council source review (sweep 001) ruled that the analysis is no longer an official source. This is recorded as a change to background details only and is not counted among published corrections.
Our earlier version listed the Council's own working file as the visible source, so the page seemed to cite itself. The source line now names the original record the figure actually rests on, and the Council's working is listed in the page reference as 'derived via' instead of being removed, so the calculation can still be checked. No value changed.
Our first version listed the Council's own working file on the visible source line, so the page appeared to cite itself. The source line now names the original source the figure actually rests on, and the working file has been moved into the page reference as "derived via" rather than removed, so the calculation can still be reproduced. No value changed.
Our earlier version named the Council's own working file on the visible source line, so the page appeared to cite itself. The source line now names the original source the figure rests on, and the Council's working is kept in the page reference as "derived via", so the calculation can still be checked. No value changed.
The finding/brief figure '$434M / 680 ac (~$638K/ac)' mixed two aggregations of the same owner: $433,147,733 is the entity total across all three HCAD name variants (17 parcels, 732.6 ac), while 680.4 ac is the 'DEER PARK REFINING LP'-variant holding alone (14 parcels, $395,651,840). Consistent figures: entity-level $433,147,733 / 732.6 ac = $591,232/ac (seeded here), or LP-variant $395,651,840 / 680.4 ac = $581,525/ac. Either way the finding's argument strengthens — both sit further below the district average than the conflated ~$638K/ac.
Our first version listed the Council's own working file on the visible source line, so the page appeared to cite itself. The source line now names the original source the figure actually rests on, and the working file has been moved into the page reference as "derived via" rather than removed, so the calculation can still be reproduced. No value changed.
Revised before first publication (18)
These entries were revised while they were still drafts, before anyone could see them, so they are not corrections and are not counted as corrections. Their notes are printed here in full so that nothing about the record’s history is hidden.
Prior revision cited 16.42% via Neilsberg - a SECONDARY aggregator (ACS 2019-2023 vintage). The source-drift rule forbids citing a secondary characterization of a primary source. Re-sourced to the Census primary (QuickFacts / ACS 2020-2024 5-yr): 17.4%. The number did NOT hold against the primary (corrected, not merely re-labeled); the direction is unchanged - an aging town with a high, rising senior share.
Our earlier version said $538 (FY2016). We read that in good faith from the statistical table in the city's FY2025 annual financial report (ACFR). The Council's own analysis later found the years were shifted by one: every report published at the time gives $538 as the FY2015 value, and the FY2016 value is $493.
Our earlier version said '2.0% (Texas municipal statutory maximum)'. It credited a source but gave no page reference. The figure now comes from the Comptroller's rate table and shows exactly how the rate breaks down.
Our first version showed $17,448,182, taken from a statistical table in the FY2025 ACFR. In the FY2021 and later statistical tables, including FY2025, the 'Less: restricted' row of the Ratios of General Bonded Debt table sits one year later than it does in the audited reports published at the time: the general obligation bonds row matches in every report, but the restricted, net and per-person figures shifted, and the later tables contradict the audited reports' own-year figures (FY2019 report: $226 per person for 2019; FY2020 report: $287 per person for 2020). Our old value wrongly paired one year's bonds with the previous year's restricted amount, a combination that appears in no report from the time, so we corrected it to the FY2019 and FY2020 report values; the FY2021-FY2025 values match their own years' reports and stand, although the FY2022 report shows restricted 5,648,708 and net 41,035,116 while FY2025 shows 5,638,708 and 41,045,116, a $10,000 difference that we flagged as too small to affect the series.
This was $14,255,389 in our first version, taken from the statistical table in the city's FY2025 annual financial report, but the statistical tables from FY2021 onward (including that FY2025 report) place the 'Less: restricted' line of the general bonded debt table one year later than the audited annual reports published at the time; the general obligation bond line matches in every report, and only the restricted, net and per-resident lines shifted. The later tables contradict two audited figures from the reports for their own years (the FY2019 report: $226 per resident for 2019; the FY2020 report: $287 per resident for 2020), and the old value mixed this year's general obligation bonds with the previous year's restricted amount, a pairing that appears in no report from the time, so it has been corrected to the values in the audited FY2019/FY2020 reports. Values for FY2021-FY2025 match their own years' reports and stand, though the FY2022 report shows restricted 5,648,708 and net 41,035,116 while the FY2025 report shows 5,638,708 and 41,045,116, a $10,000 difference that has been flagged and does not materially affect the series.
This was $11,424,386 in our first version, taken from the statistical table in the city's FY2025 annual financial report (ACFR); in the FY2021 and later statistical tables, including FY2025, the 'Less: restricted' row of the Ratios of General Bonded Debt table is shifted one year later than in the audited reports published at the time, while the general obligation (GO) bonds row matches in every report and only the restricted, net and per-person figures moved. The later tables contradict two audited reports for their own years (the FY2019 report: $226/capita at 2019; the FY2020 report: $287/capita at 2020), and the old value wrongly paired one year's GO bonds with the previous year's restricted amount, a combination found in no report published at the time, so it is now corrected to the FY2019 and FY2020 audited reports' own-year values. Values for FY2021-FY2025 come from each year's own report and stand; one gap is flagged: the FY2022 report gives restricted 5,648,708 / net 41,035,116 while the FY2025 report gives 5,638,708 / 41,045,116, a $10,000 difference that does not materially affect the series.
This was $8,563,921 in our first version, taken from the statistical table in the city's FY2025 annual financial report, but the statistical tables from FY2021 onward (including that FY2025 report) place the 'Less: restricted' line of the general bonded debt table one year later than the audited annual reports published at the time; the general obligation bond line matches in every report, and only the restricted, net and per-resident lines shifted. The later tables contradict two audited figures from the reports for their own years (the FY2019 report: $226 per resident for 2019; the FY2020 report: $287 per resident for 2020), and the old value mixed this year's general obligation bonds with the previous year's restricted amount, a pairing that appears in no report from the time, so it has been corrected to the values in the audited FY2019/FY2020 reports. Values for FY2021-FY2025 match their own years' reports and stand, though the FY2022 report shows restricted 5,648,708 and net 41,035,116 while the FY2025 report shows 5,638,708 and 41,045,116, a $10,000 difference that has been flagged and does not materially affect the series.
This figure was $10,525,270 in our earlier version, taken from the debt table in the city's FY2025 annual financial report, but the reports starting with FY2021, including the current FY2025 report, shifted the 'Less: restricted' line (and with it the net and per-person lines) one year later than the audited reports published at the time, while the general obligation bonds line matches in every report. The later tables contradict the audited reports' own-year figures (FY2019 report: $226/capita at 2019; FY2020 report: $287/capita at 2020), so the old value paired one year's bonds with the previous year's restricted amount and appears in no report from the time, and we corrected it to the values in the FY2019 and FY2020 audited reports. Values for FY2021-FY2025 match their own year's reports and stand, though the FY2022 report says restricted 5,648,708 / net 41,035,116 versus FY2025's 5,638,708 / 41,045,116, a $10,000 difference we have flagged that does not materially affect the series.
Our first version charted a different number under the label 'Net financial position': the city's unrestricted net position of 34,445,882, a positive and rising line from its annual financial report. When we checked it against the completed Strong Towns Decoder, we found that the real measure (financial assets minus liabilities) is negative every year and close to its worst, so the first chart told the opposite story. The stand-in number has been replaced with the measure the label names.
Our earlier version charted the city's unrestricted net position, 30,001,279 (a positive, rising part of the city's annual financial report), under the label 'Net financial position'. A check against the completed Strong Towns Decoder found that the true measure (financial assets minus liabilities) is negative every year and near its worst, the opposite of what the chart suggested. The stand-in figure has been replaced with the true measure.
Our earlier version charted a different number, the unrestricted net position (31,608,305, a positive and rising part of the city's annual financial report), under the label 'Net financial position'. A check against the completed Strong Towns Decoder found that the real measure (financial assets minus liabilities) is negative every year and close to its worst, which is the opposite of what the earlier chart suggested. The stand-in number has been replaced with the measure the label names.
Our earlier version charted a different number, the unrestricted net position (31,892,396, a positive and rising part of the city's annual financial report), under the label 'Net financial position'. A check against the completed Strong Towns Decoder found that the real measure (financial assets minus liabilities) is negative every year and close to its worst, which is the opposite of what the earlier chart suggested. The stand-in number has been replaced with the measure the label names.
Our earlier version charted the unrestricted net position, 39,484,137 (a positive, rising figure from the city's annual financial report), under the label 'Net financial position'. The Council's own analysis checked it against the completed Strong Towns Decoder. It found that the true measure (financial assets minus liabilities) is negative every year and close to its worst, so the earlier chart told the opposite story, and the stand-in figure has been replaced by the measure the label names.
Our first version charted the city's unrestricted net position, 44,484,081, under the label 'Net financial position'. That number is a positive, rising part of the ACFR. A check against the completed Strong Towns Decoder found that the true measure (financial assets minus liabilities) is negative every year and close to its worst, so the earlier chart told the opposite story, and the stand-in number has been replaced with the true measure.
Our first version charted the city's unrestricted net position, 49,692,131 (a positive, rising item from the city's annual financial report), under the label 'Net financial position'. When we checked it against the completed Strong Towns Decoder, we found that the real measure (financial assets minus liabilities) is negative every year and close to its worst, which is the opposite of the story the first chart told. We replaced the stand-in figure with the real measure.
Our first version charted the city's unrestricted net position, 54,215,034, under the label 'Net financial position'. That number is a positive, rising part of the ACFR. A check against the completed Strong Towns Decoder found that the true measure (financial assets minus liabilities) is negative every year and close to its worst, so the earlier chart told the opposite story, and the stand-in number has been replaced with the true measure.
Our earlier version charted the city's unrestricted net position, 56,225,852, under the label 'Net financial position'. That number is a positive, rising part of the annual financial report. A check against the completed Strong Towns Decoder found that the real measure (financial assets minus liabilities) is negative every year and close to its worst, so the earlier chart told the opposite story, and it has been replaced with the real measure.
Our first version showed unrestricted net position, 57,437,669 (a positive, rising part of the city's annual financial report), under the label 'Net financial position'. When the Council checked its numbers against the completed Strong Towns Decoder, it found the real measure (financial assets minus liabilities) is negative every year and near its worst, so the first version told the opposite story. The stand-in has been replaced with the real measure.
Page corrections — claims this site published on a page and corrected (16)
Not ledger figures: words, titles, share cards and pages that were wrong on the public site. Each entry shows what the page said, what was wrong with it, the fix, and how long it was public — from the first time the page was served to the moment it was corrected, as the server logs and files record it.
What was wrong: All of it rested on the city's meeting audio. The city has published no minutes for this action, and the Council does not report anything from meeting audio.
The fix: The renewal "came before the council on July 7, 2026." How the vote was taken is not stated: the city published no minutes, and the Council does not report a vote's manner from meeting audio. The record page now says the manner of the vote is not reported.
Public: 2026-07-22 00:00 UTC to 2026-10-04 19:47 UTC (74.8 days).
What was wrong: Wrong magnitude: printed beside the cumulative $624,022,726, which is more than six hundred million dollars.
The fix: Now reads “more than six hundred million dollars”.
Public: 2026-08-11 02:17 UTC to 2026-09-13 04:04 UTC (33.1 days).
What was wrong: Gave a cause and a destination for recapture that the record does not establish.
The fix: Re-grounded on the statute (Tex. Educ. Code §48.257); no cause asserted.
Public: 2026-08-11 02:17 UTC to 2026-09-13 04:04 UTC (33.1 days).
What was wrong: Asserted where recaptured money is spent; the record shows only that it is sent to the state.
The fix: Now reads “sent to the state”.
Public: 2026-08-11 04:28 UTC to 2026-09-13 04:04 UTC (33.0 days).
What was wrong: A chart label asserted a cause (falling plant values) for the drop in recapture that the record does not establish.
The fix: Label now reads “recapture collapses”.
Public: 2026-08-11 04:28 UTC to 2026-09-13 01:32 UTC (32.9 days).
What was wrong: Asserted that falling plant values (appraisal fights, value-limitation deals) caused the post-2010 drop in recapture; the record does not establish that cause.
The fix: Now reads “Then, after 2010, recapture collapsed:”.
Public: 2026-08-11 04:28 UTC to 2026-09-13 01:32 UTC (32.9 days).
What was wrong: Linked recapture to plant values rising and falling; the record does not establish that link.
The fix: Now reads “…a donor district.”
Public: 2026-08-11 04:28 UTC to 2026-09-13 01:32 UTC (32.9 days).
What was wrong: Explained recapture by the industrial tax base and described where the money goes, neither of which the record establishes.
The fix: Re-grounded on the statute: a district whose local share of its basic funding runs above its formula entitlement gives up the excess, and Deer Park ISD’s does (Tex. Educ. Code §48.257).
Public: 2026-08-11 04:28 UTC to 2026-09-13 04:04 UTC (33.0 days).
What was wrong: Asserted the industrial roll as the reason for recapture; the record does not establish the link.
The fix: The roll and TEA’s Chapter 49 designation are stated; no link between them is asserted.
Public: 2026-08-11 04:28 UTC to 2026-09-13 04:04 UTC (33.0 days).
What was wrong: Called the roll the mechanism behind recapture; the record does not establish that.
The fix: The same district is a recapture district (Tex. Educ. Code §48.257); no link to the roll is asserted.
Public: 2026-08-11 18:41 UTC to 2026-09-13 04:04 UTC (32.4 days).
What was wrong: False as stated: the TEA record shows $0 in SY2012.
The fix: Now reads “…in every school year since 1994 but one — $0 in SY2012”.
Public: 2026-08-11 18:41 UTC to 2026-09-13 04:04 UTC (32.4 days).
What was wrong: These came from the Council's own reading of the city's audio-only meeting recordings, not from anything the city wrote down. The city publishes no minutes and no vote outcomes. The Council does not report anything from meeting audio.
The fix: Removed. For each meeting the page now links the city's own recording and says the city publishes no minutes or vote outcomes.
Public: 2026-08-29 02:11 UTC to 2026-10-04 22:48 UTC (36.9 days).
What was wrong: How the vote was taken in the room came from the city's recording. The Council does not report anything from meeting audio.
The fix: Removed. The page states the agenda's "MUST BE A RECORD VOTE" and the tax notice's 7-0 tally, both from the city's own documents.
Public: 2026-08-29 02:11 UTC to 2026-10-04 22:48 UTC (36.9 days).
What was wrong: All of it rested on the city's meeting audio. The Council does not publish anything derived from meeting audio.
The fix: Removed. The section is now "The city's own recordings": a link to each recording as the city posted it.
Public: 2026-08-29 02:11 UTC to 2026-10-04 22:48 UTC (36.9 days).
What was wrong: The line labelled apples carried BLS series APU0300711311, which is navel oranges, not red delicious apples; BLS has published no South apple series since 2017. Its calories were apple calories, so the day's calories and cost per 1,000 kcal were off. The prices and the day's cost were right.
The fix: Now reads Oranges, navel at the same $1.513 per pound. One adult day of food: 1991 kcal, $3.0379 per 1,000 kcal (basket v4). The day's cost, $6.0484, is unchanged.
Public: 2026-08-29 02:16 UTC to 2026-10-02 03:33 UTC (34.1 days).
What was wrong: Both notes described what can be heard on the city's recording. The Council does not report anything from meeting audio.
The fix: Removed with the rows they explained. How each member voted on the tax rate is stated only from the city's Notice of Public Hearing on Tax Increase: 7 for, 0 against.
Public: 2026-10-04 19:09 UTC to 2026-10-04 22:48 UTC (0.2 days).
Facts rendered on this page
This table is generated from the page itself: every fact this page rendered, with its value, source, and page reference, exactly as they sit in the verified-facts ledger. It is this page’s own provenance — the corrections above cover the whole city ledger.
| Figure | Value | Source · page |
|---|---|---|
| Incorporated city area | 10.575 sq mi (6,768 ac) | US Census TIGER/Line (GEOID 4819624) · The land-area field; checked against the Council's own vacant-land analysis. |
| City area as stated in the ACFR | ~15 sq mi (city + ETJ) | City of Deer Park FY2025 ACFR · Letter of Transmittal, 'land area of 15 square miles' (printed p.1 / PDF p.5). |
| City population (mid-2020s) | 33,823 (2020: 35,315) | City of Deer Park FY2025 ACFR · Demographic and Economic Statistics (printed p.125 / PDF p.133) |
Figures held, and what lifts them
A held figure is not a missing one. These are numbers the Council knows exist, has not pulled from the source that publishes them, and will not print until it has — each with the single retrieval that lifts it. They are listed here for the same reason every rendered figure carries a page reference: so you can see what this page is not telling you, and why.
| Held | Why | Renders when |
|---|---|---|
| Of graduates who work in the field they trained for, the strict measure | the only figure available is a 2013 occupation-by-major crosswalk; the self-reported rate the page does carry is current and certified, but the two measure different things and the older one is not published as a current rate | an IPUMS DEGFIELD × OCC compute against the 2024 ACS 5-year microdata |
| Deer Park ISD’s operating per-pupil dollars, its total operating spend, and the debt-and-capital dollars the operating figure does carry | the figures the Council holds came through an aggregator rather than from the agency that publishes them, and a cost claim on a civic surface is exactly where a second-hand number must not stand | a direct TEA District Financial Actuals pull — all funds, by function |
| The all-in adder: what functions 71 and 81 actually cost per student | the mechanism is certified but the dollars behind it have never been pulled, so the size of the gap is unknown to the Council | the same TEA District Financial Actuals pull — it fills this and the figures above together |
| Functional unemployment — the broader underutilization measure, and the true-earnings series beside it | the figure the Council holds comes from a private institute’s synthesis, and a civic surface should not lead on a non-federal ruler when the federal one has not been laid down first | a BLS pull of U-6, involuntary part-time employment and the low-wage full-time share; the synthesis then renders labeled, beneath the federal measures, never as the sole headline |
| Average pay in Harris County manufacturing and construction | the sector shares the page does carry are certified from the federal series, but the dollar figures reached the Council through an aggregator | a direct BLS QCEW re-pull by NAICS for Harris County |
Nobody is going to read the annual financial report. That is the whole design of the thing — the volume is the defense. So a machine read all of it: every number above carries a page reference back into a source document, every sentence between them is either a cited fact or a fair reading of cited facts, and the unverified never reaches this page at all — the database only exposes the verified ledger. You will almost certainly never check. But you could.