Van Zandt County commissioners on Sept. 29 adopted a 2025 property tax rate of $0.3996 per $100 of valuation after a public hearing and subsequent vote.

The proposed rate, the court said during the hearing, is below the computed voter-approval rate of 0.417681 per $100, which means the county is not required to hold an election on the rate. County staff also told the court that the no-new-revenue rate and the voter-approval calculations had been revised after a miscalculation was discovered while preparing truth-in-taxation forms.

Why this matters: The adopted rate, combined with higher average taxable values, will increase the county’s overall levy compared with 2024 and affects typical homeowners and county revenue planning.

In the public hearing, resident Ronnie (identified in the record as a public commenter) criticized what he described as a pattern of setting tax rates at the maximum the county could adopt and urged commissioners to “take care of the people. That’s what your job is.” Ronnie also recommended more direct public votes on large spending proposals, such as a road bond that would let voters decide whether to raise taxes for major capital projects.

County staff read the statutorily required tax-notice figures into the record. The materials presented at the hearing showed: the proposed rate of 0.3996 per $100 valuation; the “known new revenue” rate listed in the notice as 0.376512 per $100; and a voter-approval rate of 0.417681 per $100. The county summarized impacts using an average resident homestead taxable value of $173,275: under the proposed rate the example homeowner would pay about $692.42, compared with $664.48 the prior year. The county estimated the proposed rate would generate roughly $1,913,858 more in levy than 2024 (about a 9.51% increase in total levy), based on the numbers read into the record.

During the hearing the official reading the notice acknowledged a worksheet miscalculation earlier in the process. That speaker said the initial internal calculations used an incorrect no-new-revenue figure and that with the corrected voter-approval rate the estimated increase would differ (the official stated alternate calculations of $1,538,000 and $3,113,180 in different accounting approaches and apologized to the court for the error). The court recorded the staff clarification in the public record; no formal correction to the already-published notice was presented at the meeting.

Commission discussion focused on budgeting philosophy and road funding. Several commissioners and commenters said they frequently receive constituent calls about potholes and road maintenance and discussed alternatives to raising the general tax rate for road work, including precinct-level bonds or a countywide road bond that would be put to voters. One commissioner said some departments had been unable to spend all allocated funds in prior years because of staffing or project-delivery constraints.

Formal action: Commissioner Williams moved to adopt the proposed tax rate as read; the motion was seconded and, after a roll-call voice vote, passed 5-0. Commissioner Mitch Curtis recorded a reluctant yes; Commissioners Williams, Phillips and Barton and the presiding official voted yes.

The court closed the public hearing at 9:45 a.m. and immediately moved to adopt the rate and necessary order for the fiscal year. The court also noted that the adopted tax rate includes $0 for debt service; the county stated it does not have outstanding county debt requiring property-tax-supported debt service.

What’s next: The court signed the tax rate documents as required and adjourned. Commissioners and staff discussed continuing to refine budget materials and consider whether to place larger, voter-approved measures (for example, a road bond) before voters in the future. No additional formal directives (such as staff tasks with deadlines) were adopted during the meeting.

(Reporting note: Quotations and attributions in this article come from the public hearing record. Statements that were read as part of the statutorily required notice were entered into the public record by county staff and are summarized here.)