Keene Council adopts 2025 property tax rate of 0.828978 after debate over wording and budget impact

The Keene City Council on Sept. 25 adopted an ad valorem property tax rate of 0.828978 per $100 of assessed value for the 2025 tax year, passing the ordinance 4–1. The council vote followed more than an hour of discussion about state-mandated disclosure language and the effect of rising property values on individual tax bills.

City Secretary read the ordinance caption aloud, describing it as “an ordinance of the city council of the city of Keene, Texas … adopting an ad valorem tax rate of 0.828978 and levying a tax upon all properties subject to taxation within the city of Keene, Texas for the 2025 tax year.”

Council members and staff discussed whether the statutory wording the city must use — which requires stating the adoption as an “increase” when growth produces more revenue — accurately reflects what most taxpayers will experience. A city staff member told the council that, because of growth, “the reality is… taxes are going down” for many taxpayers under the adopted rate and that the phrasing is required by the state.

Council debate addressed three practical numbers: the tax ceiling the council previously set, a “no new revenue” rate staff identified as 0.816257, and the ordinance rate of 0.828978. Staff also noted the city’s budget included a fleet enterprise plan and six new hires, and that the council must finalize the tax rate before a statutory deadline of Sept. 30.

Councilmember Bob Chapman, Councilmember Rob Foster, Councilmember Shaw and Councilmember Smith voted for the ordinance; Councilmember Easley voted against it. One council member was absent. The mayor declared the measure passed 4–1.

During discussion several council members said the numerical presentation required by state law can be confusing to the public, because the required language can make a rate that is lower in practice read as an “increase.” Council members also noted the council set a ceiling at a prior meeting and that adopting a different rate now would require amending the budget adopted earlier.

The ordinance as adopted apportiones levy among the city’s funds, includes a sinking fund for bonded debt, and establishes an effective date, as set out in the ordinance language read into the record.

The council did not direct staff to return with an amended budget at the meeting. The council’s action closes the agenda item unless a member or the public subsequently requests a review under the city’s procedures.

Context: the council had discussed a tax ceiling at its Sept. 18 meeting and returned on Sept. 25 to adopt a concrete rate before the statutory deadline. City staff emphasized the difference between the statutory disclosure phrasing and the practical effect of assessed-value growth on individual taxpayers.