The Birdville ISD Board of Trustees voted unanimously Thursday to approve a contract with the Tarrant County Tax Assessor-Collector for collection of property taxes for the 2025–27 tax years, after trustees and a public commenter pressed the assessor’s representatives on a proposed increase in the office’s calculated rate.

The contract approval followed a public comment from resident Eric Crile and an extended board Q&A with representatives from the Tarrant County Tax Assessor-Collector’s Office, who attended to explain the proposed rate calculation. Trustees raised repeated questions about personnel costs, how administrative expenses are allocated between property and motor-vehicle services, and whether larger taxing entities were bearing their share of collection costs.

Why it matters: Trustees said the proposed rate increase — presented by county staff as about $1.07 compared with a prior level near $0.98 — would raise costs that ultimately come from district taxpayers. Several trustees and the public speaker argued the office’s cost allocation and staffing decisions deserved closer review before the district agreed to higher fees.

Tarrant County staff told the board the collection calculation had shifted this year to account differently for the motor-vehicle division’s contribution; they said motor-vehicle work was estimated at an 18% input to the property collection calculation. Amelia Rice, identified to the board as director of property tax for the assessor-collector’s office, described the office’s time-tracking tools and processes, saying, “We have a queuing system called Nemo Queue, and we can track the amount of time it takes per customer and what that customer was processing.”

Resident Eric Crile urged caution and broader review. Crile referenced local housing-value trends and the Tarrant Appraisal District’s budgeting process, saying, “By freezing the market values at 2024 levels, the decline in value is causing residents of the school district to pay taxes on overvalued homes.” He also warned of a Sept. 15 deadline when the appraisal district must approve its budget and urged taxing entities to consider pushing back if they object to TAD’s proposal.

Board members pressed the county representatives for line-item detail. Trustee Travis Tolbert repeatedly challenged the logic of splitting administrative costs “50/50” between property and motor vehicle work when the assessor’s office staffing levels differed markedly between the two areas. Trustee comments included requests for historical administrative-budget numbers for the assessor’s office, a breakdown of the administrative-cost definition, and an accounting of FTEs in property and motor-vehicle operations.

The assessor’s representatives declined to provide every historical line item on the spot, noting reorganization and turnover in recent years and saying some savings in the prior year had resulted from unfilled positions during a reorganization. Board members requested the office provide the district with the last three years of administrative costs and total budgets, and to clarify the elements included in “administrative cost.”

Formal action: Trustee Travis Tolbert moved to approve the contract; Trustee Chris Drees seconded. The motion carried with a unanimous vote by raised hands.

What the board said it will do next: Several trustees said they wanted to explore longer-term options, including whether the district could pursue alternate collection arrangements or work with other taxing entities to reduce costs before the contract term ends. Trustees also asked the assessor’s office to supply the requested budget and cost-breakdown documents for the board’s review.

Details from the meeting:
- The assessor’s office described a proposed recalculated collection rate of approximately $1.07; trustees referenced a long-standing rate of about $0.98.
- Board members asked for the assessor’s office’s administrative-cost totals for the last three years and a clearer explanation of what the office includes as “administrative costs.”
- Eric Crile provided ZIP-code level housing-value change figures he said were from Zillow and urged trustees to consider how appraisal timing affects tax burdens; Crile also cited a TAD budget proposal he said represented roughly a 1.1% countywide increase (about $370,000) and warned of the Sept. 15 TAD budget deadline.

Board outcome: The board approved the Tarrant County tax-collection contract for the 2025–27 tax years as presented, with the motion carried unanimously.

Tangent: Trustees and the county staff acknowledged the assessor’s office is required by law to collect for multiple taxing entities and said collection practice differences — particularly as to whether Tarrant County itself contributes to collection cost allocations — were part of the discussion.

Next steps: Trustees requested follow-up materials from the assessor’s office, including: three-year administrative-cost history, total budget trends, and a line-item explanation of the administrative-cost allocation that produced this year’s calculated rate. Those materials will be used to inform future budget and contracting discussions.