Hunt County officials propose 1.6¢ tax-rate increase to address growth, reserves

At a meeting of the Hunt County Commissioners Court, the presiding judge presented a proposed property tax rate of 0.339824, 1.6 cents higher than last year, saying the change would raise an estimated $46.64 on an average-valued home of $282,731 if approved at that rate. The judge told the court the county has relied on reserves and repeated “no new revenue” tax rates since 2020 and that population and inflation pressures have tightened the budget.

The judge said Hunt County grew rapidly in the last decade and cited a decade increase of 13,827 people (about 16.1%) and a 2020 population of 99,956, and reported a 2024 population estimate mentioned in the meeting that the speaker characterized as an 18.8% increase. “This year is a proposed tax rate of 0.339824, which is 1.6¢ more than last year,” the judge said. He described the county’s primary spending areas — road and bridge maintenance; law enforcement, prosecution and incarceration; homeland security; the health department; veterans services; voter registration and elections; vital records; 911; IT and HR — and said the proposal includes funding for four additional law-enforcement positions.

Officials framed the increase as part of a longer-term goal to restore a balanced budget after several years of using reserves. The judge said the county used reserves during COVID-19 and in subsequent years when services could not be delivered as budgeted, and that new tax receipts typically only cover prior-year spending rather than allowing the county to “get ahead.” He added that, if growth continues, the new revenue in coming years could cover most anticipated needs.

Commissioners asked staff to verify the revenue calculations used to compute the county’s “no new revenue” rate. “I do wanna clarify. On the estimated revenues, we got an email this morning from the tax assessor’s office, and they had they were concerned about the revenue calculations that they might have been estimating more revenue than we've taken in reality,” Commissioner David said. The judge responded that staff has been using the same calculation “we were using the same number we always have,” and offered to review the tax-assessor material in the office and send follow-up information.

Staff and commissioners discussed timing for the public notice and the vote. The judge said the county could not get the required notice published until Thursday at the earliest; the notice must run 10 days, and a new law effective Sept. 1 changes required wording in the publication. Because of those publication and statutory-timing constraints, the judge said the earliest the court could approve the tax rate or adopt the budget would be in September. He proposed reconvening in a special meeting on the next Tuesday to continue discussion; commissioners agreed to examine the proposed budget and to schedule additional meetings if necessary.

Commissioners requested the presentation slides be circulated to the court. The judge indicated Bernice (staff) could email the slides. Commissioners also noted minor interpretation errors in the draft budget related to recent law changes affecting courts and prosecutors; staff said it would correct those items and circulate updates.

The only formal action recorded in the transcript was a motion and second to close the session followed by a vote in favor. The clerk announced the motion carried and the court adjourned at 3:33 p.m.

Next steps recorded in the meeting: staff will review the assessor's revenue estimates and the numbers provided in the Friday budget email, circulate corrected slides and budget clarifications, and the court will reconvene to consider the tax rate and budget after the required 10-day publication period.