Hunt County judge and commissioners spar over FY 2025‑26 budget, tax rate and use of reserves

HUNT COUNTY — Hunt County Judge Stovall presented the county’s proposed fiscal 2025‑26 budget Tuesday and defended a proposed property tax rate increase aimed at covering a projected shortfall and funding law enforcement, facilities maintenance and capital projects. Stovall told the court the county has spent recent years rebuilding salaries and repairing deferred maintenance and that the county’s property valuation growth and recent revenue trends left the county with a projected deficit under a no‑action scenario. He said the proposed rate (0.339824 per $100 valuation as presented in staff materials) would help produce a balanced budget and fund four additional law‑enforcement positions, replace critical building systems and stabilize the county’s fund balance. The proposed budget and ensuing discussion covered: revenue projections and collection rates, how to treat frozen or deferred property values, the county’s fund balance policy (25 percent target), ARPA interest receipts, GASB accounting items tied to leases, and ongoing concerns about employee wages and competitiveness with neighboring counties. Commissioners and staff debated multiple technical points. Finance and tax‑office staff (Mary, Bernice) described differing approaches to handling ‘frozen’ property values from 2022 (property‑tax freezes for qualifying homeowners) and whether to include the full frozen value in revenue calculations. Staff warned that using the statutory frozen amount could overstate revenue because not all frozen accounts generate immediately collectible taxes; outside counsel and the comptroller’s practices were cited as guidance. Public commenters — including taxpayers, the county tax collector and a longtime county employee — offered a mix of perspectives. Some residents warned the court not to rely on over‑optimistic revenue projections and warned of potential foreclosures and delinquencies; others who had their taxes frozen said they continued to pay taxes and urged clarity about terminology (freeze vs. deferral). The county tax collector noted that some properties remain on the tax roll despite being out of business or the owner deceased, which affects collection reliability. Court discussion focused on three policy choices: (1) adopt a higher rate now to cover the deficit and maintain fund balance, (2) adopt a no‑new‑revenue rate and cut expenditures or draw further on reserves, or (3) a hybrid path that pairs a modest rate increase with targeted spending cuts or one‑time transfers from capital funds. Commissioners discussed the capital improvement fund balance and whether to use existing capital reserves for immediate facility repairs (windows, elevators, HVAC) or preserve reserves for future needs and potential borrowing costs. Several commissioners favored a middle path: baseline departmental budgets, add high‑priority compliance items and critical facility maintenance, and then see if modest revenue adjustments (for example, a half‑cent change) combined with reallocations could close the gap. Judge Stovall argued the proposed rate is a responsible step to restore balance without future dramatic rate spikes, noting long‑term regional growth projections and infrastructure demands. No final adoption of a tax rate took place Tuesday. The court scheduled an additional budget session to refine the proposal and directed staff to run model scenarios showing the fiscal impacts of a range of rate and expenditure adjustments before final action at a future regular session. Key actions: the court set a follow‑up session for further budget work and asked staff to provide scenario modeling and line‑item options; no rate was adopted during the meeting.