Hunt County adopts FY2025–26 budget, sets tax rate amid split court debate

HUNT COUNTY — The Hunt County Commissioners Court on Sept. 9 approved the county’s fiscal year 2025–26 budget and set a tax rate after a lengthy public hearing and internal debate.

County Judge Bobby W. Stovall presented the proposed budget and said, “This proposed tax rate will help address the growing concerns and needs of an exponentially growing Hunt County and strengthen law enforcement services by adding four additional requested law enforcement positions.” The court then voted to approve the budget with adjustments and later set the county’s tax rate at a level between the no-new-revenue calculation and the original proposal.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the county faces continuing service demands from rapid population and housing growth, deferred facility maintenance and rising operating costs. The budget and chosen tax rate determine how the county will cover road maintenance, jail and court operations, and other county services while balancing reserves.

Most important facts first: The adopted budget as presented showed roughly $53 million in projected revenue against about $55 million in proposed expenditures, producing a built-in deficit that the court moved to address through a combination of revenue adjustments and one-time transfers. The court approved a tax rate that is lower than the administration’s original proposal but higher than the no-new-revenue rate. The exact adopted rate set by the court was 0.333241 per $100 of assessed value (the proposed initial rate in public materials had been 0.339824 and the no-new-revenue rate was 0.325741).

Court discussion and public comment: The budget presentation described multi-year pressures: the county’s property values and population have grown sharply in recent years, adding demand for roads, elections administration, law enforcement and facility repairs. Stovall told the court that the county has been closing compliance gaps at the jail and increasing wages to retain staff. Opponents at the public hearing urged caution on raising rates. Resident Mark White told the court, “Please be very good stewards of what God has blessed each of us with and realize … you’re spending our money.” Other speakers, including members of the public and several commissioners, urged balancing near-term taxpayer impacts against longer-term fiscal stability.

Split inside the court: Commissioners debated two competing approaches: (1) keep the tax rate at a “no new revenue” rate that would yield only the revenue needed on existing properties, and (2) adopt a higher rate to fund immediate recurring needs and build reserves. Several commissioners argued that repeated deficit budgets in prior years had reduced flexibility and that relying repeatedly on one-time capital funds to meet recurring expenses would be risky. Other court members said some one-time transfers and modest rate increases were necessary to avoid sharper cuts to services or staff.

Decisions and motions: The court voted to approve the FY2025–26 proposed budget as amended, and subsequently set the tax rate at 0.333241 per $100 valuation. The court recorded the budget approval vote as passing by a 4–1 margin; the tax-rate motion similarly carried after discussion. The approved budget included line-item adjustments mandated by state actions for judicial salaries and a set of internal transfers moving certain courthouse security expenditures to a separate fee fund to reduce reliance on the general fund.

Context and numbers cited by staff and the judge: the county reported roughly $2.2 million in new property value growth for the year, a fund balance in the neighborhood of $19 million, and projections that the current fiscal year could end with an approximate $1.2–$1.5 million shortfall absent action. County leadership noted that some capital and precinct funds were tapped this year to help balance the budget and that continued reliance on such one-time sources would be unsustainable.

Follow-up and direction: The court asked staff to prepare a multi-year plan focused on expense controls and operational efficiencies, including a review of enterprise programs, procurement contracts and software platforms, so that next year’s budget process begins with candidate cost reductions already identified. Commissioners also asked that departmental leaders be informed of the fiscal constraints so elected offices and departments can propose specific reductions if necessary.

What the vote means for taxpayers: The adopted rate sits between what the county would collect under the no-new-revenue calculation and the administration’s original proposal; the county’s estimate showed the effect on an average-valued home would be an increase roughly in the low tens of dollars per year compared with last year’s bill, after accounting for assessment changes. Exact individual impacts vary with property values and exemptions.

Ending: The court approved the budget and tax rate after a recess and reconvened to complete the required public noticing and record votes. Commissioners said they expect to return to a continual year‑round review of costs and efficiencies so the county can move closer to the no-new-revenue boundary in future budgets without compromising services.