Coppell council adopts $159.1 million 2025–26 budget, approves 0.444976 property tax rate

At its Aug. 26 regular meeting the Coppell City Council adopted the fiscal year 2025–26 budget for all funds and set the city portion of the property tax rate at 0.444976 per $100 of assessed value. The council also took the statutorily required separate vote to ratify that the budget raises more property‑tax revenue than the previous year.

The City—s Strategic Financial Engagement Director, Kim Teehan, presented the proposed budget, describing it as “a balanced budget” that uses a mix of revenue, one‑time fund balance and strategic shifts in staffing and vendor services to keep operating cost growth below recent inflation. The adopted all‑funds expenditure budget is $159,100,000 and proposed revenues are $151,100,000; the gap is covered by planned uses of fund balance for one‑time items.

Council members voted to close the public hearings (there were no public signups for the budget or the tax‑rate hearing) and to approve the budget and the tax actions. Votes on the record for the motions showed unanimous support from council members present. A separate ratification motion required by Texas law (Local Government Code sec. 102.007(c)) carried as well.

Key figures from the presentation and council discussion: - Adopted total expenditures (all funds): $159,100,000; proposed revenues (all funds): $151,100,000. - General fund proposed revenues: about $76,300,000; general fund proposed expenditures are roughly $76,200,000 (a 2.38% increase from FY25 adopted). The general fund will use one‑time fund balance for specific projects totaling about $7,700,000 for a drainage district transfer and about $2,200,000 for Vision 2040 work‑plan items. - Sales tax was budgeted “as if” Rule 3.334 is in effect because litigation remains pending, per Teehan. - Staffing: the budget eliminates 10 positions from the general fund (three of those were reclassified and moved into the water/sewer fund), yielding a net citywide reduction of 7.5 full‑time equivalents to 440.97 FTEs from 448.47 last year. - Water/sewer fund: proposed expenses $24,500,000 and proposed revenues about $23,900,000, a projected shortfall of about $596,000. Staff said the budgeted demand includes an additional 1,000,000 gallons per day (budgeted but not contracted) that costs roughly $357,000. - Certified taxable value: total city taxable valuation is nearly $12.5 billion, an increase of about $774 million (6.61%) over last year; roughly $74 million of that is new construction and about $600 million is from reappraisals. - Tax rate: adopted total rate 0.444976 (maintenance & operations 0.376998; interest & sinking 0.067978). The adopted rate is lower than last year—s nominal rate (0.458632) but is higher than the "no‑new‑revenue" rate, which triggers the required public hearings. The adopted rate is projected to raise about $1,800,000 more in property tax revenue than FY25; about $331,000 of that increase is from new property on the roll. - Effect on an average homestead: the city portion of the tax bill for the average residence receiving the homestead exemption will increase by about $119 per year (about $10 per month), an increase the presenter calculated at about 4.8% for the city portion.

Council action and votes (recorded): - Motion to close the public hearing and approve the FY2025–26 budget (agenda item 7): moved by Council member Nevills; second by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll. Vote recorded: Walker; Hinojosa Smith; Carroll; Nevills; Prem Kumar; Matthew; Anne Hill — all in favor. - Motion to close the tax‑rate public hearing and adopt the tax rate of 0.444976: moved by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll; second by Council member Anne Hill. Vote recorded: Walker; Hinojosa Smith; Carroll; Nevills; Prem Kumar; Matthew; Anne Hill — all in favor. - Separate ratification vote required by Local Government Code sec. 102.007(c) to confirm the budget raises more property tax revenue than the previous year (agenda item 9): motion carried with the same recorded affirmative votes.

Kim Teehan and other staff answered council questions about homestead exemptions, the mix of revenue sources, and the drivers of valuation growth. Staff emphasized that the city does not set appraisal values (that is the appraisal district—s responsibility) and that the proposed budget reflects Council direction given during earlier retreats and three budget workshops.

The council identified next steps for administration, including monitoring water/sewer demand and returning with any rate recommendations in the fall, after actual current‑year results are available.