Coppell adopts $159.1 million budget, sets property tax rate at $0.444976 to raise $1.8 million

The Coppell City Council on Aug. 26 approved a $159.1 million fiscal year 2025–26 budget and adopted a property tax rate of 0.444976 per $100 of assessed value, city staff said. The council also took the separate statutory vote required to ratify that increase.

City finance staff presented the proposed budget and tax rate during a public hearing before the council voted. "The fiscal year 26 proposed budgeted expenditures is $159,100,000 for all funds of the city and the fiscal year 26 proposed budgeted revenues for all funds of the city is $151,100,000," said Kim Teehend, Director of Strategic Financial Engagement.

Teehend told the council the proposed tax rate of 0.444976 is higher than the no-new-revenue rate but lower than the voter-approval rate, and that the rate will raise approximately $1.8 million more from property taxes than in fiscal year 2025. "The property tax revenue of the general fund will increase just under $1,600,000, of which about $280,000 is from new property," Teehend said.

Councilmember Nevills moved to close the public hearing and approve the budget; Mayor Pro Tem Carroll seconded. The motion passed with councilmembers Walker, Hinojosa Smith, Carroll, Nevills, Premkumar and Matthew Ann Hill recorded as voting in favor.

Mayor Pro Tem Carroll later moved to close the public hearing on the tax rate and adopt the rate of 0.444976, which he described in the statutory motion as "effectively a 3.7% increase in the tax rate;" Councilmember Hill seconded. The council then held the separate vote required by Texas Local Government Code when a budget raises more revenue from property tax than the prior year; Carroll moved that ratifying motion and Prem Kumar seconded. Both motions passed by unanimous recorded vote of the members present.

City staff said the budget uses a strategic draw on fund balance for one-time items, including a $7.7 million general-fund transfer to the Municipal Drainage Utility District and one-time Vision 2040 initiatives. The proposed all-funds expenditures of $159.1 million reflect a net decrease from last year’s $180 million adopted budget largely because last year included a one-time transfer of roughly $31 million to an infrastructure maintenance fund. Teehend said the general fund revenue is projected at about $76.3 million and the general fund proposed expenditures (excluding one-time transfers) are about $76.2 million.

The council heard details about revenue composition: property taxes are the single largest general-fund revenue source at approximately $46.6 million (about 61 percent of general-fund revenues) and sales tax is budgeted at about $16.5 million (about 22 percent). The city’s total taxable value rose to about $12.5 billion, a roughly 6.6 percent increase over the prior year, driven primarily by residential reappraisals, staff said.

The budget presentation also outlined workforce changes: staff described 10 position reductions related to reorganizing roles and reclassification, with three positions moved from the general fund to the water/sewer fund and a net reduction of about 7.5 full-time equivalents across the city. Teehend said staffing decisions were made from vacant or soon-to-be-vacant positions and by evaluating service impacts.

Council members asked questions about exemptions, appraisal challenges and staff reductions during the hearing. No members of the public signed up to speak during the budget or tax-rate public hearings.

Looking ahead, city staff said they will continue rate and service reviews and will present any recommended utility-rate changes later in the year after current-year results are finalized.

The formal votes recorded in the meeting minutes show the budget, the tax-rate ordinance and the separate ratification vote all carried on Aug. 26. Copies of the approved ordinance and budget summary were made available by the city following the meeting.

Less-critical details: staff noted the water/sewer fund is budgeting for demand of 19.5 million gallons per day while contract capacity is 18.5 million, a difference the presentation estimated would cost roughly $357,000 if realized. The council also reviewed how the typical residential property’s city-only portion of the tax bill would change under the adopted rate (an example presented showed an average city tax increase of about $119 annually for a homestead-exempt property).