Johnson County sets Sept. 8 public hearing on proposed 2025–26 budget; court previews payroll, law-enforcement and capital priorities

The Johnson County Commissioners Court on Aug. 5 set a public hearing and final vote for 9 a.m. on Sept. 8, 2025, on the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget and the 2025 tax rate and reviewed a budget proposal the judge described as “flat other than the 1¢ voter-approved transportation bond.”

The court’s proposed combined no-new-revenue rate, including an unused increment, is 0.375905 and the adjusted voter-approval tax rate is 0.419743, the auditor’s office reported. County leaders said the all-in tax rate under the proposal would rise from 37.9276¢ to 38.9276¢ per $100 of taxable value—an increase driven solely by the previously voter-approved transportation bond.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the budget focuses on retention and recruitment for county employees, a major pay adjustment for law enforcement and continued cash funding of capital projects so the county can avoid debt. The court also previewed large information-technology investments and an electronic evidence system intended to speed prosecutions.

The court voted unanimously to set the Sept. 8 hearing date for the budget and also set a Sept. 8 hearing and vote on the tax rate. Commissioner Bailey moved to set the dates; Commissioner Howell seconded both motions and both carried by voice vote.

What the budget would do - Personnel and pay: The proposed budget includes a 2.3% cost‑of‑living adjustment tied to published CPI data and would complete the civilian longevity plan begun last year. Officials told the court that the full-year cost of the law-enforcement market adjustment in this plan is about $1.6 million and countywide COLA costs about $1.5 million. The auditor projected the county’s overall tax revenue (general fund) under the proposal at roughly $84.5 million and Farm‑to‑Market/Road revenue at $12.25 million.

- Law enforcement and public safety: The proposal funds the largest law‑enforcement pay increase in county history, raises starting patrol pay (presented as an increase from $63,000 toward $70,000 in the plan), and accelerates step progression so officers reach top pay faster. Commissioners and the district attorney warned the court that greater prosecution and trial volume will require more prosecutors and investigators over time.

- New and changed positions: The draft budget includes roughly nine to ten new positions across county departments (clerks, emergency management/fire marshal deputies and office manager, election clerks, juvenile services adjustments, an investigator for the district attorney and limited new hires in public works and facilities). The county clerk will open a new office in Alvarado and the budget proposes a full‑time clerk for that location.

- Clerks’ pay bands: The auditor and county judge proposed reorganizing 144 existing “clerk” jobs into pay bands to reduce countywide pay disparities; the court directed staff to fold the highest proposed bands into Clerk 3 for this year and pursue greater structural changes next year.

- Capital and one‑time projects: The county plans to continue cash‑funding building projects rather than issuing debt. Rough order‑of‑magnitude estimates discussed include a potential tax office remodel (~$3 million), a Precinct 3 sub‑courthouse (the court estimated $15 million as a planning figure), and continuing work on the annex (previously estimated in the mid‑teens of millions). The proposed budget contemplates a $7 million transfer into the annex/capital improvement fund this year.

- IT and evidence systems: The county is budgeting a roughly $1 million ERP financial‑software upgrade and accounting for a potential Tyler Odyssey cloud migration that county staff estimated could add about $400,000 in recurring annual costs for cloud hosting and licensing. Commissioners also discussed a proposed countywide electronic‑discovery/case‑evidence platform (vendors and contract pending) to allow secure cloud upload of body‑cam and in‑car footage and to reduce time spent copying physical media.

- Other items: The budget includes continued ambulance contract funding (~$1.5 million per year), planned purchase and outfitting of roughly 13 law‑enforcement vehicles (estimated about $1.5 million total), and a proposal to stagger replacements of the county’s automated external defibrillators (AEDs); a vendor quote for seven AEDs in this cycle was $9,303.

Remarks and contention County Judge (presiding) framed the budget as starting from needs rather than a top‑line revenue number: “We start with a list of needs from department heads on how can we serve our citizens,” the judge said. The judge and commissioners repeatedly emphasized a conservative approach—holding the tax rate flat except for the voter‑approved bond portion—and said they prefer to fund buildings without issuing new debt where feasible.

District Attorney Rob Goode (presenting) urged the court to approve two personnel actions: a parity pay adjustment for a long‑tenured prosecutor and one funded entry‑level prosecuting attorney (with a second, unfunded position to preserve flexibility for hiring exceptional candidates). Goode said increased jury trials and a push to move more violent repeat offenders to state custody will drive demand for prosecutors and investigators.

“We’re getting more life sentences, more pleas to 30, 40, even 50‑year offers than we have in the past,” the district attorney said, and asked the court to plan for added prosecutors and to provide start‑up funding for DA investigators’ equipment.

Sheriff’s office: Sheriff’s staff presented a list of equipment and uniform needs, a multi‑year Axon (body‑camera and Taser) proposal, ammunition replenishment and routine fleet and equipment line items. Sheriff’s staff said some items are shown in different budget lines this year because of reclassification; they noted a large part of the department’s annual expense is personnel and vehicle outfitting.

Pension and reserves County staff proposed reducing the employer contribution to the Texas County & District Retirement System (TCDRS) from 12.45% toward 11.45% while noting the county remains well funded (staff cited the county’s funded ratio at roughly 91%). The budget anticipates a modest increase in beginning fund balance (from about $52 million to roughly $54.5 million in staff projections) after the planned transfers described above.

Next steps and schedule The court set a public hearing and final vote on the budget and on the tax rate for 9 a.m. on Sept. 8, 2025. Staff said the offices of the auditor and county judge will file a proposed budget document the week following the workshop and that workshop changes will be integrated into that filing. The court also asked departments to provide more detailed requests where items were described as contingent (for example, investigators’ equipment and potential grants for ballistic vests).

Vote at a glance - Motion (A1): Set public hearing and final vote on Sept. 8, 2025, for the proposed FY2025–26 budget. Mover: Commissioner Bailey. Second: Commissioner Howell. Outcome: approved (unanimous voice vote). - Motion (A2): Set public hearing and final vote on Sept. 8, 2025, for the 2025 tax year tax rate. Mover: Commissioner White (motion noted in court); Second: Commissioner Howell. Outcome: approved (unanimous voice vote).

Ending note Court members said they expect continued review of personnel and command‑staff pay equity in coming weeks and directed staff to bring back more detailed cost estimates on selected capital projects and technology contracts ahead of the Sept. 8 hearing.

(Reporting based on the Aug. 5 Johnson County Commissioners Court budget workshop transcript.)