Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plano council debates proposed tax‑rate ceiling; several members back using the voter‑approved ceiling to add one‑time buffers
Summary
Council members discussed the recommended FY2025–26 budget and proposed ad valorem tax rate ceiling of 44.06¢ per $100 valuation. Several members supported publishing the higher ceiling to preserve one‑time funds for rainy‑day reserves, stream‑bank work, public safety equipment and economic development.
Plano City Council held a public hearing on the fiscal year 2025–26 recommended budget and discussed the proposed ad valorem tax rate ceiling on Aug. 25. Staff presented a total recommended budget of $788 million and a Community Investment Program (CIP) of $319 million.
Budget Director Karen Reitz Whitley said the city posted a tax ceiling of 44.06¢ per $100 of assessed value as required; the rate serves as a ceiling and council may adopt a lower rate by the Sept. 8 meeting when the council will adopt the operating budget, the CIP and set the tax rate. The city’s currently proposed operating rate in the package is 41.76¢.
City Manager’s office noted one outstanding item — potential funding for a downtown Mammoth Jack Festival — and said the Legislature was still considering measures (including a proposed change to the voter‑approved tax‑rate mechanism) that could reduce the voter‑approval rate from 3.5% to 2.5%, with carve‑outs for public safety under discussion.
Council discussion centered on whether to use the posted ceiling or a lower rate. Several members — including Council member Levine, Council member Horn, Council member Kerr, Council member LeBain and Council member Downs — spoke in favor of publishing and considering the higher 44.06¢ ceiling so the city could preserve one‑time funding for stream‑bank stabilization, public safety equipment, replenishing land‑acquisition funds, economic development and a rainy‑day reserve. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem and others also emphasized the need for fiscal buffers because state legislative changes are tightening local revenue options.
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem described the city as needing business‑style buffers to handle shocks and pointed to recent cost pressures and the potential for further legislative restrictions on local revenues. Council member Downs estimated that the increase to 44.06¢ would cost her household about $257.30 a year and said she supported the increase to maintain service levels and support one‑time needs.
The council did not finalize the tax rate on Aug. 25; staff will return on Sept. 8 with ordinances for budget adoption and tax‑rate decisions. Council members asked staff to present options and impacts for adoption and to identify funding sources (for example, using hotel occupancy tax for specific downtown events) when possible.
