Williamson County presents recommended $375.6M budget; court proposes voter‑approval tax rate and schedules public hearing

Williamson County officials outlined a recommended fiscal 2025–26 budget of $375,600,000 and the county’s tax assessor‑collector presented benchmark tax rates before commissioners voted to propose a maximum tax rate at the voter‑approval level.

Ashley Holliday, the county budget presenter, told the commissioners the budget office’s recommended total is $375,600,000 — up about 3.9 percent, or roughly $14.4 million, from the current adopted total. “The requested budget for next year, which does not include compensation requests, is 391,500,000.0. Recommended budget by the budget office is 375,600,000.0,” Holliday said.

The recommendation includes a mix of carryovers, capital, equipment replacement and personnel changes: a $6.8 million carryover for ambulances, $310,000 carried for a chiller replacement not delivered by year end, $7 million for the county’s long‑range transportation plan, and $20 million for capital improvement projects to be prioritized in October. Holliday also listed targeted replacements and multi‑year equipment programs: $2.6 million for EMS cardiac monitor replacements, about $4 million for phase‑one radio replacements (201 handheld units and 243 in‑car radios), and $385,000 for year two of a three‑year Taser replacement program.

Holliday said the budget office recommended funding 39.5 of the 114.5 full‑time position requests (totaling about $5.58 million), and converting one part‑time role to full time. She also said a proposed new district court would carry county costs of $1,790,000, which include staffing additions for prosecutors, clerks and pretrial support; Holliday said the district judge’s salary is state‑paid and the county’s recurring contribution for that judge would be a $25,000 annual stipend.

Julie Kylie, county auditor, summarized how the recommended budget compares to the tax benchmarks and flagged a planned $20 million defeasance (debt paydown) that the budget uses in part because a pass‑through repayment fund is nearing completion. “Part of how that $20,000,000 defeasance is afforded is through a transfer from what we call the pass through fund,” Kylie said, noting the county will be in the final year of repayment on a contract tied to state highway work.

County Tax Assessor‑Collector Larry Gaddis presented two statutorily calculated rates used to guide tax‑rate decisions: the no‑new‑revenue rate and the voter‑approval rate. “The no new revenue rate for the county is is 37 97 24,” Gaddis said, and he gave the voter‑approval rate as “41.37 76.” He explained that adopting the no‑new‑revenue rate would generate the same revenue on unchanged property as the prior year and that proposing a rate higher than the no‑new‑revenue rate triggers required public hearing steps; a proposed rate above the voter‑approval rate would require a ballot measure.

On a motion by Commissioner Covey, seconded by Commissioner Cook, the court voted 4‑0 to take a recorded vote proposing a maximum total tax rate for Williamson County and the Road and Bridge Fund at the voter‑approval rate of 0.413776 (41.3776 cents per $100 of assessed value). The recorded vote listed Commissioner Cook (Precinct 1) yes, Precinct 2 absent, Commissioner Coby (Precinct 3) yes, Commissioner Bowles (Precinct 4) yes, and County Judge Steve Snell yes. The clerk announced the motion carried 4‑0.

The court also set a public hearing on the tax rate and the budget for Aug. 26 at 9:30 a.m. (the court confirmed that the budget hearing and tax‑rate hearing would be held the same day, with the budget hearing scheduled first) and scheduled budget modification voting sessions for Aug. 12 and Aug. 19. Holliday said capital workshops had been slated for early September and could be moved earlier at the court’s request.

Discussion by commissioners emphasized staffing and capacity in Road and Bridge amid rapid county growth; one commissioner asked for a close review of field staffing versus contracting for road maintenance. Julie Kylie and other speakers also flagged potential legislative changes under consideration (she referenced a bill labeled HB 104) that could limit debt‑issuing options for local governments; Kylie urged outreach to state legislators if proposed changes move forward.

The recommended budget presentation and the tax‑rate proposal mark the next step in the county’s adoption calendar: the court set the proposed ceiling today but may adopt a lower final rate when it meets later this month. Budget and tax documents, Holliday said, will be part of upcoming workshops and the Aug. 26 public hearing.

Ending note: Commissioners and staff asked members of the public to submit any proposed budget additions or deletions to the budget office in advance of the Aug. 12 and Aug. 19 modification sessions so they can be scheduled for consideration.