Williamson County approves $702 million budget and a 41.3776¢ tax rate after hours of debate

Williamson County Commissioners Court voted 4–1 on Sept. 3 to adopt a $702,042,992 total budget for fiscal 2025–26 and to set the county's total property tax rate at 0.413776 per $100 of assessed value.

The vote followed a public hearing in which residents urged the court to consider alternatives to raising property taxes and questioned the budget's per-capita increase. Precinct chair Janine Chapa told the court, “I urge you to consider the impact these increases will have on everyday residents and citizens, especially those working families, seniors like myself,” and asked commissioners to “please oppose these tax rates and think about the citizens of this county.” Resident Rick Klutowski raised budget-per-capita figures, saying the county's proposed budget would raise spending per resident from about $8.73 last year to about $9.16 this year.

Why it matters: Commissioners said they were balancing rapid population growth, major one-time projects and the cost of maintaining basic services. Court discussion centered on funding for long-range transportation, the capital improvement program (CIP), debt service tied to prior bond issues and operational needs such as public safety and replacement IT systems.

Most important actions and votes

- The court approved the 2025–26 general fund budget (final general fund line: $383,263,539) and, counting CIP and long-range transportation items, the court recorded a total general-fund-related appropriation consistent with the $401,201,232 figure the court referenced when matching the tax rate. Record vote on the general fund and associated additions: Precinct 1 yes; Precinct 2 no; Precinct 3 yes; Precinct 4 yes; County Judge yes (4–1).

- The court approved the Road & Bridge fund budget (final stated figure: $78,523,221 after adjustments). Record vote: Precinct 1 yes; Precinct 2 no; Precinct 3 yes; Precinct 4 yes; County Judge yes (4–1).

- The court approved the Debt Service fund budget at $222,704,005.39. Record vote: unanimous (5–0).

- After the budget votes, the court opened and closed a public hearing on the proposed tax rates and then adopted a total property tax rate of 0.413776 per $100 valuation (broken into M&O 22.2547¢, debt service 14.6900¢ and Road & Bridge 4.4329¢). Record vote: Precinct 1 yes; Precinct 2 no; Precinct 3 yes; Precinct 4 yes; County Judge yes (4–1).

- The court approved a $60,000 settlement and resolution agreement related to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge (motion passed 5–0) and authorized the presiding officer to sign settlement documents approved as to form by counsel.

Items changed during the meeting

- The court voted to remove a vehicle purchased before the end of the fiscal year from the general fund budget, reducing that line by $86,005.72. Motion by Commissioner Covey; second by Commissioner Bowles; motion carried 5–0.

- Commissioners debated and then voted on a motion to remove $5,000,000 that had been added for the long-range transportation plan (LRTP). The motion was made by Commissioner Long and seconded by Commissioner Snell for purposes of discussion. The court recorded the result as an official record of 3 yes, 1 no and 1 abstention (motion carried). Commissioners and staff framed that line as discretionary "one-time" cash used to acquire rights-of-way and to reduce future construction costs; opponents argued it reduced funds available to address immediate road needs.

Court rationale and discussion

Commissioners and budget staff emphasized several pressures pushing the budget higher: steady population growth (the court cited roughly 20,000–25,000 new residents a year), escalating costs for construction materials and equipment, one-time capital projects (replacement of the 9-1-1 CAD system and the county's financial system were named), and unfinished portions of the 2023 bond program for which right-of-way or construction money remains. The court noted that paying for certain infrastructure with cash rather than issuing more debt reduces interest costs over time.

Several commissioners urged greater partnership with school districts and developers on right-of-way and road construction. One commissioner said school districts should include transportation needs in their bond planning and help with construction costs when their site changes drive new road needs.

Public comment and community concerns

Residents who spoke at the hearing expressed concern about rising property taxes and household affordability. Janine Chapa, Precinct 371 chair, said, "Rising taxes right now feels like the community asking the community to shoulder more than we can actually bear," and asked the court to explore reallocating resources, trimming nonessential spending or seeking grants before increasing rates. Rick Klutowski presented the budget's per-capita calculations and asked for explanation of the increase in spending per resident.

Court next steps and implementation

The commissioners directed the county's budget and finance staff to incorporate the adopted rate and budgets into the final fiscal-year appropriation documents and to continue CIP prioritization and coordination with school districts and other partners. Commissioners flagged future discussion topics: more detailed CIP prioritization (scheduled for a coming meeting), how to limit the county's long-term debt exposure, and engagement with the legislature and regional partners on infrastructure and growth management.

Votes and outcomes are recorded on the official docket and roll call minutes.