Coryell County residents overwhelmingly oppose proposed FY2026 budget and 21% tax-rate increase; commissioners reject proposal, begin line-by-line review

A large crowd of residents turned out to the Coryell County Commissioners Court hearing to oppose the county's proposed FY2026 budget and a proposed tax rate of 53¢ per $100 of assessed value — an effective increase the court described as about 21.17%.

Residents delivering five-minute remarks across both in-person and Zoom channels pressed commissioners to reduce spending rather than raise taxes. Comments focused on sharp year-to-year property-appraisal increases, the effect of a higher tax bill on fixed‑income households and first-time homebuyers, and large proposed pay supplements for some judicial offices. Jennifer Warren told the court the increase “is pushing our people to the breaking point” and warned it would damage trust between residents and county leadership. Donna Taylor, referencing her fixed income, said, “You work for us,” and urged commissioners to listen to constituents.

Court staff and the presiding official repeatedly pointed to statutory requirements and to publicly posted budget documents. The judge said the proposed budget filed with the county clerk on 08/15/2025 incorporated items discussed by the court and that some salary changes reflected state actions. The presiding official explained that state legislation raised district‑judge base pay from about $140,000 to roughly $175,000 and that local supplements and longevity pay factors and certain reimbursements are tied to those state increases. That explanation was offered after multiple public speakers singled out proposed supplements and judge pay as key drivers of the budget increase.

After the public‑comment period concluded, Commissioner Matthews moved not to adopt the proposed FY2026 budget; Commissioner Taylor seconded. The court’s voice vote carried and the clerk performed a roll call for the record. Following legal guidance cited by court counsel, commissioners then voted to begin a line‑by‑line amendment process to develop a revised proposed budget rather than attempt final adoption at the hearing. The court identified specific early adjustments for staff to prepare: a proposed reduction in personal auto allowances and travel/training budgets, upward revisions to workers’ compensation and liability/property insurance estimates, and cuts to miscellaneous non‑departmental spending were discussed as initial steps.

The court also acknowledged procedural requirements for republishing any materially revised proposed budget and tax‑rate notice. The presiding official said the court would aim to continue work and present updated materials at the next regular meeting (proposed Sept. 23), allowing additional public review and compliance with notice statutes before any final adoption. Commissioners voted to recess for lunch and resume the line‑by‑line review.

What the court decided and what remains: the court did not adopt the FY2026 proposed budget at this hearing and therefore did not vote to ratify or adopt the proposed tax rate. Instead, commissioners authorized a formal amendment process beginning immediately, with the court to reissue the proposed budget and associated tax‑rate notice after staff and the auditor incorporate the line‑by‑line edits discussed. The next public opportunities for comment and final action were set as follow‑up items.

Actions and outcomes recorded at the hearing include the court’s motion and vote to reject adoption of the proposed FY2026 budget (motion carried) and the subsequent motion and vote to begin a departmental line‑by‑line amendment process (motion carried). The court recessed and will continue review and public notice before any vote on the tax rate.