Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget 2026 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coryell County residents urge cuts as commissioners consider FY2026 budget and proposed tax-rate notice
Summary
Hundreds of local residents pressed Coryell County officials to trim the amended FY2026 budget and abandon a published 53¢ tax-rate notice (an effective 21.1% rate increase). Speakers demanded line‑item transparency, questioned salary supplements and ARPA spending, and asked commissioners to pursue a no-new-revenue alternative.
Hundreds of Coryell County residents packed the county courthouse and spoke by Zoom Tuesday during a pair of public hearings on the county's amended FY2026 budget and a statutorily required tax-rate notice. Commenters repeatedly asked the commissioners court to reduce add-ons to a proposed budget that currently shows an 8.6% net increase and to drop the published 53¢ per $100 valuation rate that the court said represents the statutory proposal and an effective 21.1% increase.
Speakers including Doug Ashley (Precinct 1), Jennifer Humphreys (Precinct 3) and others criticized recurring tax increases going back several years, highlighted large “supplement” payments to certain positions, and pressed for public posting of check registers and contract details. "There is some wasteful spending in this budget," said Doug Ashley, urging the court to return to recess and remove nonessential add-ons. Jennifer Humphreys asked why judicial pay increases and large health-insurance line items are borne locally rather than picked up by the state.
The county's presiding official (the meeting's presider) opened the budget hearing by confirming the amended proposed budget was on file as required and explained the 53¢ figure is the statutorily required published proposal; the court can reduce but not increase that published rate. The presiding officer said certain supplements are mandated or otherwise tied to state reimbursement; he also said he cut his own auto allowance to zero and offered to publish supporting longevity and reimbursement details online.
Public testimony covered a range of budget items: the jail and prisoner-board funding, road-and-bridge maintenance, salary supplements, and capital projects funded with ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) allocations. Residents repeatedly asked that the county upload itemized expenditures and check registers so taxpayers can independently review spending. "If there's not that clear transparency, then people are making assumptions," remote commenter Scott Dinsman said, urging the county to post check-level detail quarterly or monthly.
Commissioners and staff described the arithmetic behind the alternative "no-new-revenue" rate: the presiding officer said reaching the no-new-revenue calculation (0.43739 in the court's worksheets) would require eliminating roughly $1.77 million of expenditures from the amended budget. Commissioners and residents debated where those cuts should fall; staff and speakers warned that the largest-ticket items likely to be trimmed would affect jail operations, sheriff staffing or road-and-bridge projects. "Where do we find $1.8 million?" the presiding officer asked as the debate turned to public safety versus discretionary projects.
The court did not adopt a budget during the session; the meeting recessed for lunch with the presiding officer saying the court needed time to weigh options and produce a plan for moving forward. The public comment period, which ran more than two hours, concluded with the presiding officer closing the hearing and opening the separate tax-rate hearing.
Next steps: the commissioners said they will continue budget deliberations in public and will post additional financial details on the county's website; no formal vote on the FY2026 budget or tax rate had been recorded before recess.
