Taylor County adopts $110.54 million FY2025 budget and a 5.52% tax-rate increase
Loading...
Summary
Taylor County Commissioners Court approved a $110,540,028 budget for fiscal 2025 and adopted a 54.86¢ per $100 valuation tax rate (a 5.52% increase) after roll-call votes. Commissioners cited salary increases, sheriff’s office needs and capital projects as drivers.
Taylor County Commissioners Court on Aug. 27 adopted a $110,540,028 budget for fiscal year 2025 and approved a tax-rate increase that the court described as a 5.52% rise from the prior rate.
Commissioner Bertram, who read the fund breakdown before the vote, said: "This represents a total county budget for fiscal year 2025 of $110,540,028." The adopted budget lists $80,908,375 for the general fund, $6,324,108 for road and bridge, $4,972,666 for debt service and $18,334,879 for other funds.
County staff said changes from the proposed to the final budget included a $365,273 improvement in the general fund, ARPA transfers of $500,000 into the general fund to cover a residential-care expense, a salary-study net savings of $392,404 and reallocation of salary costs among funds. Staff noted some road-and-bridge and special-revenue deficits increased because salary costs were moved to their respective funds.
On the tax steps, county staff explained the procedural requirements for adopting a budget above the "no new revenue" rate. Commissioner Bertram moved to adopt a property tax rate of 54.86¢ per $100 valuation, described in the motion as a 5.52% increase. Mr. Anderson (county staff) summarized the legal mechanics before the court took two roll-call votes: one for the maintenance-and-operations (M&O) portion and one for the interest-and-sinking (I&S) portion.
The roll-call votes were: Precinct 1 (Commissioner Williams) — Yes; Precinct 2 (Commissioner Kendrick) — No; Precinct 3 (Commissioner Bertram) — Yes; Precinct 4 (Commissioner Statler) — Yes; County Judge — Yes. The budget adoption carried 4–1. Both M&O and I&S roll-call votes later passed 4–1.
Commissioners and members of the public framed the increase as a response to inflationary pressures, rising costs for vehicles and buildings, and specific capital needs. During public comment, Mr. Olhausen asked what portion of the increase is due to inflation; commissioners pointed to rising costs for fuel, equipment and building maintenance. Commissioners also discussed financing some sheriff’s office projects, including roof work on the county jail, via certificates of obligation to spread costs over years rather than placing the entire cost on the tax rate.
The court recorded motions and formal votes to adopt the budget and to set the tax-rate components; Mr. Anderson will finalize the adopted budget filing as required by law. The court also previously voted to approve budget revisions and related procedural items earlier in the meeting.
Next steps: county staff will complete statutory filings for the adopted budget and the two-part tax-rate adoption and will move forward with the planned certificates-of-obligation financing process if pursued.
