Starr County officials propose modest tax cut, 3% across-the-board pay increase amid public concerns

Presiding Official opened a public hearing Sept. 17 at the Starr County Commissioners Court to review a proposed county budget that would give most county employees a 3% pay increase, with a $1,200 floor and a $2,400 ceiling, and reduce the county’s property tax rate by one penny.

The Presiding Official said the raise structure is intended so that lower-paid employees receive a meaningful increase even when a straight 3% calculation would produce very small dollar gains. “What we’re proposing is a an increase of pay increase across the board of 3% for all employees, with a floor of 1,200 and a ceiling of 2,400,” the Presiding Official said. He described the county’s position as fiscally healthy and said the court has lowered the tax rate by about 6¢ over five years.

Why it matters: County leaders framed the package as taxpayer relief amid rising assessed property values. The Presiding Official explained that the county controls only the tax rate, not the appraisal values set by the appraisal district, and said the state requires assessments to be close to market (described in the hearing as 95% of market value). Because market-driven assessments have increased, the court proposed lowering the rate to reduce the tax burden on homeowners.

Public concerns: A resident who spoke for an extended period questioned several elements of county operations and the budget proposal. The resident said constables are not visibly working in some areas and accused county departments and the appraisal district of raising property values without corresponding improvements. “Nobody’s been picking up that trash for years,” the resident said, pressing officials to explain which departments handle roadside and county-area cleanup. The resident also argued against across-the-board raises for higher-paid positions and urged greater public engagement in the budget process.

Officials’ responses and context: The Presiding Official replied that city responsibilities (for example, trash inside city limits) differ from county responsibilities and encouraged residents to raise city concerns with municipal authorities. He also noted the county’s minimum pay is $12 an hour and said many employees previously earned below the poverty level, which factored into the decision to propose raises. On law enforcement, the Presiding Official defended the sheriff’s office and said the sheriff oversees hundreds of employees and a jail, and obtains grants to purchase vehicles rather than relying on the county’s general fund.

Unresolved questions and next steps: The hearing was informational; the Presiding Official confirmed this session is to discuss the proposal and not to approve it. Several factual points raised by the resident — including the resident’s figures for long-term population change and specific appraisal practices — were disputed or described differently by the Presiding Official during the hearing. No vote or final action was recorded at the hearing; the Commissioners Court expected to proceed through its formal budget process after the public comment period.

The hearing concluded with the Presiding Official asking if there were any other concerns and noting the session would end around 10:30 a.m.