Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Starr County judge outlines small tax‑rate reduction, 3% pay increase in budget hearing

Starr County Commissioners Court · September 23, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

During a public hearing on Sept. 23, Judge Rivera described a proposed reduction in the county tax rate (referred to in the transcript as “1p”) and a 3% cost‑of‑living increase for county employees with a $1,200 floor and $2,400 cap; the county will absorb higher insurance costs rather than pass them to workers.

Judge Rivera opened a public hearing at about 10:00 a.m. to explain the county’s proposed 2025 budget and said the court is proposing a reduction in the tax rate described in the transcript as “1p.” He said Starr County has lowered its tax rate about 6 cents over the past four to five years and attributed the reductions to new development and growth in the local tax base, including “green energy.”

On employee pay, Rivera said the budget includes a proposed 3% cost‑of‑living increase for county employees with a floor of $1,200 for those earning under $40,000 and a $2,400 cap for higher earners. “I feel our employees deserve a lot more than 3%, but unfortunately, that’s what we can afford,” Rivera said during his explanation.

Rivera also told the hearing that insurance premiums have increased and the court — “the commissioners and myself” as he put it — decided the county would absorb the insurance increase so employees would not see reductions in purchasing power. The judge invited public comment during the hearing; no public speakers were recorded during the hearing period.

The public hearing was informational and did not itself adopt the budget; the county will consider formal action in its regular proceedings. Rivera framed the reductions as possible because of increased revenues tied to local development and new businesses. The transcript records the proposed tax‑rate reduction in the judge’s words as “1p”; the county did not provide a clearer numeric description in the record available here, and that phrase is quoted as spoken.

Next steps: The court moved from the public hearing into its regular meeting, where it continued the agenda and approved a number of routine items. The budget proposal outlined during the hearing will be considered through the county’s formal budget process and any final tax‑rate action will follow the notice and adoption procedures required by state law.