Bell County unveils FY2025 budget, proposes combined tax rate of 34.45¢ with public-safety costs and exemptions cited as main drivers

The Bell County Commissioners Court presented a proposed FY2025 budget and opened the first required public hearing on Aug. 21, 2024, proposing a combined county and road/district tax rate of 34.45 cents per $100 valuation. The court said the increase is driven primarily by public‑safety staffing needs related to a jail expansion and by tax exemptions the county cannot reimburse.

The presentation, which the court said is posted in full on the county website, summarized key fiscal drivers. The presenter thanked County Auditor Tina Entripp and staff, said Bell County retains a strong double‑A‑plus bond rating, and estimated county population near 400,000. He listed five factors that affect the tax rate: changes in assessed values, exemptions, sales‑tax revenue, state‑imposed services the county must furnish without full state reimbursement, and operating costs.

The presenter said the appraisal district set 2025 taxable assessed values about 7.94% higher than 2024 and that the certified tax‑roll increase reflects roughly 22% attributable to new construction and 78% from reappraisals. He described the county’s over‑65 and disabled‑veteran/spouse exemptions as substantial: the disabled‑veteran/spouse exemption was cited as growing from 701 claims in its first full year to 'over 15,000' claims today, with an exempted-tax amount the presenter described as more than $14 million and equivalent to roughly 4¢ on the tax rate.

Sales‑tax receipts, the presentation said, remain the county’s second‑largest revenue source; the presenter described projected sales‑tax growth as markedly slower this year. He listed state‑imposed services (examples cited included child‑protective services courts, juvenile justice and other mandated functions) and estimated those obligations at 'well over $30,000,000,' which the presenter characterized as roughly a 9¢ equivalent on the tax rate.

On the spending side, the presenter described the general fund as balanced at roughly $160 million in revenues and matching expenditures and said total county budget across all funds is 'just shy of $227,000,000.' He said personnel accounts for about two‑thirds of operating expenses and highlighted nearly $4 million for 69 new positions (the presenter said 66 of the 69 are associated with public safety and jail staffing), about $1.6 million for public‑safety pay‑plan adjustments, and a merit‑pay bucket totaling about $1,000,000 (about $500,000 of which the presenter said would go to public safety). Those items, the presenter said, make up most of an $8.5 million increase.

The presenter also described capital and non‑personnel costs, including vehicle purchases the presentation listed at about $781,000 for replacements and stated that public safety accounts for most fleet replacements (25 of 30 vehicles). A larger total vehicle‑cost figure appeared elsewhere in the slides and was not fully clarified during the overview.

On the cover page required by state law, the presenter said the budget statement reports it will raise more property tax revenue from last year in the amount the presentation listed as $18,383,401 and that the portion attributed to new property added to the tax roll is $3,881,766 (the presentation identified the difference as new revenue attributable to the proposed tax rate). The court presented the current county tax rate as 29.14¢ per $100 valuation and the road/district rate as 2.11¢ (total 31.25¢), and the proposed county rate as 32.37¢ with a road/district rate of 2.08¢ for a combined proposed rate of 34.45¢ per $100 valuation. Using an illustrative average taxable home value of $273,098 and assuming unchanged appraisals, the presentation estimated an increase of about $7.28 per month under the proposed rate for that hypothetical homeowner.

Commissioner Schneider moved and Commissioner Schuman seconded a motion related to the presentation; the court did not record a formal vote on taking action on the presentation at that time and the presiding official stated 'no action.' The court then voted to open the first public hearing on the proposed tax rate (motion by Commissioner Schuman, second by Commissioner Schneider) and recognized members of the public who had submitted comment forms.

Two residents spoke during the hearing. Howard Harry of Harker Heights said county tax increases across jurisdictions will be "brutal for the average taxpayer," reiterated the presentation’s point that the disabled‑veteran exemption contributes about 4¢ to the county tax rate, and raised a concern that jail‑related revenue projections indicate inmate‑lodging revenue would grow from $125,000 in 2024 to $2,600,000 in 2025. Harry asked whether the county had built excess jail capacity and whether the facility is being relied upon as a source of revenue.

Terrace Goodwin of Temple asked whether the additional jail positions are intended to staff current inmates or to accommodate inmates from other counties, questioned an approximately $1,000,000 increase in jail medical costs and noted press reports about the county’s contracted medical provider (identified by the speaker as TurnKey). Goodwin also asked which school districts receive certain school‑lunch funds and inquired about ambulance providers and juvenile‑detention projects, asking for more public‑facing detail and access to sheriff’s‑department budget briefings.

The presiding official closed the hearing after public comment, reminded the public that the presentation was intended to set context rather than be a back‑and‑forth dialogue, invited residents to follow up with the court by email, phone or in person, and noted two additional public hearings scheduled for Aug. 26 at 9 a.m. The court adjourned the special meeting.

What remains open: several figures and slides cited during the presentation (notably a larger, slide‑listed vehicle‑cost total and some detailed revenue projections) were shown during the overview but were not fully clarified on the record during the meeting. County staff and the commissioners indicated they will continue the budget process and legislative‑agenda discussions in the coming weeks.