Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes And Public Communications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident Fern McClary urges Hidalgo County to consider tax burden on low‑income residents
Summary
At the public comment portion, Fern McClary asked the court how a budget based on a 97% property‑tax collection rate would affect residents in poverty, criticized county branded giveaways bearing officials' names, and asked for transparency on spending.
During the open forum, Fern McClary addressed the Commissioners Court with a sustained critique of county spending priorities and public communications.
McClary said the county appears to be operating on the assumption that 97% of property owners will pay taxes and asked what would happen to the “30 to 40% of the population who lives in poverty.” She said rising property taxes and extensive debt service burden local taxpayers and questioned promotional items that bear elected officials' names, arguing they can appear to enrich candidates.
County counsel and staff responded directly. Counsel said that while Article 3, Section 52 of the Texas Constitution prevents public funds from enriching private individuals, case law and attorney‑general opinions allow expenditures that serve a public purpose, such as public‑awareness or informational materials, so long as legally required contact information and other limits are respected.
The county also clarified that accounting adjustments described as 'period 13' are routine year‑end procedures related to GASB 87 lease reporting and do not reflect a change in budget policy. Commissioners and staff encouraged residents to use county offices and applications for services such as colonia lighting, and staff noted they would provide the requested amount details through open records if necessary.
McClary cited specific numbers — including a $54,000,000 annual combined debt service figure she attributed to local taxing bodies and a $33,000,000 county share for 20 years — which she said should prompt questions about spending priorities. The court did not change policy during the meeting; staff provided legal context and said materials reviewed by the court were intended for public‑service purposes.
The court accepted McClary's comments for the record but took no immediate policy action; the exchange ended with staff assurances about transparency options and references to legal constraints and exemptions.
