Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Midland County adopts amended 2025–26 budget and sets 2025 tax rate at 0.121374

Midland County Commissioners Court · September 16, 2025
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

The Commissioners Court approved an amended fiscal year 2025–26 budget after last‑minute changes (including vehicle/fuel and fleet positions), accepted several line‑item transfers, and adopted a 2025 tax rate of 0.121374 (0.102313 M&O; 0.019061 debt).

Midland County Commissioners on Sept. 16 approved the fiscal year 2025–26 budget as amended and adopted the county’s 2025 tax rate.

County finance staff alerted the court to changes made after the judge’s proposed budget was published, including a small increase to information‑technology salaries, removal of one civil clerk position in Justice of the Peace (Precinct 2), and reallocation of certain constable positions. Commissioners also addressed a set of items listed as “other changes not included in budget numbers” — principally three fleet maintenance positions and fuel allocations for Justice of the Peace offices — before voting.

Commissioner (speaker 12) moved to add $1,500 in JP fuel funding (the court ultimately funded a partial $700 to address an outstanding invoice), and the Judge withdrew and refiled a motion to adopt the budget reflecting the adjustments. The motion to approve the 2025–26 budget as amended was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Later in the meeting Commissioner (speaker 7) moved to adopt a 2025 county tax rate of 0.121374, allocating 0.102313 for maintenance and operations and 0.019061 for debt service; that motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. Commissioners also approved line‑item transfers (including DA office salary reclassifications and capital project fund allocations for courthouse and 608 North Main design) and multiple budgeted purchases authorized in the session.

No roll‑call tallies were recorded in the transcript; the minutes record voice votes with the court responding “aye.” The court recessed later for executive session and, upon return, approved a $58,054 vehicle replacement purchase for patrol that had been budgeted or approved via cooperative purchasing.