Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the County Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Judge outlines proposed FY25 budget: 1.99% tax-rate increase over effective rate, 4% employee pay proposal

Guadalupe County Commissioners Court Budget Workshop · August 5, 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

At a Guadalupe County budget workshop, the judge presented a recommended FY25 budget that leans on a proposed tax rate slightly above the no-new-revenue rate, a 4% across‑the‑board pay increase for county employees, and targeted capital projects drawn from a $166 million multi‑fund budget.

Guadalupe County’s judge opened the budget workshop by laying out the recommended FY25 spending plan and the revenue assumptions that underpin it. “Wanted to get down to that no new revenue rate,” the judge said, then provided the proposed rate and the no‑new‑revenue comparison: a proposed tax rate of 31.67¢ versus a no‑new‑revenue rate of 31.05¢, with $854,000,000 in new taxable value that would generate roughly $2.7 million in county tax revenue and about $2.2–$2.3 million for the general fund. The presentation noted the county’s total budget across all funds at approximately $166 million, with the general fund around $88 million and road and bridge near $15.5 million.

The judge framed personnel decisions as one of the largest budgetary stresses: the recommended 4% across‑the‑board pay increase for nearly 700 employees would add about $1.9 million in recurring cost, explaining it would consume most of the new revenue tied to rising property values. “A 4% pay increase almost uses the entirety of all of the new structures and new property,” the judge said. Commissioners discussed grade‑and‑step implementation and asked for a separate workshop to finalize policy details. The court also emphasized the constraint that many special revenue funds (ARPA, hotel occupancy tax, court fees) are legally restricted and cannot be redirected to general operations.

The court did not adopt final rates or actions at the workshop; members scheduled further discussion and were given materials to review before the legally required public disclosures and hearings later in the budget calendar. The judge encouraged commissioners to flag any needed adjustments prior to the August filing deadlines.