Commissioners workshop CAD sales tax proposal to fund roads, fire and infrastructure; officials urge voter education

A workshop at the Van Zandt County Commissioners Court focused on a proposal to form County Assistance District (CAD) No. 14, a sales‑tax mechanism the court’s presenters said could bring roughly $3.7–$3.79 million into the county in 2025 without raising property tax rates. The proposal would apply only to unincorporated areas and, if adopted by voters, could be used solely for roads, first responders and public infrastructure.

“It's almost $4 million right now that can come into this county through sales tax that's not going to affect our property taxes,” said Brandon, the commissioner who introduced the item, describing two‑to‑three years of work by staff and fellow commissioners to evaluate the option. He told the court a sampling of local businesses indicated about 70% already collect the full 8.25% sales rate being discussed, and that the state currently collects and remits those receipts rather than the county.

Why it matters: County staff estimated a 2% CAD in the unincorporated areas would have produced about $3.79 million in 2025—about 18% of the county’s budget using the county figures discussed at the workshop. Proponents said CAD revenue could relieve some property‑tax pressure by creating an alternate revenue stream that visitors and pass‑through commerce would help fund.

Legal and practical limits: Presenters and commissioners emphasized several legal constraints. CAD proceeds, as outlined in the workshop, are limited to roads, volunteer first‑responder needs and public infrastructure; emergency service districts (ESDs) that already levy taxes would generally be excluded from direct CAD distributions unless their territory is carved out before voters are asked. Commissioners also warned that Texas’ statutory cap on ad valorem growth (described in the meeting as a 3.5% limit) affects how much the county can increase budgeted revenue year to year and how any CAD money would interact with property‑tax rate setting.

Process, governance and allocation questions: The court discussed whether to give allocation authority to a five‑member citizen board—suggested by one commissioner—to reduce in‑court conflict over percentages, or instead to write fixed percentages into the ballot language so voters would know how revenue would be split. Several volunteer fire‑department representatives and other town residents asked whether the CAD could guarantee set percentages to their departments; county officials said that, absent explicit ballot language or a standing allocation formula, distribution decisions would be handled after formation by the designated board or the court, and that a fixed percentage could expose the county to risks in years with unusual needs.

Remote sales and collection mechanics: Commissioners and members of the public said online sales (including large remote sellers such as Amazon) and delivery‑address rules have driven much of the county’s tax‑base growth over the last decade; vendors remit collected sales taxes to the state, which then returns the proper shares to local entities. Presenters acknowledged software and addressing limitations can cause collection errors but said the county would receive CAD receipts only going forward if voters approve the measure.

Timing and urgency: Court staff reported an accelerated timetable if the court decides to place CAD on a November ballot; they said the order to the commissioners court must include an exhibit and be filed in time for the ballot‑order process (staff described an August deadline to place the order to make a November ballot). Several commissioners and members of the public also said pending or possible state law changes could eliminate future opportunities for counties to form CADs, creating a limited window for action.

Next steps: Commissioners and staff agreed to an education campaign that would include town halls and outreach led by county staff (Keegan was named as part of the education effort). The court did not vote on the CAD during the workshop; commissioners said details on ballot language, territory (countywide vs precinct), carve‑outs for ESDs and any allocation percentages would need to be worked out before bringing a formal order back to the court.

Quotes and claims: Workshop presenters claimed a 2025 annualized CAD yield of roughly $3.79 million; they also asserted that about 70% of unincorporated‑area businesses already collect the 8.25% rate. A participant said “the state's not our friend,” reflecting concern that state action could limit county options; commissioners responded that prompt action and voter education would be required if the court wants to pursue the CAD this year.

What’s next: Staff said they would pursue town halls and a voter‑education plan and, if the court chooses to proceed, would prepare an order and exhibit for the commissioners court to consider prior to the August ballot‑order deadline. No formal vote was taken on CAD formation during this meeting.