Leon Valley’s City Council voted 3–2 on Sept. 20 to adopt a 0.54504 property tax rate for fiscal year 2025–26, after public comment urging councilors to prioritize police, fire and EMS and a council debate over alternatives that might ease the burden on households.

The ordinance sets maintenance and operations at 0.497818 and interest and sinking at 0.047222 for a total rate of 0.54504. The council adopted that rate following competing motions and a recorded roll‑call vote that produced three ayes and two nays.

Residents who spoke during the meeting said public safety should be the council’s top priority. Resident Abraham Diaz told the council, “You fund public safety first and then everything else after that,” and said he would accept an estimated roughly $200 per year increase to ensure adequate police and fire service. Richard Blackmore, another resident, said, “I’ll support any decision you make on raising taxes because we need it,” urging the council to restore city services. Ivana Orozco thanked councilors for their service and pushed back against social‑media claims about veterans’ taxes.

Council discussion focused on a multi‑year budget gap, lost taxable value and proposals for how quickly to add personnel. Councilor Campos described the revenue mix and recent losses in taxable value, saying the city’s property‑tax reliance is higher than neighboring jurisdictions and noting roughly $46 million removed from the city’s tax rolls as part of the shortfall. Campos summarized the impacts and framed the proposed rate as necessary to stabilize services.

Some council members urged a phased approach so households would face a smaller immediate increase. Councilor Heil proposed a lower rate and a plan to add one firefighter now and revisit staffing in future years. Staff and councilors debated using reserve or project funds to pay for personnel versus raising an ongoing revenue source. City staff also noted required legal notices under the cited government code provision before proceeding.

Procedurally, the council considered multiple motions. A motion to set the rate at 0.52504 (moved in the record as by Councilor Bolton and seconded by Councilor Heil) failed on a recorded vote, with Bolton and Hile voting yes and Campos, Oroskel and Marsh voting no. A later motion by Councilor Roscoe, seconded by Councilor Mersch, to adopt the 0.54504 rate passed 3–2. The recorded roll call on the successful motion showed Bolton and Hile voting no and Campos, Ruskell and Mersh voting yes.

The council also noted that the tax rate is set annually and could be reduced in future years should revenues improve. The mayor closed the special meeting at about 9:48 a.m. and announced the next regular council meeting on Oct. 21.

The ordinance adopting the tax rate was approved; implementation dates and any administrative steps required for billing were not specified in detail during the meeting.