Editor's note: A previous version of this story had a misprint for the existing tax rate. The correct city tax rate is $0.333834 per $100 valuation. In addition, Adrienne Lothery's title has been updated, and the public hearing date has been clarified.

At its meeting Aug. 7, Colleyville City Council proposed a tax rate of $0.3208 per $100 valuation, which will be calculated into the city's budget. The public hearing for the budget is set for Sept. 4, with the adoption of the budget with the effective tax rate will be Sept. 18.

This proposed tax rate is a decrease from the existing tax rate of $0.333834 per $100 valuation, marking the second year in a row the city has lowered its tax rate. This is the effective rate, which means that even though property values increased 7.7 percent in total compared to fiscal year 2016-17, the property tax is lowered in order to collect the same amount of city taxes from property owners as last year.

"It's not easy to do," Assistant City Manager Adrienne Lothery said. "It's a huge deal, and something we're very, very proud of."

According to city documents, the average residential property value for FY 2017-18 was $500,748, and the average residential value for FY 2018-19 is $521,831. If the proposed tax rate is adopted, it will equate to an average annual property tax payment of $1,674 to support city services. If the existing tax rate of $0.333834 per $100 valuation were maintained, the average annual property tax payment would be $1,742.

To adopt the effective rate, Mayor Richard Newton said the city had to find $1 million to save over the year.

"We’re still getting everything done that we want to do," Newton said.

In other business, the council also discussed at length a rezoning request at 1312 John McCain Road and 7309 Holly Lane from single-family residential to planned-unit development residential. As proposed, this development would build a residential community with 36 lots and open spaces.

Staffers recommended the council approve the request, but several community members voiced their opposition to the development, saying the lot sizes are too dense and there is a drainage issue in this area.

No action was taken on this item, and the council will revisit this item at its next meeting Aug. 21.