Commissioners Court - Regular Meeting

Which individuals would like to be on that interview list? Well no I'm saying the entire courts gonna be on it but I'm saying for either Taylor and or Doreen to reach out to

candidates for us to schedule interviews with uh like mike brooks mark green and you had one other gentleman you want to talk to mr murray mr murray no additional all right any additional candidates no sir all right we'll

TRY TO REACH OUT TO CANDIDATES TO CONSIDER POTENTIALLY SCHEDULING INTERVIEWS AND SEE WHAT THAT SCHEDULE LOOKS LIKE AND HAVE THEM COMMUNICATE WITH COURT MEMBERS IF THAT'S OKAY.

OKAY.

NEXT IS DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES. AS SOME MAY HAVE FORGOTTEN BECAUSE IT WAS EARLY THIS MORNING, WE DID HAVE OUR HR DIRECTOR RETIRE. WE TOOK TIME TO acknowledge and recognize her for her service and say thank you. We also went into closed session to have that conversation saying what now with the job posting and potential applicants. I believe the job is still posted and we're still receiving applications. Historically with open positions like that as court we have considered placing or naming an interim director in the meantime while we go through the hiring process. Is that something the court would like to consider? Yes.

Judge, I move that we name Lois Ellie as the interim human resources director and set her salary at $85,000 a year.

Second.

We do have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? No, sir. Hearing no other comments or questions, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. Any other items to discuss under item nine on our agenda? All right, then we will move back to our normal action items on our agenda where we left off prior to going into executive session, and that was item N, to adopt the Guadalupe County budget for fiscal year 2026 through 2027, or FY27. When we left, we had created a summary list of proposed changes to the budget. Ms. Klein went into the budget room and did her best to be accurate and timely to work through all of those changes to come up with a number and cost for individual funds, general fund, juvenile, road and bridge, some of the special revenue funds, all of those things. Chris, I don't know if you... You want me to just go over that summary if you want to give any more detail on what you looked at?

So I went through, I've added the positions, I reduced the part-time, I went through the longevity. We're definitely going to have to take a heavy look at it because I just went and amended anybody who's been here, was hired before... A honor before April 1st. of 2026 amended that longevity, because then they would get the base. Although, again, that does require policy change. On the constables, I did go through, because they're peace officers and our policy requires it, that we include certification pay. So I did add to that. But it wasn't discussed in court, but it is part of our policy. So I made that assumption that is included in there. What you have in front of you includes all the funds. I would ask, is Patrick Pender here? I would ask that we just leave your fire code as is, because I wasn't sure what to take out. And it is a self-funded fund. I mean, I know Patrick had volunteered to balance it out. But the fund is healthy. You can handle it. You want to go back and do that at a later time, you could do that.

One of the real quick, one of the challenges on the fire code was we went, or Chris went through looking at those individual items with Mr. Pinder trying to find the value that was equal to the amount of what the position was. But going in, looking deeper, when you look at fuel and some of those other things, it was cutting some lines that are operational necessities below what is being used currently while fuel is up and some of those other things so appreciate the effort but at the same time if the court wishes to add a position that fire code fund is healthy it is separate from reserve or from general fund and and probably just to be safe would recommend that the court just add the position if to the fire code as opposed to reducing all those other lines creating probably future budget amendments right that would that would be my

great request please please I've gone through we've added those positions taken in the county attorney's office the two adjustments but take took the increase out of the forfeiture fund, went back with the longevity because Senate Bill 22 does not pay for longevity. Had to go back and make sure that Senate Bill 22 isn't more than $275,000 for the county attorney and not more than $500,000 for the sheriff's office. Added juvenile. Thank you, Judge.

I almost forgot about juvenile.

added juvenile back in there. No, I think that's it.

And what did the total?

You're right at about $2 million for the increased positions and the total and the increased longevity with all the funds. That's around, what did I say, 1.8 total, about 1.7 with general fund plus juvenile total. ROAD AND BRIDGE IS COURSE AFFECTED BECAUSE WE ADDED LONGEVITY, BUT THAT'S... THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON THAT SUMMARY SHEET. THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON THAT SUMMARY SHEET, ALL THOSE LINES.

$1,989,013.18? CORRECT. OR $1,989,013. COURT MEMBERS? I know that was a lot of potential changes and plugging in, but that's what I believe everybody was looking for was what that total cost was to those changes.

So with that around $2 million, we had discussed earlier that historically a million gets brought back in from the previous year. And then we were looking at, on my end, I was talking about the million-dollar land purchase that we had discussed, that that's where I was willing to be at in relation to additional. So... FROM WHAT I'M READING IN MY MIND AT THIS LATE HOUR, IT'S A MILLION OUT OF RESERVE AND THEN OR IT COULD BE LESS BASED ON WHAT WE DON'T KNOW COMES BACK AT THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR. AM I BEING CORRECT ABOUT THAT?

YEAH, AND YOUR FUND BALANCE IS GOING TO CHANGE GREATLY DEPENDING ON WHAT DEPARTMENTS HIRE AND FIRE, HOW MANY POSITIONS ARE OPEN, WHAT SALES TAX LOOKS LIKE, IF WE GET ANOTHER February, we got a huge sales tax bump, helped offset our loss this year of property taxes. That was, sorry, good news, bad news. That's what I sent your email. It's like, good news, we're getting more sales tax. Bad news, we're getting less property taxes.

Okay. Thank you for that work on that, Ms. Klein. Great.

So, I mean, hearing that number in total, I mean, is there anything else you want to address?

I would like Judge Hines to have an opportunity to come up and address the court.

Good evening or good night.

It is only 920. My son's texting me asking why I'm not home. He was here. He's very angry I sent him home. I know that I had made a request for a staff attorney. I left dinner with my family and actually came down here to talk about why that's important. I know public safety has been a big concern for the court as evidenced by the positions that y'all are willing to fund. But that does include the court system. And right now, our court system is drowning. And we are not able to keep up with the massive amounts of cases coming from the county attorney's office, the increase in dockets. And we are working with three district courts less than Comal County is. And they have a similar population, not to mention they have three full-time district courts and we have one. If we don't get a staff attorney, the reality is we can't keep up with the workload, which is also a danger to the citizens. We can't move people through, get cases closed, get people transferred to TDC if we can't move cases through the system. I've also been working on a jail competency restoration program with Bluebonnet that will require a mental health docket. I'm willing to add that docket, but I need help on the back end. The reason that matters for taxpayers is the average wait time for a bed can be up to a year where the taxpayers are paying for that person to be in Guadalupe County Jail. You would have to ask the sheriff how much that costs per day, but it's a lot. If we can restore them to competency in our jail, we can get them pled, get the case completed, and ultimately save the taxpayers money. But this is something I've been asking for now for two years. And we are at a point that it is almost in crisis for the courts. So I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. I will also say we are putting more burden on the county attorney's office right now because they have to do things that a staff attorney could do, like jury charges and things like that. And I know Mr. Wilborn said that they are also overworked and understaffed. So this would be a stopgap and an effort to stall having to add a complete new district court here in Guadalupe County.

So one of the things that when this was brought up earlier, I said that I wasn't educated enough about at the moment because I had reshifted my focus a little bit with the most recent proposal. So I'm glad that you're here to talk to us about it, is that I know that sometimes the county attorney can fill the role of a staff attorney in a sense. But when it comes to things that are, of course, criminal, then you would have your conflict of interest. So I wanted to talk a little bit about that and talk about maybe I think really also research for the courts probably, right, and briefing on potential appellate issues so that there's no over or at least minimal overturning by the appellate courts and why that's important. So we can maybe talk about that a little bit.

Sure, happy to. So one of the things that a staff attorney brings is not just on the criminal front. Obviously, it's also on the civil side. I'm sure the court's heard me talk about the massive new legislative requirements for civil cases, motions for summary judgment, and things like that. What that is doing is taking time away from my ability and Judge Crawford and Judge Old's ability to even have criminal dockets. If we shift those to a staff attorney and they can do the research and they can help us, we spend less time doing that, more time in the courtroom. The other thing they can help do is research motions to suppress and things of that nature. Everyone's goal is to try these cases one time for lots of reasons. One, resources, but two, the cases that get appealed the most are cases with child victims and you don't ever want a child victim to have to go through a second trial and a staff attorney can be working on things while we are on the bench. we are oftentimes asked to make decisions very quickly and the county attorney's office does their best to give us a heads up but if we can text someone and say i need a research on this i need a case on this right now i can't ask the county attorney's office to do that

Is the county attorney's office even able to fully research or give opinions on certain criminal cases when they're the prosecuting entity?

They're not. So they have to represent their vested interest. They do try their best to try to give both sides if I ask, but that's not their job, and frankly, that's unfair to them. So they're an advocate. They deserve to be allowed to be an advocate and let the justice system work on its own, which is why we need a staff attorney so they can research both sides and present both sides to us.

So I wanted to talk about suppression issues as well for the court. And just what that means is that often in cases, one side will present a motion to suppress, and so that will be suppressing evidence so that the judge or jury, whoever the trier of fact is, cannot consider that evidence and ultimately reaching a verdict. And so that decision by a judge is really important because if they do suppress that evidence and later it's appealed and that appeal is granted, that it means that case has to be tried again with that evidence in consideration for that subsequent verdict, which is bad. It's a huge waste of time and resources and it's terrible for a victim. And so I think for me that that's really of shining importance if we can have someone that provides that stopgap. I think also for the judges when you're so deep into evidence, making rulings, avoiding appeal, that having somebody else that can have an expertise in deeply researching and knowing, I don't know what we're using, Westlaw or Lexis or whatever it is, right? If they're an expert on that, then that allows them to exercise that expertise. And I think if we have somebody that is really good and really competent, that it can very much save us a lot of time and a lot of money in the end.

I agree with Commissioner Ott. And I did, my request was to set it at what a felony line prosecutor would make. I don't want to compete with Mr. Wilborn for quality lawyers. I also understand they're not supervising someone. And so it wouldn't be fair to set them at like the felony chief rate or the family justice chief rate. And so the fairest thing I could think to do so that we all have quality attorneys, the county attorneys and the staff attorney would be to set it at a felony line level.

In court, I was asked by Mr. Wilborn to let the court know that he fully supports this to prevent the backlog. Having a staff attorney as someone who has been a trial attorney for the state, I know that when the judge, when you're preparing for closing arguments, questioning witnesses, running around like mad, having a judge say, oh, state, by the way, I need you to do this, or can you, in addition to preparing your closing argument, can you go prepare the jury charge? Can you go prepare... WE NEED YOU TO DO OUR FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

WHICH IS WHAT WE DO NOW.

AND IT COMES TO US. AND SO I CAN TELL YOU THAT TAKES AWAY FROM, IT SLOWS US DOWN, IT SLOWS THE PROCESS DOWN. AND SO I HAVE EXPERIENCED THAT FIRSTHAND. BUT ON BEHALF OF MR. WILBOURNE, HE DOES SUPPORT THIS AND IT WOULD HELP THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN A BIG WAY.

I ALSO WANTED TO TOUCH ONE MORE THING, COMMISSIONER, ON APPEALS. THE NUMBER ONE WAY CASES GET OVERTURNED IS MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS AND JURY CHARGES AND WE ARE MAKING DECISIONS ON THE FLY AND TRYING TO CHANGE JURY CHARGES AND IF I HAVE SOMEONE WORKING ON THAT FROM START TO FINISH, THERE'S A LOT LESS ERROR IN THAT JURY CHARGE WHICH REDUCES THE RISK OF APPEAL AS WELL.

playing ping pong, but on the same side here, I suppose. But as you all know, the legislature does potentially change every two years. And so I remember as a prosecutor with jury charges, with child victim cases, feeling very challenged about hoping that that jury charge was perfect, and then sometimes you're wanting to research an issue and not even really know, like, what all do I need to research based on all these legislative changes, and I hope I get this right, and the judge told me to come back in 15 minutes, and is that enough time? And I think that is really difficult. It is really nerve-wracking, and ultimately it's nerve-wracking because you want justice for the parties. So just wanting to share my experience with that and how important I think it is.

Well, and ultimately, that burden is not fair for the citizens, right? Because the prosecutors are representing victims, which are your constituents. And it's really unfair for them to be handicapped when the defense isn't experiencing that same handicap because the defense isn't doing the things that we ask. And they've been very gracious about helping, but it's really not fair to the citizens. And we'd like to take that burden off the county attorney's office.

I had brought up before and I didn't get the support, but I would like to go ahead and add the district judge's felony line attorney and also actually a staff attorney and then also their administration going up one step. I know you wanted two, but I don't think I can get two today.

I understand. So here's the reality, right? I'm trying to balance what the court is doing. I've tried to listen to everything that the court is doing. We adore our admin staff. They work very hard. They have been given so many more requirements. But if the answer from the court is we are not doing great increases for anybody, please ask for that next year. I think our administrators are... wonderful enough that they can get behind that and understand, especially if a staff attorney can take some of that workload off of them. I will be coming right back and asking for it next year, but this is my effort to work with the court.

I'm in support of the staff attorney. I think that we have not done paid re-raids across the board, and I think for consistencies in fairness purposes, I think that we need to stay consistent. I am on board with the staff attorney. I really think it's very important and be very meaningful.

Thank you, Commissioner. This would be the pay raise.

Well, you get two on that one. Do you support the staff attorney?

Ms. Klein, is that 165-808-81 on the summary spreadsheet? Is that...

I've already added it. I went down to the county attorney's office, picked one of the felony attorneys, almost make the same amount of money, and it would be $123,600.

But with all the benefits.

It's $163,209.

$163,209.

And if you were to get those three admin assistants up one step, how much would that be?

I believe it would be round numbers. It's three positions, two steps, is like about 43.2 or so.

43,200?

That's two steps.

Okay.

Half-ish.

Are you going to go back and talk about all the other regrades or only those? No, just this one.

IF YOU'LL ACCEPT ONE STEP, MAYBE THAT WILL PASS.

I WOULD ACCEPT ONE STEP, COMMISSIONER WILVERTON, YES.

THAT WOULD BE 21?

IT IS NOW 932.

WE'RE DOING 3% PLUS THE THOUSAND, SO... DID WE RAISE ANYBODY ELSE?

NO, WE'RE NOT RAISING ANYONE ELSE. I don't think you're going to get it this year.

That's OK. Listen, like I said up here, I'm making efforts to work with the court. I am here to say, though, that the district court is a very important part of the process. And without a staff attorney to fill the stop gap, we are drowning. And the next thing we would have to do is ask for a full another district court, which comes with a court administrator and a court reporter and a significantly higher cost increase to the citizens of this county.

Okay.

Do you have any other questions for me?

No, I do not. Oh, ma'am, thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Any other items? Sure. So it was the, I didn't add that number, Chris Klein.

163209, that's with benefits and health insurance and all of that.

I was saying just to the $1,989,018, just so there was a...

I think that was the number. No, these are what we talked about, right? Yeah. Okay.

I could do something like we could say general fund, it takes the payroll to $64,924,055. And that way I make sure that what you have in your numbers are correct. Now, that doesn't include juvenile. It includes everything but juvenile.

Talking about trying to help us get to a point to be able to include that in a motion to consider for approving the budget. I mean, I think, I think this summary sheet that is listed out is probably the most accurate detail of the changes, correct? Correct. And without listing them all, I mean, we could, the cost of living, the new positions for constables, the associate judge, magistrate, fire departments, county attorney, sheriff, commissary, part-time to full-time for JP 1-4, Constable 1-2-3-4. And again, some of these are restating that environmental health change funding from county attorney forfeiture and fire code and volunteer fire departments.

Plus the staff attorney.

Plus the staff attorney. That may be the easiest way to be accurate and have a document that reflects the changes, right?

That would make me maybe feel a little better because I just want to make sure that it all reflects accurately.

Okay. Anything else to talk about during the budget conversation? I don't want to throw a wrench in things, just brainstorming. I do want to ask a question, though.

If the court is willing...

To spend $2,150,000, give or take, out of reserves to address these things that are on this list, is the court willing to spend more out of that to help offset the tax increase? I know that wasn't a big part of the conversation. If it's not, that's fine. I just... Well, just saying, is that part of the... what was previously considered as one of the options of spending money out of reserves.

Correct. So to reduce the tax rate is what you're saying, back to 4%?

Or any, right? Because part of the conversation that goes on is that fund balance, how it got built up, how it is strong, but concerns by some about future spending and what that looks like. But there have been comments out in the public that make you kind of think sometimes that go, hey, if we do have that strong fund balance and there is saved up money, Some of these items that are priorities and a public need should be addressed, but at the same time, should some of it be used to offset the amount of tax rate increase that's going to the public? Right. So what would that number be? It just depends. I mean, it gets back to that same conversation of the appetite of the court going, what's too much out of reserves, right?

Can we pull the chart? I'm sorry, Judge. No, no. Can we pull the chart back up with the options?

Was it this one?

Yeah. And can we talk back?

So if you went back to the 4% increase at a 3493 tax rate.

We're sitting at a little over 2 right now with what Chris figured, right?

It would be an additional $1,145,155. But that may be what you're getting back. Yeah.

That quite possibly could be a wash with what's coming back, but I think the taxpayer is happy.

It does get into that conversation of are you getting back to spending that 2.1 out of reserves and with the tax rate decreased to 4% is covered by the return funds of unspent, correct, budget dollars, right? Right.

When you say tax rate decrease, we are just talking about a decrease in the ceiling, correct?

Correct. A lower amount of... I mean, decrease from the ceiling. A lower amount of increase.

As it turns out, 11 and a half hours makes my brain go...

So back to the judge's original with these positions and everything we've just discussed.

And I'm saying that because I feel like a lot of court members are in this direction of this budget has ended up being a true compromise, right? This is not a budget anybody wanted. It still doesn't reflect anything that really addresses all the needs that everybody's been talking about, but it also has a tax rate increase to the public of us just trying to balance that revenue shortfall. But now that some of those funds have been used to address those needs, Does it make it a little bit easier, a little bit softer to say we're also considering the amount of tax rate increase to the public and using some of those saved up dollars where it's at this point only a little bit more and we're addressing kind of all the concerns?

My calculation says that we'll be taking 3.295 out of reserve to make everything work to go back to the 4% increase in taxes.

Chris Klein. Yes, ma'am.

Can I start entering those changes? Do we have a consensus to make those changes?

On what you went over on the blue sheets?

Correct.

It seemed like there were at least three court members that were willing to support the changes on the blue sheet.

Correct. Yes. Yes.

Okay, so let's can we talk about the options on on both far sides of this if that is our that is our prize package If we pulled none out of general funding it all went into a tax increase versus if we pull if we did no tax Increase and pulled it all at a general fund. What are our parameters and what's in the middle?

So if we You're saying if we pulled If we went to the, and it depends on current rate versus no new revenue rate.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I was just, if you could just give the boundaries of each one and then we can talk about what the range that we're working within. No, no problem.

So the current year is at 3304. No new revenue rate is supposed to bring in the previous year tax money. If we went to that, we're $4 million short on maintenance and operation. That's only an M&O number. It's probably a little bit above that if you had to pull everything out of reserves. And that's with none of the changes we've talked about, right? If we're talking about making those changes in addition to this, we're adding $2.15 million to whatever number we're talking about. But just the no new revenue rate, we'd have to pull $4 to $5 million out of reserves. And the 5.65% increase at the 3549 is just break even With the COLA only, no extra longevity in any of the changes. And then we were talking about, in addition, that pulling out 2.15.

5.65 increase is pulling 2.1 out of reserves.

Correct.

So we could move money from the two, the building and the land purchase.

You're saying try to move back to 4%, correct?

If we move back to 4%, it would be 2.1 plus that figure at the bottom of the 4%. Correct.

In the parentheses. Yes. $3,295,155.

So that would be the building purchase line, the land purchase line, and the little less than $300,000 that would come out of potentially the text dot match. Is the TxDOT match an estimate or is the TxDOT match something that it's like an all-or-none package?

It's an estimate that has been tried to build upon multiple years, and not to belabor it, just because the TxDOT funding shift and dynamics completely changing. If you want a project in state and federal funding, you have to use local dollars to initiate it. You don't have to initiate a project, but that means you're not going to get state and federal dollars to do major transportation projects.

Judge, do you have handy the chart of the tax increases over time? Sure do.

So you're talking about the tax rate?

Yeah. Like this? Yes. Well, do you have it by percentage? Do we have it by percentage?

Yes. Okay. This one? I don't think it shows a percentage. What I have done in the past he's one of the easiest ways to look at this Is to go to Where would you like to start Let's just say So six point five percent increase is that what you're looking at or the amount of

Yeah, just how the numbers match up to the different options that we're looking at in our columns. Sure.

10.9%, 6.5%, 6.74%, 9.62%. And we'll look at a couple more of these. 4.93%. 6.22%. Okay. Now, these notices are a little bit challenging because it's combining The amount of new revenue in a calculation that truth in taxation so like when we talk about a 5.65% tax rate increase our budget notice is still going to read 6.2%. So that's not exactly that number when you look at that because of the state requirements on how we're mandated to inform the public of what revenue is coming in. It's a little bit deceiving.

So 5.65 will reflect the 6.2 in the notice?

Correct.

Okay. And what was 2020?

Okay, thanks. 7.7. Let me go back to this. I want to make sure I didn't tell you something wrong. So here's the notice for the budget as we're talking about it. This is the proposed budget. So it shows that 6.2% increase, even though the tax rate increase over the no new revenue rate is 5.65%. So, I mean, to your point, I don't know if you're just asking that or what, but, I mean, the 6.2 is not that far off from other tax rate increases.

I wanted to observe the trend from a percentage standpoint, because I think that's something we hadn't really looked at. Thank you.

I didn't want to muddy the water, but I did have a few individuals that I've had budget conversations, just citizens, ask about fund balance and go, look, I think some of these things should be funded, but if there's extra money there and it's that bad, citizens are also coupled with higher cost and higher everything. Shouldn't some of those funds be used to offset the amount of tax rate increase? But then it gets back into, oh, then you're spending more on a fund balance or offsetting what would be coming back.

Right. You're basically washing. From the averages that typically come back fiscal year to fiscal year, it's a wash.

But like what you were talking about, Commissioner Engelke, if at the 2.15 out of fund balance, you expect to get, let's say, half of that back at least, right, of unspent funds. If we went down to the 4% just to try to limit the amount of increase as much as possible, you're probably going to get that 1.15 or 1.5 back. Correct. It's not going to be $3.5 million out of the fund balance, right? Correct. Maybe closer to $2.5 million out of fund balance. Right.

So I'm good with that. I think we've done a great job of going through all of this. Vital positions, now looking at decreasing the proposed rate, getting a little out of the general reserve. SAVE THE TAXPAYER MONEY, PROVIDE JOBS FOCUSED AROUND PUBLIC SAFETY, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT.

ARE YOU SAYING THE 4% OR THE 5.65?

WELL, IF THAT'S WHAT THE JUDGE WAS SAYING, DO WE WANT TO GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER WITH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE CEILING SET AT 3549. We have that ability to go down back to his proposed 4%. With what I'm saying, you see in the parentheses there, it says one point, I can't see quite that well, 1.15 million, something like that. Yeah, $1,145,000. That typically comes back fiscal year that's not spent, fiscal year 26 to 27. That typically comes back, goes back in the reserve. So on my end, I'm thinking it's a wash. So we're good at 4% with taking that $2 million we've discussed out of the reserves.

What does 4% read on the notice?

That's a great question. Chris, can you?

Actually, I can't.

Do we have that? We have that notice in the recommended budget, right?

Yeah, it would have been there.

Yes, correct. It should be in the recommended budget.

I can live with that 4%. I'm a little bit concerned about what if we wind up with the same mess next year that we have this year, where we're going to have to go into the fund balance again. That's the thing I'm concerned about. But I could live with it.

In the big scheme of things, it's just a very small amount to take out of reserve.

besides we approve it taxpayers will be happier and you get to go home well the other thing is too if you if you look at some of the cities and and and i know the school districts are coming they're going to get pounded with taxes so we don't need to we don't need to compound the problem i know chris is looking for that i mean and not to

Not to beat the issue over and over. I mean, it would have been very different if the revenue loss and the appraisal loss wasn't there. I think we would have been in a position with increased sales tax to be able to consider 20 to 30 new county positions, adjustments, needed equipment, a number of things, and not had the tax increase that we're talking about.

Yes, ma'am. So I pulled it up on my spreadsheet and in the original recommended budget with 4%. That is a 3493 rate. The notice shows that that's a 4.75% increase because it's based on how much it's based on your budget. And we increased the reason it's 4.75 is because you increased your debt service.

Do you have, what is the breakdown of, give me just a second, I have it here.

It should be 2752. Hold on, is this 2752.0212 and 0529? For 3493, yes, sir.

So M&O is 2752. Debt service is 0212. Model Road 0529.

With the overall tax rate being back to what you had originally said.

And not, I mean, I believe there's a majority of Commissioner's Court that's willing to vote on the previous option. I'm just thinking, for me, I think it changes the discussion to be able, I'm still concerned about the future with potential changes and the tax rate implication, all those things. But if there's a willingness to address those needed issues out of the fund balance, if we can help offset a little bit of that increase for the taxpayers, I think I'm more inclined to support it.

All right. I don't have that blue sheet. I don't have that sheet. I don't have that sheet.

So would we just need to reference that entire?

Just reference each one individually or just read it off, Ms. Klein?

Chris Klein, if we, Chris, if there is a potential motion to consider to approve the budget, And the motion just references this summary sheet of changes to the proposed budget with the addition of the staff attorney on it. Is that, are you good with that?

That's good. And whatever other things you were talking about with the major capital projects that you either are or not, if you don't mind.

Because if there's a change to those capital, if we're removing those from capital project fund 700. They need to be removed from the list, right?

Correct. And then I need to move the transfers in, transfers out.

Let's go to this real quick. Here's the capital project bill list, or capital project fund 700 list of those listed items. So if you take the building out.

Gosh, I'm sorry. So if you did the, as been discussed before, if you did take the $2 million, for the building purchase out of play. Does that cover what we're talking about?

It does, but we go back to that where it's you have an unassigned fund balance of $49.6 million with $8,750,000. Even if you left these in, you're still basically what we're doing is deficit budgeting. We have more expenses than revenue. Whatever shortfall we have, you're pulling from reserves. That's what we're talking about right now, right? Right. So whether it's for these changes, any of that stuff, you can swap and plug and play.

Or just say it's out of the general reserve fund. You don't have to itemize.

It's the same thing. Correct, correct. I get that, yeah. If the court wants to, yes, we can absolutely remove building purchase and or land purchase from this. the result, I think, is going to be the same. It'll be the same. That's, I mean, is when it gets down to that. It's just the preference of the court, basically.

I think it'd be a good idea to remove both of them at this present time and just finish up what we have on the books now.

So you're saying remove those two?

Yes, sir.

Okay. And in a pinch, I mean, it's all reserve money. If it's needed, if there's something comes up, then it can be there. Okay.

Yes, sir. $3 million.

Do we need to remove the second one, or are we solid with removing the first one, just the first one, and we break even with what we have? I mean, I know it's not break even. That's the wrong term for it.

No, but is it more a balanced approach from what we think we're going to spend? Because it's about $2,152,000 with the additions on the summary sheet, the changes to the proposed budget, and then the other... Going from 5.65 to 4 with the anticipated unspent funds from the departments, that kind of washes. Is that what you're saying?

Yes, if it factors between like 260K and 290K. Correct. Yeah. So, I mean, we get there with, if that's the in-between and we get there with just removing the building purchase.

Okay.

If that, if.

Yes. Understood. Okay. i'm going to make a motion at 9 56 p.m to adopt the guadalupe county budget for fiscal year 2026 2027 fy 27 with the changes to the proposed budget discussed with also the consideration of the building purchase for 2 million to be

removed from that capital projects list and adding that staff attorney for the district judge position. All right. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Do you have a motion and a second to adopt the Guadalupe County budget for fiscal year 2026, 2027? Yes, ma'am.

I hate to even bring this up, but does that include the pay raise for the county auditor? Because it would make, it was included when they did that, but is that part of your motion? Does that include the raise for the auditor?

Was it?

Because it would exceed the highest paid elected official and the court would need to approve, the commissioner's court would need to approve that.

So it wasn't automatically included when 3% was put in the budget for everybody except elected officials? Correct. So it was already in there, you're just saying that

I want to make sure it's very transparent so that it's not either it needs to be included or specifically not included because I don't want to not present it.

You don't want it to be in there and not people know it's in there, right? So it's already included in there. We just really need to everybody needs to understand if we're voting on this, it is including that and What you're saying is with that 3%, you're exceeding the highest competent elected official?

Elected official.

Mr. Tyes, any?

I would say, Commissioner Ingleke, if you're going to include that, it could be.

You want me to withdraw and amend it? No, you don't have to withdraw. Okay.

You can state that it's included in your motion as long as your second approves the second to that.

OK, well, then I will do as such. I will state that the auditor's salary, COLA, 3%, is included in the budget.

Correct. Now, as long as Commissioner Gurman seconds. Second.

Yeah. OK. So we do have a motion and a second to adopt the budget.

Any other comments or questions? Just two. You deserve the raise tonight, believe me. As much as we put you through, you really do deserve it. I didn't get everything I wanted, but it's enough inside of the way there for me to vote with it.

Okay. Any other comments, questions? No, sir. All right, all those in, with no, hearing no other comments or questions, no further discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. We'll move to item O, set the 2026 tax rate to fund maintenance and operation expenditures for fiscal year 2027. And court, as talked about if it still is the wish of the court to be at a total tax rate of 3493. Correct. Then that maintenance and operation tax rate would need to be set at 2752. I so move. Second. I do have a motion and a second to set the 2026 tax rate to fund maintenance and operation expenditures for fiscal year 2027 at .2752 cents. Any other comments or questions? Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. Item P, set the 2026 tax rate to fund lateral road expenditures for fiscal year 2027. And the lateral road rate would need to be set at 0.0529. Move to approve. Second. I do have a motion and a second to set the lateral road tax rate for expenditures in fiscal year 2027 at .0529. Any other comments or questions?

No, sir.

All right. Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. And item Q, set the tax rate 2026 to fund debt service expenditures for fiscal year 2027. And that rate would be 0.0212. So moved.

Second.

We did have a motion and a second. to approve item Q and set the tax rate for 2026 to fund debt service expenditures at 0.0212. Any other discussion? All right, hearing no other comments or questions, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. And we'll move to item R, the order setting the 2026 tax rate For Guadalupe County, again, this is based on the 5.65, and it shows a different maintenance and operation tax rate than the actions we just So we would need to change this order setting the 2026 tax rate to reflect the maintenance and operation going from 2808 to 2752 and the total tax rate from 3549 to 3493. 3498. 3493. Is that correct, Chris? Yes. Okay.

I so move. Second.

We do have a motion in the second to approve and adopt the order for the 2026 tax rate for Guadalupe County with a total tax rate of 0.3493 with maintenance and operation at 2752, INS at 0212, and a lateral road at 0529. Any other comments or questions? No, sir. All right, hearing no other discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. And item S, ratify the property tax increase reflected in the fiscal year 2026, 2027 or FY27 budget pursuant to local government code section 111.008C. Chris, is this in reference on that section of the code for that statement that reflects that 4.75% tax rate increase that shows the additional amount of revenue and from new property that summarizes that, correct? Correct. So is there a specific language we have to use in that motion so it's done accurately?

Reading the statute right now, it says adoption of a budget that will require raising more revenue from property taxes than in the previous year requires a separate vote of the commissioner's court to ratify the property tax increase reflected in the budget. A vote under this subsection is in addition to and separate from the vote to adopt the budget or a vote to set the tax rate required by chapter 26 tax code or other law.

That is what it says.

So I would recommend that. MOVED TO RATIFY THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE REFLECTED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 27 BUDGET. FISCAL YEAR 27 ADOPTED BUDGET. THAT WOULD BE MY LANGUAGE, RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE.

SO JUST THAT ADOPTED BUDGET BASICALLY IN WHAT'S STATED HERE PRETTY MUCH? So move to ratify the property tax increase reflected in the adopted fiscal year 26-27 budget pursuant to local government code subsection 111.008. Yes.

Second.

We have a motion and a second on action item S. Any further comments or questions? Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. And we'll move to item T, the request for a variance from the requirements of section 10, road construction, section A9, general requirements, Guadalupe County subdivision regulations relative to 550 Riley Road, lot 7E of the Herbert Riley subdivision located in precinct one. Commissioner Ahn.

Yes, at the request of the individual who is requesting the variance, I would ask that we take no action on this item today. And Miss Rogers, if you would either remind me or if you'd put it on September 15th's agenda. Thank you.

So we'll take no action on item T. We'll move to number eight on our agenda, announcement of upcoming Guadalupe County public events. Anybody? Like to make an announcement of an upcoming event?

Well, there was one for tonight, but it's over with, so I can't announce it anymore.

I have a few announcements. So the City of New Braunfels and Seguin will hold separate 9-11 memorial events for 9-11. New Braunfels Police Department will hold theirs at 7.30 a.m. at the main plaza. And City of Seguin will hold their September 11th event at Downtown Central Park at 8.45 a.m. And that's on Friday, 9-11. National Night Out is October 6th, so please contact your county first responders and law enforcement departments to request a visit.

Thank you. Any other announcements?

Just real quick. is our last budget judge definitely a memorable one i wanted to thank you especially ms klein for our 12-hour 12-hour day that we just had but thank you very much it's it's a good budget i think we did a great job I think we worked through it, and I think we did a good job. So, thank you all very much.

I'm going to ditto that. I mean, it's been a long day, but we hammered it out, and that's the way people should do. Okay.

All right. Our next regularly scheduled Commissioner's Court will be September 15th. Is that correct? That's correct. All right. We've already addressed... Item 9 on our agenda. We'll move to item 10. Is there a motion to adjourn? Move to adjourn. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? And we are adjourned at 10.08 p.m.