Commissioners Court - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everybody. Today is September 1st, 2026. The time is 10.02 a.m. I'll call this regular session of Commissioner's Court to order with our pledges to the flags and a moment of silent prayer. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Honor the Texas flag.

I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. Amen. Thank you. It's great to see everybody this morning with us. I hope everyone's doing well. We're going to move to item three on our agenda, which are citizens to be heard. I will keep a time and give an update of about a minute remaining for the speaker. If you'll please just come up to the podium. When I call your name, please state your name and then begin your comments. The first is Michael, is it Mayer? Mayer, I apologize. Come on up. Five minutes, sir. Good morning.

Thank you, sir. Good morning, Judge Kutcher and commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. As a longtime resident, homeowner, and independent businessman in Guadalupe County, I care about this community's future. This is why I'm here to strongly oppose this 5.65% tax rate hike. Do not tell us this is an unavoidable emergency. The facts show a series of choices. Sheriff Ray has publicly stated that budget constraints could force him to pull school resource officers out of Navarro and Marion ISD schools. At the same time, his department is requesting $1.28 million for 21 new vehicles this year after already budgeting 1.11 million for vehicles last year, plus another 600,000 to equip them. That is nearly 1.9 million for vehicles and outfitting, while school safety coverage is treated as secondary. Where has he been willing to tighten his own budget the way he expects taxpayers to tighten theirs? Last September, this court raised property taxes 4% and used the money for substantial raises for elected officials. How far down the organization chart did those increases actually go? telling county workers who are struggling under the same inflation as the rest of us that you appreciate them rings hollow when their paychecks don't reflect it, especially while several elected officials have filed salary grievances seeking even more of our money for themselves. For years, the appraisal district has taxed us on inflated market values, paper gains we never received. The state legislature then cut homeowners a break with homestead relief. This court answered by raising the rate and clawing back those savings. You are sitting on $49.6 million in unassigned reserves, more than $20 million above your own required cushion. Yet this budget still draws down $8.75 million from those reserves while asking taxpayers for another 5.65% increase. If this were truly a financial emergency, these reserves would be used instead of raising taxes. These are choices, not inevitabilities. The court has given massive 10-year property tax abatements to tech giants like Cloudburst and Palomino Alpha. At the same time, Judge Kutcher and his family own approximately 186 acres of land involved with the Palomino Alpha Data Center project. A lawsuit has been filed in district court alleging a conflict of interest in how these deals were handled. We, the taxpayers, are now forced to pay to defend that case. This raises serious questions about whether private interests are being prioritized while everyday homeowners and rural landowners are asked to make up the difference. Raising taxes one more time as you prepare to leave office is not responsible stewardship. You get to walk away. We get the bill and live with higher taxes for years to come. I urge you to do the right thing and reject this tax increase. Vote no. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Yes, sir.

All right, next is Monty Parker.

Good morning. Morning. I was going to speak on the agenda item, but this is fine.

It doesn't matter. Any speaker that signed up, it's your choice. If you'd like to speak now, you're welcome to. If you'd like to wait until the item, you tell us and we can do that also. Not that far until the item. I'll be fine. Yes, sir.

Good morning, Judge and Commissioners. I'm Michael Parker. I am a resident of Guadalupe County. I'm here today to ask you to make public safety a higher priority in the 2027 budget. I want to be clear that I recognize that this court has funded the sheriff's office and added positions in the past, but the question before us now is whether the proposed budget provides the staffing our county needs today. According to information provided by the sheriff's office, we are approximately 90 sworn officers, deputies, I'm sorry, below safe operational staffing standards. Calls for service are up by approximately 1,100 per day over this time last year. per month. Sorry about that. The Sheriff's Office submitted a request for additional personnel, including additional deputies and supervisory staff. The county jail requested 25 additional detention officers, yet the proposed 27 budget contains zero new positions. At the same time, the proposed budget includes $3 million for future land and potential building purchases, along with $8.75 million in new capital projects funded from the general fund. The proposed budget also projects a general fund balance of approximately $20.6 million above the county's own 20% reserve target. This is simply not a question of whether the county has money. It's a question of priorities. We are a growing county. The demands on law enforcement are increasing. Our jail houses nearly the same number of inmates as neighboring Comel County, yet Guadalupe County has dramatically fewer budgeted detention officers. We can buy new buildings. We can purchase land. We can buy patrol vehicles, radios, and equipment, but equipment cannot answer a 911 call. A patrol vehicle cannot respond to an emergency without a deputy behind the wheel. I understand that you have to make difficult budget decisions, but those decisions reveal what we value most. I'm asking this court to reconsider the proposed budget, to work with the sheriff to add sworn personnel and detention staff as the sheriff's office has determined. Before we prioritize future buildings and discretionary projects, we need to make sure we have enough people to protect the citizens who are here today. Public safety should not be what is left over after everything else is funded. It should be one of the county's first priorities. At the end of the day, will your vote reflect what your constituents want or what you want? Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Noah Webster. Good morning.

Good morning, Judge and Commissioners. My name is Noah Webster. I live in Precinct 2, and I'm a proud Navarro ISD parent. I have read the 244-page proposed budget, and I do genuinely understand the pressures that you have conveyed. Lower taxable value, rising insurance, real growth costs. These are simple facts. Here's another fact. This budget asks taxpayers for more money before it has forced real cuts. Calling this budget restrained because it adds no new positions is not the same thing as cutting waste. From 2022 to now, the pattern established in your published budgets has been growth. Unmitigated growth. not prioritization, not optimization, not lean, not efficiency, growth. So let me be clear about what I am not saying. The sheriff's office faces real population-driven demand. We've grown. More people, more calls. It's simple. The county fire department needs equipment. Simple. Schools require security. Public safety is not the place for casual cuts. But legitimacy does not mean that every dollar on every line is automatically justified. 14 positions in this budget pay over $100,000. Two of those salaries are set by state law, so I discount those. The remaining 12 are decided by this body. Since 2022, this body has enabled those salaries to increase or hold at over $100,000. None have been reduced. That should be examined before any tax rate is even discussed. Of the four JP offices, just as the peace offices, they carry the same duties and responsibilities before state law. One of them, downstairs, JP2, runs 35% to 62% lower operating costs than the other three. And when you compare caseloads, it doesn't add up. So credit to Judge Shockley downstairs, this is called a management success. But it's not equally applied or expected from the other JPs. This court should study on why one JP office can run such a lean and efficient operation and the others cannot. And then there's still discretionary expending on the table that has yet to be discussed. Automotive allowances totaling $82,400. I haven't had an allowance in 30 years, so forgive me. Vehicle purchases, training, memberships, non-urgent capital. A serious package of these items alone is $1.8 million. And they are the lowest risk cuts in your entire 244-page budget. If you had a hard look at our animal shelter, I've rapidly approached, in my underwear at home, half. of your $5 million request. There's another set of decisions this court has already made that also belongs in this discussion. Your Chapter 312 agreements, also known as tax abatements, had not been approved, the county would likely have more levy today. Some of those large projects might also not be here. However, this is the trade-off. Abatements can bring investment. They remove taxable value from the role and shift this pressure onto us, the taxpayers. Those prior choices are part of why this budget is so tight. That should be acknowledged and taken into consideration before asking the public for a tax increase. Now, accountability requires owning that trade-off, Judge. you cannot approve large multi-year tax abatements and then treat the resulting revenue shortfall and the pressure created as an unavoidable reason to raise taxes on existing homeowners and businesses, not without first exhausting internal cuts. So the question I have for you is very simple. Will this court raise taxes first and cut later Or will it demand performance, efficiency, and accountability of the decisions already made and only then decide whether a tax rate is still necessary? When the county raises its rates, it is not doing it in a vacuum. It stacks more pressure onto every family across the county, already carrying school tax and growth costs in districts like Navarro. This is not an abstract. This is the cumulative tax burden of the people who live here. I am asking you to stop a rate increase until you have demonstrated due diligence on internal cuts and the fiscal consequences of the abatements approved by this court. Not after. First. I believe that we taxpayers will always fund what is necessary, but we should not be asked to fund what has not been challenged. Thank you for your time, and God bless Texas.

Thank you. Richard A. Koontz. Good morning. How are you?

Good morning.

My name is Richard A. Koontz, resident of Guadalupe County, here to speak on proposed next year's budget. Heard some disturbing information that concerns me, my family, my friends, and fellow residents of this county. One of the most disturbing is the basic work that the sheriff has done and proposed to help expand protections for the citizens of this county, which was turned down. I understand these are not easy decisions made as commissioners of this court. There's a lot of different interests that you have to balance, and I'm sure all of you are trying to make the best decision that you feel is in the best interest of the citizens of this county. But not expanding and adding new deputies that are needed for the safety and protection of the citizens, businesses, and future growth of the county is the wrong decision. It's not an easy one. There's a lot of people that have to bear a burden. There are other areas, as has already been mentioned, that we may look at to try to cut to help fund those. I encourage you strongly, look heavily at that. It's not an easy decision to tell somebody, no, you can't have this program or we have to cut back because we have to look out for the safety of the citizens. That's top priority. It saddens me to see that we've made these decisions and we're heading down this road, and it is concerning because, to me, it's a road that we keep heading down towards. I've seen that not just in this county but in other areas of this state. We live in a time of good safety, and sometimes we take that as granted and think everything's going to be okay. But when you are in a crisis, you're in an emergency, and you need those resources, and they're not available because you weren't willing to make those tough decisions ahead of time, you can't make that up. So again, I urge you strongly, please reconsider. Expand the safety for the citizens of this county. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Craig Russell. Mr. Russell, how are you?

Good morning, Judge. Good morning. How are you all doing? As you all know, my family owns more than 1,000 feet of the waterfronts on Dead Man's Creek and Lake Placid. I bring more than 30 years of direct experience on activity on Lake Placid. From 2010 to 2017, our property served as a primary staging area for the Texas Game Wardens working Lake Placid. I also speak from a professional budget experience. In my day job, I work for an environmental services company with more than $60 million in revenue. I manage one of eight divisions serving throughout Texas. I review P&L performance and budgets on an oversight daily. I have nearly over 40 years of operational and budget experience. For those reasons, I support the public safety priority behind Judge Ray. proposal to reallocate the $3 million currently reserved for possible land and building purchases. Sound budgeting means matching limited resources to the most immediate, measurable, and operational need. A reserve for a credible near-term property acquisition can be justified, but the court should compare the possible future need against the documented staffing and public safety needs that now exist. Lake Placid

is not returning to the community it left.

Since the dam construction began in 2023, the official consensus estimates show Guadalupe County added a little over 11,000 residents, reaching 201,225 as far as Guadalupe County. Saginaw alone added a little over 4,000 residents, reaching 41,000. That is a 13.4% increase growth in nearly two years. Lake Placid returned to normal pool levels this year after years of restricted recreational use. The public is returning to a lake that largely was unavailable during extraordinary population growth. Sons Island reopened with 55 waterfront cabanas and over at Highway 90 they opened up with 40 plus rental boat facilities. Our own active duty military and veteran water service activities at my location with the SS American Memorial coming back online. This is not just a request for a boat. Renewed lake means more vehicles, trailers, more public pressure at public access points, more traffic on surrounding roads, more calls involving accidents, disturbances, missing persons, swimmers, disabled boats, emergency response. The sheriff needs enough commissioned personnel to cover the lake and the surrounding area without weakening response elsewhere in the county. Texas game wardens are the primary state water safety enforcement officers, and I worked closely with them for many years. But game wardens cannot replace local patrol, traffic enforcement, and shoreside response. The filed fiscal year 27 budget contains no new positions or no identified marine patrol. sheriff ray proposed funding 14 positions across 11 county offices through the 3 million reallocation that proposed proposal reduced more than 100 requests to a priority list however the two sheriff positions shown in the list are crime victim liaison and a record supervisor both are important but neither is a patrol deputy I ask the court to support Sheriff Ray's reallocation effort and add commission patrol capacity for Lake Placid and the surrounding area. Those positions should be filled now before Peak Lake MT exposes the staffing gap. I also ask the court to finance the plan responsibly. Use suitable one-time funds for one-time needs such as a patrol boat, trailer, rescue, safety equipment, and marine training. fund permanent deputies from a dependable reoccurring revenue source. If a property acquisition is genuinely near term, preserve what it reasonably requires, but do not preserve all $3 million for possible future use while demonstrated public safety needs to go unfunded. One minute remaining. Sheriff Ray has made visible progress with the sheriff's system today. But equipment and systems cannot patrol a road, answer a car, or perform a rescue without trained people. Growth will not wait for the next budget cycle. Lake activity will not wait. Please give Sheriff Ray Patrol staffing and one-time equipment need to keep pace with the county services. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Chrissy, sorry, I can't read the last name. Fila. Fila, I apologize. How are you?

I'm good, thank you. Good morning, Judge and Commissioners. My name is Chrissy Fila. I'm here today on behalf of the Guadalupe County Sheriff's Citizen Academy alumni. Those of us who have gone through the Citizens Academy have had the opportunity most residents in the county haven't had. We've been inside the sheriff's office. We've toured the facilities. We've met the deputies, detention officers, dispatchers and staff. We've seen firsthand what these men and women are responsible for every single day. And I can tell you it's a lot. What also became very clear to us is there's simply not enough people to do the job this county is asking them to do.

These aren't numbers on a spreadsheet to us anymore. We've met these people.

We've seen what happens behind the scenes when someone calls 911. We've seen what it takes to patrol a county road. We've seen the detention operation and the responsibilities that come with keeping that facility safe. We've seen the amount of work being carried by these men and women of this department. And there's another cost. to being this understaffed that we cannot ignore. It's overtime. When there aren't enough deputies and detention officers to cover the required shift, the work does not disappear, someone still has to do it. That means existing employees are working additional hours and the county is paying overtime at a higher hourly cost simply to maintain the necessary coverage. we should be looking very closely at how many overtime hours are currently being required because of these staffing shortages and what those hours are costing taxpayers. At some point, repeatedly paying overtime to compensate for a vacant or unfunded position stops being a savings. It becomes an expensive way of managing a staffing problem that still hasn't been resolved. and there's a human cost to that overtime too. These men and women are working long hours in jobs that already require constant attention and good judgment. Fatigue and burnout matter in law enforcement and corrections. We cannot continue asking the same people to fill every gap indefinitely. You cannot continually to ask fewer people to do more and more and expect there eventually not to be consequences. And those consequences don't just affect the sheriff's office. They affect every one of us. When there aren't enough patrol deputies, response times and coverages are affected. When there aren't enough detention officers, the safety of the people working inside that jail is affected. And when staffing becomes so thin that deputies have to be moved from one critical responsibility to cover another, eventually something has to give. And that should concern everyone in this room. And I think it's important to remember why each of you sit on this court. You're elected to represent the people of Guadalupe County. The decisions made here should reflect the needs and priorities of the community you were elected to serve. We are here telling you that the public safety is one of those priorities. This is not about politics. It's not about personalities. And it shouldn't be about which elected official proposed which plan. This is about public safety. Guadalupe County is growing. Calls for service are growing. The responsibilities of the Sheriff's Office is growing. The staffing has not kept up. We understand the Commissioner Court has a responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer money, and we expect you to be. But there's money in this budget. So this is ultimately a question of priorities. If you have the resources available, then adequately staffing the agency responsible for protecting the people of Guadalupe County should be one of the highest priorities. A healthy reserve account will not answer a 911 call. It's not going to patrol a county road. It's not going to supervise a jail pod. And it will not stand between a child and a threat at one of our schools.

One minute remaining.

People do those things. Deputies do those things. Detention officers do those things. And right now, there's simply not enough of them. On behalf of the Citizen Academy alumni, I'm asking the court to listen to what the sheriff, the men and women doing this job, and the citizens you are elected to represent are telling you. The need is real. The money is available. Please fund the request. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Next is Patton Zarate. Yes, sir. Robin Villareal. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Lane Ward. Yes, sir. Steven Fikes.

Good morning. Good morning, gentlemen, ma'am. Voted for you. Voted for you. Voted for you.

I voted for you, I think. I don't think so.

Maybe you owe me money. So I don't do good with prepared notes. I like personally engaging. I was going to reserve to the item, but I'm going to say hello. I'm out of New Braunfels. Now I'm in the county. Now y'all got to deal with me. I was part of the group that helped fundamentally change the New Braunfels City Council and the new mayor. I hope we don't have to do that here. I know three of you are on your way out. I don't think we will. I'm here to simply ask for just common sense. Remember, the three of you that are leaving are about to be citizens. You're going to be in HEB, hopefully not Walmart. Walmart sucks, right? We're going to see you out there. You're going to have to deal with us and interact with us as fellow citizens. You're going to need the services that we all need, not that you don't now, but on a more personal level. You're going to be in a position to be served instead of being the servants and the representatives for us. So thank you for your service. Thank you for running. Thank you for dealing with all the misinformation out there, to which I'd like just to make sure that everybody here knows State law says the school districts are responsible for establishing their own safety program. Our amazing sheriff has supplemented that where he's seen weaknesses out of his own shallow budget. And when I say shallow, I mean it's just not conducive to operating a safe department right now. So what she said, everything.

I can't one up you.

So fire department. We have a volunteer fire department that tries but just can't handle the growth. Frankly, they miss calls, don't answer calls. We have Guadalupe County Fire Department now. It's time to trickle a little bit of that money into SO and FD and let the volunteer fire department supplement those calls. We've got a fire department that don't have a home. Well, they have a home, but they can't staff it because we don't have money. Now, all of us here are trying to tell you guys how to do your job with our money. We don't see the things that you all see behind closed doors, and you've got to sit there and listen to us talk and yap and oftentimes out of context because we're ill-educated. Better educate us, right? I mean, one way or the other, we're going to find out. 3A, you ain't going to be here to have to deal with the fallout if there's anything that you don't educate us on properly. But just remember that. You saw what happened in New Braunfels. Didn't they say Seguin's the next New Braunfels? No. No. Hopefully we're better prepared for the growth that's inevitable than DuBonfils was. So all this back and forth, guys, commissioner's court with the sheriff and with the school district that like to speak out of turn sometimes. My wife teaches there. I'm an employer. I'm a Marine Corps vet. I'm a taxpayer. And I observe. And then I make decisions and I rabble rouse. And I'll use all of those to rabble rouse, ask the teachers, ask my brother Marines, and ask LE and FD. So I'd like you all to keep your seats, the ones that are still here after the other three are gone. And I'd like you to be good citizens and friends once you're gone, knowing that you make good decisions with our money, right? Think it through when you have your conversations outside of being in front of us, what we're asking for you. Safety for the community. Fund SO properly. Fund FD. Pull back that money you're going to give to volunteers. Bless their hearts. Let them get what FD doesn't need, right, older equipment or whatever, just whatever is supplemental, and let FD step up and do what they're designed to do. Please, fund them properly. And if you see me in H-E-B, I'll buy you barbecue. But I'd really rather Schultz. So thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Karen Macias.

Good morning.

Good morning, commissioners and judge and commissioners. I'm Karen Macias, a resident of Cibolo since 1995. Mr. Wolverton is my commissioner. My message is twofold. Budget responsibilities and safety concerns for your citizens, your decisions also affect not just the citizens but the future generations in our sheriff's department. Please take your fiduciary duty seriously. Our citizens and future generations deserve a sound budget that also manages growth and safety. I appreciate Sheriff Ray's transparency about what is going on in this Commissioner's Court. Your citizens should not have to come here to tell you safety should be first for your residents and your deputies. Please support Sheriff Ray with his budget. and for his staff, I say thank you to all of them and the deputies here today. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. We don't have anybody else that signed up under Citizens to be Heard. Is there anybody else in the courtroom that would like to speak under Citizens to be Heard? Is there anybody online or on the call that would like to speak and address Commissioner's Court at this time? Okay. I know we still have a few individuals that signed up to speak that are going to wait until the public hearing on the budget. If somebody would like to speak during the public hearing but has not signed up, please raise your hand. We'll try to identify you and invite you up to the podium. All right, we're going to move to item four on our agenda, which is a presentation, and that's retirement recognition for Dr. Teresa Salsedge for her years of service to Guadalupe County. I know we have a few gifts to present. I do want to invite up Dr. T and staff from HR. We won't make her give a big speech today, but today is her last day. She is retiring. I believe going to go spend some more time with family and all that. We just really, I'm sure others have comments, but we just wanted to take a moment and show you our appreciation and our thanks. You've been phenomenal in every way, so just wanted to say thank you for everything. Court members?

Go ahead.

Well, of course, thank you, Dr. T. It's been an honor to work with you. You will be missed. Your impact has been very positive and always honest and forthright, and that's the way you are, and I appreciate that. Your personality fitted to a T with this responsibility that you had. One of the tougher roles in the county, being HR director for different departments. And truly appreciate you and wish you the best.

Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Go ahead. Go ahead.

I've only known you for about eight months now, but you're a fantastic person. I've learned so much from you, and we will miss you dearly. So have a good life and enjoy it.

Thank you so much.

I'm just going to say, I'm going to tell the people online and in this audience, 95% of the time when you walk in that justice center and you hang a right and you go down that hall, that lady's office is open. And that lady welcomes you into her office. And her expertise, you cannot match it. In what she does, the advice she gives, words can't describe it. But that friendly open door, that is so important. That is so important. We're going to seriously miss her. It will be extremely difficult to replace her. She has absolutely been an asset to this county.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Commissioner? Well, you know I love you. It's so...

interesting and entertaining and educational every time I talk to you.

You have an amazing ability to look at things from such an aerial view. And you know all of the problems. And you're still positive all the time. And when things have gotten out of control, or stressful, or even when they're really good, you always have a very steady perspective. And it's been amazing. I think you've truly been a blessing to this county. You've been a voice of reason and encouragement. You've been positive when people are feeling down. You've helped people come back to filling the role that they're meant to fill. And I really couldn't appreciate you enough. I think that you are one of the people that truly has positively touched everyone's life you've come across. And I really can't thank you enough for everything. I hope that you have the best life you can have and wish you all the best going forward. And we'll miss you so much.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

No speeches today.

I want to tell each of you how much I appreciate the opportunity to have served as the HR Director for Guadalupe County for the last four years. This is a decision that was extremely hard for me, hard for me even today, but I know it's the best one for my family. The blessing of being here and the support of the court that sits here today and the judge, as well as the previous commissioner, Seidenberger Cope, there's not one day that I felt like I was not supported by the court. And not many people can say that in their positions. And I am so very thankful. I'm thankful for your servant's heart, what you do every day for your precinct members today. Sometimes I know you feel like it's a long, hard journey, and people don't know what you do, but I do know what you do, and I am appreciative of that. I'm also appreciative of the HR team. Two members had one lady's on a vacation, the other is at a conference. I can't be more proud of the team, the HR team, what each one of them today, Tina, Julie, Annette, Emily, and Lois are out of the office. I am very, very thankful and appreciative and proud of the work they do. If I can ever be of assistance to you now or in the future, you'll all have my number as well as half of Guadalupe County. So if you need to call me, do so. But I know one thing, you'll never have another person with this East Texas twang in it. And I've heard three or four people say, we're going to miss talking to you, and the way you talk, I mean my twang, and I'm going to miss giving you my twang and hearing yours too. So thank you so much. If you need anything from me, please don't hesitate to call. This has been truly a blessing to me, and I thank you. We're going to take a picture, too, probably.

Do you want to put this, Annette? Do you want to put the...

Thank you.

All right, we will move to item five on our agenda, which is public hearings. Under public hearing, item A, the proposed Guadalupe County budget for fiscal year 2026-2027. We'll open the public hearing at 1041 a.m. We did have three individuals that had signed up under citizens to be heard that stated they preferred to speak under this item. Would you all like to come up and speak now under the public hearing? First was Patton Zarate.

Good morning. Good morning, Judge Kutcher and commissioners. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Patton Sadate. I'm an assistant county attorney in the civil division of the county attorney's office. I, along with Stephen Tise, stepped into the very large shoes of the late, great Robert Ettlinger. I'll be forthright with you today. I'm coming before you to ask you to take the opportunity to do the right thing when finalizing the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. In doing so, I'm asking you to remember who we serve, the good citizens of Guadalupe County. Every employee is a part of serving those citizens. I myself came to Guadalupe County in 2017. Before that, I practiced law here since 2006. Every day, I drive from San Antonio to here and back because I want to serve Guadalupe County because I like what's happening here and I like the work that we do. Other people that I work with work long hours to ensure that our county government gives the people the services they deserve and that they pay for. However, the current discussion about the upcoming budget has left many of those people uncertain and demoralized. A cost of living increase has been proposed, but it is a cost of living increase that falls behind the current rate of inflation by almost a full percentage point. The longevity base is being taken away as well. These proposals make it harder for county employees to put food on their tables and take care of their families. But that isn't the only consequence of these choices. As I've done my job, I've heard from many employees that think that Guadalupe County does not care about them. They are demoralized because the return they are getting for their hard efforts is effectively a cut in their pay. They ask themselves, why should I work as hard if I'm not appreciated? Why shouldn't I explore other options like Hayes County, Comal County, Bexar County, or the private sector?

Obviously, we don't want that.

Our employees are our greatest assets, as you yourselves have said. This is a real problem and one that has over a dozen elected officials. The majority of elected officials in this county, represented by County Attorney Wilborn and Sheriff Ray, came to you to try to solve. They proposed a tax increase that would have cost an extra $80 a year per household. They were willing to put their names on it along with yours to handle whatever pressure, politically or otherwise, that would ensue. We increased our revenue by raising the maximum tax rate, but only by a little more than a third of what would have been sufficient to at least make due. As a result of that, the sheriff and the county attorney dug into the numbers again and came to you with a proposal that you've heard about today to use $3 million that is set aside for potential land purchases. These are purchases that haven't been agreed to yet. They haven't been done yet. Nothing's happened with them yet. They're just out there in the ether. That money, which would help greatly to address the shortfalls that you've heard about today, is just there just in case we need to expand. Now, normally, having money set aside just in case would be nothing but a prudent way of doing things. But what I'm here to tell you today is that just in case is right now, right this second. It is sitting in the room with us as we speak. It is the proverbial elephant in the room. This is not a future concern. It is a part of the urgent now. Please adopt the proposal put forward by the majority of the elected officials in this county and supported by, I believe, a great number of citizens. Times may be tough, but if you do the right thing, you'll make us safer, make us more successful, and you'll make us proud. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Next, Robin Villareal. Good morning.

Good morning, Judge. Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the admin employees of the Guadalupe County Attorney's Office. We work hard every day to serve the citizens of our county. This is a community I live in and where I want to work to make a difference. My family and friends live here, and I take pride in helping them to protect. For those who don't know me, my name is Robin Villarreal. I'm a paralegal for the Guadalupe County Attorney's Office, and in November, I will have 17 years with the county. I'm here today to share my disappointment with the discussions and the decisions made by this court for what I believe will be a finalized budget today. I understand that managing a budget is not easy. There are competing priorities, rising costs, and difficult decisions that have to be made. I also understand that not every request can be funded every year. I know the budget won't ever make everyone happy, but this year feels extra defeating. I believe we need to recognize that county employees are not simply a line item in a budget. We are the people that keep the county operating. We serve the public. We respond to problems. We maintain essential services. And we continue showing up every day despite increasing demands. I recently had someone tell me that a member of this court was treating us as human resources for the county instead of valuable members of this team. Some of you who may not know what my job entails, I'll share this little part with you. Every law enforcement agency in this county, most surrounding counties, and many in the state of Texas contact me for assistance. Every felony case and misdemeanor case that come through the county attorney's office cross my desk many multiple times. I share an office with Missy Mergel, who is also a paralegal. She has been with the county almost as long as me. She gets eight 17 years in January. She is the first point of contact intake and prepares the cases for review and for grand jury. The number of cases we see has more than doubled. and the number of staff remains the same. We are continually asked to take on additional duties and handle pressing, immediate matters. There is no reward for the increasing responsibilities. In fact, this year we will be taking home less than last year. That stings. There is no additional help approved in this budget, and I'm not sure how we can be expected to continue managing this overwhelming workload. We recently went to Comal County District Attorney's Office for a meeting regarding Axon, which is electronic discovery and case submission. We were shocked to hear, so yeah, that's another project we have. We were shocked to hear they have double the admin staff. And they have almost exactly the same number of cases coming in monthly.

Even more discouraging, they're paid more too.

With regard to the budget, the COLA proposed for employees equates to a wash with increase in expenses we are saddled with. And then on top of that, the cancellation of the additional longevity base creates additional financial and employee morale concerns. Longevity pay is more than just an added bonus. It's recognition for employees who have chosen to dedicate years of their lives to this county. It tells an employee, we see your service, we appreciate your commitment, your experience matters. Taking away that benefit is signifying just the opposite. When that benefit is removed, employees understandably ask themselves, does staying here still matter? I will tell you for me personally, it doesn't feel like it. We should be encouraging experienced employees to stay, not giving them reasons to leave. Losing experienced employees comes with a cost. When someone with 5, 10, 15, 17, or 20 years of institutional knowledge leaves, the county doesn't simply lose employees, we lose experience, knowledge, and training. I will tell you I am tired of training people to start in our office that eventually leave. That is yet another duty that's added to us.

Morale is another issue that I believe deserves serious attention.

In my office, the morale is at a critical stage regarding these issues. Employees notice when they are consistently asked to take on responsibilities and denied additional compensation or assistance. They notice when a benefit that recognized years of service to this county is taken away. isn't simply about wanting more money. It's about wanting employees to know their work matters and their commitment to this county is appreciated. I would respectfully ask the court to consider looking at the compensation picture as a whole. I believe employees deserve transparency about the financial reasoning behind the decisions and clear understanding of whether there's a plan to address compensation in the future. Every year, there are talks of substantial raises, making our salaries competitive with surrounding counties and additional staff to help with overwhelming amount of work, and that never happens. Years ago, we were asked to fill out a survey and outline our job duties. The county should have saved that money, paid for that, and recognized the employees identified in that study because changes didn't come from it.

The court should also consider the long-term cost of doing nothing.

If employees leave because they can make significantly more money, the county will have to compete for those replacements, and in many cases, replacing an experienced employee can cost more than the cost they have now. During my career, I've been offered many other job opportunities, and for many years, I didn't consider them. I said I was flattered, but I loved my job and I was happy where I was. Now that isn't the story. With the disappointment I'm feeling in my job now, I may consider leaving for the private sector. I can make more money, and my work ethic, my degree, and my contributions will be considered when salary is negotiated. Please know I am not the only employee in this county that is considering the same. Money isn't everything, but when we are continually underpaid when compared to surrounding counties and underappreciated, leaving Guadalupe County will be the option chosen. So today I'm asking the court to reconsider the decision regarding raises and the cancellation of the longevity base. I'm asking the court to look for ways to provide meaningful compensation, increases, restore or replace the longevity incentive, and establish a clear path toward improving employee compensation. We are not asking for anything unreasonable. We're asking for fairness. And we're asking the court to remember that investing in the people who serve this county is ultimately investment in this county. Thank you for your time and considering the concerns of the employees of my office.

Thank you. Next is Blaine Ward.

Good morning. Good morning, Judge. Good morning. Good morning, y'all. My name is Lane Ward, and I'm a prosecutor with Guadalupe County, and I have been for about a year now. And I'm also the newest prosecutor to the county, only having graduated law school last year. So I can tell you that the overwhelming message being sent to law students across this country every year is that prosecutors are on the wrong side of the law. And if you don't believe me, go sit in on any death penalty class or any criminal procedure class, and you will hear all about how law enforcement are the bad guys and how if you want to fight for justice, you need to fight against them. And you will hear all about everything that the criminal justice system gets wrong and very little about what it gets right. And why that should matter to everyone sitting in this room today is because that is the environment that this county is recruiting its future prosecutors from. And of the small number of law students that do choose to go to the prosecutor's office, a large number of those prosecutors are only going to use the county, whatever county they're working in, for one or two years before they go and accept a higher paying job in the private sector. And what this county says to its prosecutors every year through the longevity bonus is that we value you, we appreciate you staying and working for this county, and even when everyone tells you that you're on the wrong side of justice, we are telling you that you are not. And if we are going to take that message away, I think it's really important that we think really hard what we're going to replace that message with. Because right now we're telling our prosecutors that work in this county and work for the people of this community every single day that, hey, we know that you're accepting less pay to work in this county, but, hey, also, by the way, that one thing that is designed, that one thing that is put into place to reward you for staying, we are going to take away. And what this county has said to prosecutors in the past is we want you to stay and continue fighting for this community. We appreciate your experience, and we appreciate the work that you do for our people. And I'm up here today asking this county to continue telling its prosecutors and its employees that. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, is there anybody else in the courtroom that would like to speak during the public hearing on the county budget? Please, come on. Mr. Fikes.

It's been a while. I'd like to just support with all four. I probably wouldn't share this because I'm going to lay myself out here for the public. It's been about three years ago when I lived in New Braunfelsburg, Guadalupe County. There was a bad arrest. I found myself in a situation where I had to protect my daughter and myself. And NBPD arrested me. brought me over to Sheriff Ray's fine establishment where I got to spend an amazing 27 hours of a sun-filled vacation. Their office declined to pick the case up. He said their side of law is often seen as the bad people, the bad side of law enforcement. I personally got to experience people of this caliber going above and beyond in their job. They didn't just pick a case up. Here's another schmuck that got himself in trouble. Let's prosecute him. No. And then to further expound upon that, I took a bucket list trip. I drove all the way to Virginia, went to Quantico. I'm a West Coast Marine. No East Coast guys are weirdos. But I wanted to go to Quantico because they had been to this historic Marine Corps base. And when I tried to make entry, My own brothers denied me and said that Niche picked me up as a felon.

I called their office. Was that you?

Yeah. Took her time. Could have just, we don't have time for this. Spent, she literally told me, where are you at? And I said, I'm in the parking lot. I can't even get onto my own base. You know, they called me a felon. And she said, don't hang up. Put me on speaker and walk back in that building. Above and beyond. I walked back in. after being publicly embarrassed in front of all the other people trying to gain access to the base. She tells them, give me a fax number. Where do you need it sent? What do I got to do to help this Marine get on his base? He's not a felon. We didn't pick the case up. It never saw a judge. It's not unfounded, right? Non-prosecutable. Sent the letter. I get on base. And of course, I had some choice words after I gained access. for the jerk that called me a felon. They're right about, I'm an employer, right, also. I own Apex Electrical AC and Heating, a little plug. We've recently hired a business coach. And one of the biggest takeaways from that that we've, and we knew it, sometimes you know things, you just gotta be reminded that you know these things in business. But he reminded us that it costs less money to retain a tier one employee, tier one staff, than it does to continuously train tier threes and tier twos. Or it costs less money to produce a tier two into a tier one employee than it does to continuously cycle through people that just aren't up to the standard. Now granted, they're all such young people. Right? They're not going to retire within the next 10 or 15 years. But a lot of us with the skill, our age-ish groups here, I'm not calling out anybody's age, people of skill that need to train the next generation of tier one public servants, we're not getting any younger. So granted, we have a little bit of money set aside, the same thing I griped about earlier. I'd admonish you, please. Before you vote on this, Dave, maybe table the issue. Go back, have another talk. See if you can restructure some things. Pick out the priorities that we're all clearly asking for here. I mean, the people that took time away from their businesses, from their families, from their daily schedules, just to come drive this point home. Please reconsider. Table it. Talk about it again. See what you can do to restructure it. And give us what we're asking for, please. And take care of them. They took care of me. on the other side of our continent. So, thanks. Thank you.

Anybody else would like to speak under the, or during the public hearing?

Chief, how are you?

Good, how are you?

Doing well. Morning. Good morning, Judge, Commissioners. Gary Kerber, City of Seguin Fire Chief. There's a lot of discussion today about public safety within the county a challenge that's been before all of us I face it myself and I certainly understand the struggles of a budget and providing that ongoing public presence One thing that I have not heard discussed is unfortunately going to add to your struggles not take away from it There's a lot of representation in this room for fire. There's a lot of representation in this room for law enforcement and There is no representation in this room for emergency medical services. Currently, EMS is not provided by the County of Guadalupe. It is contracted out. I am one of those subcontractors. That is also seeing an escalation in costs and a huge escalation in need. The reality is when we respond to public emergencies, the vast majority of them are medically based, and I am the largest provider of that service inside of Guadalupe County. I cover 440 square miles, and there's been no conversation about dramatically increasing the compensation or budget for EMS. While that is not before you on this year's budget, I would just encourage each of you to consider the future of what that looks like, because where we sit today, along with most of my public safety partners, I am in an unsustainable state. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments.

Good morning. Good morning.

Commissioner Judge, good morning. I know what you're all thinking. Oh, boy, he's back at the podium. Here we go again. Unfortunately, yes. Yes, I am. I'm here today with prepared statements because, yet again, there is a need to advocate for our community. Commissioners Ott and Gurman, I'd like to thank you for your service and support, not just for the fire department, but for all of the citizens of this county who you dutifully represent. Unfortunately, there are counterparts in this governing body that do not believe in service the same way as we do. Unfortunately, the opinion is that we are out of options. Today, some of what I have to say may seem harsh. Accountability is rarely comfortable. Over these past months sitting in these chambers, I've heard talks of vital and essential services who may lose or see reduced funding. Meals on Wheels, the food bank, the library, public safety entities. The very services this community depends on. For years now, we have seen the news. Guadalupe County is one of the fastest growing in the country. So where is the money? tax abatements given to multi-million dollar corporations, irresponsible government spending, and pay raises for government officials, while some of the most essential services and the most vulnerable in our community get picked clean and left out in the cold. I've seen the county throw millions at capital funding projects, only to scoff when asked for a fraction of that for meaningful and essential services, services that support those in our communities who need them most.

We've been told to figure it out.

I ask, what would you have us cut? not pay our bills, not train, not gain certification. I've heard repeatedly that ESDs are the answer, but with no hard facts to back up that opinion. The residents in the unincorporated area need to pay their fair share, and that non-statutorily required organizations in the community are just coming with their hands out like we are beggars on a corner. Commissioner Overton, as a commissioner of over 20 plus years, why didn't you solve this problem in your prior terms? As a commissioner with 20 plus years, you should know that funding from an ESD is not an overnight solution. It can take years to receive that funding in a meaningful amount, enough to truly sustain an entire emergency service operation. You've been in a position for responsibility and power in this county for over two decades, but what does the county have to show for it? You've repeatedly made the statement that all the counties around us have ESDs, but I ask, if everyone around you jumped off a bridge, would you too? There is no one-size-fits-all solution or answer to public safety. No two counties are the same. No one solution works for all. I've never claimed to have the answers, but I've asked this court directly, what is the timeline? What is the plan? There doesn't seem to be one. Hoping things get better is not a plan. We've all heard the repeated disdain for the volunteers and that believe the ESDs are the answer to the problems, but I have yet to hear from you a plan, our most vocal opponent. It begs the question, why do you hate the public servants in the community so much? Why such contempt for the citizens of the county you serve? When GCFR pays one firefighter a base salary of $67,000 a year, starting But an entire fire department is expected to operate a fleet of trucks, purchase and maintain vital life-saving equipment, pay their operating expenses, and conduct annual training and certifications on 60, 61, or 73,150 like we at McQueenie are. Something is fundamentally wrong. I keep hearing things like the volunteers can't provide the same level of service as a paid department. Yet for years, we have, while being neglected. Last time I checked, the VFDs come when the paid departments in the cities call for help via mutual aid. We don't simply stop at the district lines and say, that's not our problem. It's not our district. The dedicated volunteers who have faithfully served this county for decades show up because it's not a partisan issue. And even underfunded and understaffed, we still put the priority where it matters, truly serving our people, the citizens of this county, to protect lives and preserve property. The Cibolo Fire Department bills the county whenever they respond to a call in the county. Yet volunteer departments don't bill GCFR, Seguin, Schertz, or Cibolo when they call for help. Maybe that's just what being a good neighbor means, doing what is right without trying to get something for yourself. Some of you may think I'm angry. I'm not. Ashamed is a better descriptor. And ashamed barely begins to scratch the surface. Disappointed, dismayed, come closer. I've sat through weeks of county meetings and budget workshops and heard the same thing echoed over and over. Our people, our people, referring to county employees. And while they are, today I'm here to remind you who your people truly are. It's the 70-year-old widowed grandmother alone on unfixed income. The young newlywed couple just starting out in life. The rancher trying to get by. However, in fiscal year 25-26, this governing body allocated a nearly 10% pay raise for themselves and other elected and precinct officials. Commissioner Wolverton, you earned just shy of $100,000, coming in at $95,800 based on Google results with your auto stipend and your longevity pay. Only one volunteer fire department in the county takes in more annually than you make as an individual. That one VFD runs hundreds of calls for service every year. Commissioner Engelke, you come in even higher. 96,250 total with your adjustments. Yet, respectfully, I've repeatedly heard from the constituents of your district, can't get a phone call returned.

Do you want to change an adult diaper?

Do you want to get up at 3 a.m. and run a cardiac arrest? Run into a structure fire? I don't know that anyone does, but the firefighters in this county do it because it's what needs to be done. Judge, you receive $130,306, according to Google, more than any of the VFDs in the county. I'm not saying that hard-working county employees don't deserve money, a pay raise, a COLA. Inflation is through the roof. But fair is fair, and costs for emergency service products and support services are outpacing national average of inflation. Yet no COLA was given to county departments that protect our families as we sleep. We're told to make do and figure it out. I respect the judge's previous sentiment that we should all suffer together, but that doesn't seem to be the case across the board. A few weeks ago, I flatly asked Chief Ward of GCFR that if McQueenie shut down at the beginning of the month, if they could take over our service area tomorrow if we were forced to fold up shop. His answer? No. They do not have the staffing or apparatus to do so at this time. A few weeks ago, I called for GCFR units on a major motor vehicle accident. At the same time, we were also dispatched for a large brush fire on our side of the county. However, no GCFR unit showed up to either. Why, you ask? Because they were all committed to another large brush fire on the other side of the river. Instead, units from Marion, Schertz, Lake Dunlap, New Berlin, Cibolo, and New Braunfels responded to support McQueenie. In case you care, these fast-moving fire was nearly 40 acres, but was stopped without any loss of lives or homes. Why did these departments show up? For a paycheck? No. They showed up because the citizens deserve to be safe, and we in the fire service respect human life. Just a few nights ago, we responded as a GCSO deputy was assaulted and injured in the line of duty, protecting our community. And what did I see when I arrived? Nearly 20 law enforcement units. However, over half of them were from New Braunfels, because yet again, public safety isn't a priority to some members of this court, and our Sheriff's Department is not adequately funded for safe and effective operational levels. I've repeatedly heard county employees referred to as our people while losing sight of who pays the salary and elects them to office, expecting them to honor campaign promises to do the right thing. Not once have I heard the citizens referred to as our people. A few weeks ago, Commissioner Warburton implied that the GCFR station at FM 725 opens and Cibolo has a station mile... Excuse me. A few weeks ago, Commissioner Wolverton implied that when the GCFR station at 725 opens and Cibolo has a station eight miles away in Santa Clara, that somehow those two stations can absorb the calls for service and the volunteers can be done away with. The volunteers are already bursting at the seams to keep up with the calls. Just yesterday, McQueenie had four calls, all at the same time. Dunlap had seven calls before 2 p.m. requiring over half a shirt CMS's fleet to respond simultaneously. Another thing that we have not heard anything about is where is the added funding for EMS in this contract? When will we see added medic units for this side of the county? Medic 4 and Marion is rarely in quarters. Response times have gotten longer this year as we wait for other stations to cover these calls. To be clear, I am not opposed to GCFR. We all know the VFDs will go away eventually. What I am opposed to is no clear plan. When a 40-acre fire takes 21 apparatus from eight departments, I fail to see how two or three stations with approximately six to nine personnel can adequately cover roughly 60 square miles that is already running a collective approximate 1,500 to 2,000 calls combined a year. With the amount of growth in construction currently occurring in that area, according to Google, an area this size in geographical settings such as ours can see anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 calls for service annually once populated. The path we are on with no defined plan is a recipe for disaster. It is not a question of if, but when will our worst day be, and how many of our residents will pay with their lives. We have seen in the past two years Historic rainfall impact on our neighbors to the west. Just this July, we had a small cell dump mass of rainfall in our area and calls for service were nonstop. All the departments worked together. In May of this year, a violent storm produced a small EF1 tornado in our county. What is preventing that next time from being a catastrophic EF4? What happens when the next flood of 98 or 2002 occurs on the Guadalupe? What happens when we have a truly mass casualty incident? What happens when a fire like Paradise, California, or Boulder, Colorado, or Spokane, Washington happens here? We are inadequately equipped and understaffed countywide to mitigate those realities. This is playing with people's lives. As I mentioned in a previous meeting, if the residents don't feel safe, they will leave, and then the budget shortfall will be far greater than it already is. This is a slippery slope and a deadly gamble with our residents' lives. You may say, oh my lord, he's painting a target on his back. Oh well, so be it. I didn't join the fire department with lofty goals of public office and getting rich. I did join to protect the residents in my community and of Guadalupe County. Some folks in this county are afraid of you. of this court, and they don't dare to speak up for fear of reprisal. I am not one of those people. At least at the end of the day, I can look myself in the mirror with a clear conscience that I have made every effort to advocate for the residents who depend on our department and the citizens of this county that I swore to serve. It seems that some of you may have forgotten your oath. I have not. I implore you to remember who it is you swore an oath to serve and do the right thing and fund this county's emergency services, fire, police, and EMS adequately and appropriately, not for me, but for your constituents. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Come on up.

Good morning. Morning, Judge, Commissioners. I want to share some concerns I have regarding the direction of fire protection in Guadalupe County, particularly as you work through the upcoming budget and continue planning for the future of Guadalupe County Fire Rescue. And I'd like to introduce, I am Jared Smith. I am here representing the Guadalupe County Professional Firefighters, which is the members of GCFR. I understand the county as a whole is facing difficult financial situations, decisions, and I recognize that every department is competing for limited resources. However, I believe we need to have a serious discussion about whether our current spending decisions regarding fire protection are consistent with the long-term direction of the county. The question I keep coming back to is this. If we already know that the long-term goal is to grow the county fire department, at what point do we begin directing more of our available resources toward building that department? My understanding is that the proposed 2027 budget includes approximately $1.2 million for volunteer fire departments. along with a discussion of potentially providing another $500,000 similar to what was approved last year. If that additional funding is approved, we could potentially be talking about approximately $1.7 million directed towards volunteer fire departments while GCFR receives no new firefighter positions in the next budget year. I believe that deserves serious discussion. I want to be clear that this is not an argument against volunteer firefighters or the service that they provide to this county. Volunteer firefighters have served our community for decades. Many have sacrificed nights, weekends, holidays, family time, and their own money to protect their neighbors. Their service deserves recognition and respect. But recognizing that service and questioning the county's long-term financial strategy are two different things. Our infrastructure is growing, but our staffing is not. One of my biggest concerns is that GCFR is already facing significant staffing needs and receiving no additional positions in the next budget year is going to put us another year behind. Currently, we have approximately five personnel staying assigned to station 71 and two personnel at the Geronimo station. At the same time, the county is continuing to expand its fire station infrastructure. We have a brand new station expected to open by the end of this year. The FM 25, 725 station remodel is expected to be ready for occupancy next year. We also have two temporary portable stations intended to expand our coverage throughout the county. These are important investments, but they raise a very basic question. Where are the firefighters who are going to staff them? We cannot simply take firefighters from station 71 or another existing assignment and move them into a new station. Doing that does not increase our overall emergency response capabilities. It simply creates a coverage gap somewhere else. We cannot improve coverage in one part of the county by taking coverage away from another. Moving the same limited number of firefighters into more buildings is not growth. It is spreading an already limited workforce even thinner. If we are building new stations specifically to improve response times and expand coverage, those stations need additional personnel. Otherwise, we are spending taxpayer dollars building the infrastructure of a larger fire department without funding the firefighters necessary to operate it. A fire station without firefighters is just a building. Taxpayers are paying for readiness. I also believe we need to look at how we measure the value taxpayers receive from every dollar spent on fire protection. There is a fundamental difference between purchasing equipment and purchasing guaranteed readiness. An engine sitting inside a station does not answer a 911 call. An ambulance does not provide care by itself. SCBAs sitting on an apparatus do not make an interior fire attack. People do. This becomes even more important when we look at the actual response capabilities of the department receiving county funding. The reality is that some volunteer departments do not consistently respond to calls they are dispatched to. And there are also responses where an adequate number of certified or qualified personnel may not be available. A department responding with an apparatus does not necessarily mean it has arrived with the personnel necessary to perform the functions required at that emergency. If an engine arrives at a structure fire but does not have enough qualified firefighters to safely perform interior firefighting operations, another department still has to provide those firefighters. If an EMS capable apparatus responds without appropriately certified medical personnel, another agency still has to provide that level of patient care. And if a department does not respond at all, another department ultimately has to cover that call. For Guadalcanal County Fire Rescue, that means our already limited personnel can end up responding outside their primary areas to provide the staffing and capabilities that are still needed. That affects more than the original incident. Every time GCFR resources have to leave their normal coverage area to compensate for a lack of response or qualified personnel elsewhere, the taxpayers and the communities those GCFR units normally protect can be left with reduced coverage until those resources return. That is why I believe county funding should be tied not simply to the existence of a department, station, or apparatus, but to the actual level of service and operational capability being provided. Simply having names on a department roster does not tell us what capability is available when a call occurs. For departments receiving county taxpayer funding, I believe we should be measuring things such as percentage of dispatch calls actually responded to, average response times, number of personnel actually responding to the incidents, number of certified and qualified firefighters and emergency medical providers, number of EMTs and paramedics available, training and certification compliance, apparatus availability, ability to perform the operational functions expected of that department, how frequently another department must provide the personnel or resources necessary to handle that incident. This should apply objectively to anyone receiving taxpayer funding. If a department is consistently responding, maintaining qualified personnel, training, and providing meaningful emergency response capability to its community, the numbers should demonstrate that. If a department is not consistently responding or cannot provide sufficient qualified personnel when it does respond, the county should know that as well before deciding how additional taxpayer dollars are allocated. When taxpayers fund fire and EMS, they are ultimately paying for readiness. They are paying for trained and qualified firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics who are available when someone's house catches fire at 2 in the morning, when someone suffers a heart attack or a stroke, when a child stops breathing, or when a serious vehicle accident occurs. They are paying for equipment that is inspected, maintained, tested, and ready. But most importantly, they are paying for enough qualified people to be there when the call comes in. We need a transition plan. I'm not suggesting that the county shut down every volunteer fire department. A transition of this size cannot happen overnight. Volunteer departments can continue to serve an important role by providing supplemental manpower, mutual aid, and additional coverage as GCFR grows. but there needs to be an actual transition plan. If GCFR is the future of county fire protection, then every budget should move us a little closer toward that goal. Instead of continually increasing VFD funding without defined performance expectations, I believe the county should consider establishing a reasonable funding baseline and tying future funding to measurable response, staffing, certification, training, and operational standards. Departments receiving county taxpayer funding should be able to demonstrate what level of service that investment is producing County funding should be based on capability and performance not simply on maintaining the status quo at the same time we should begin directing additional available funding toward adding GCFR positions Even if we cannot fund every position GCFR needs immediately, we need to fund something every year. Add positions gradually, increase staffing on existing apparatus, staff the new stations without removing coverage from existing stations, expanding our coverage, reduce areas that depend entirely on volunteer availability, Most importantly, develop a realistic five-year staffing and transition plan to commissioners' court, department leadership, employees, volunteers, and taxpayers know where we are going so that they know where we are going and what it is going to cost to get there. We also need to decide how we're going to fund it. The County Assistance District has also been discussed as a potential funding mechanism for approximately two years. But from my perspective, we have not seen any meaningful movement toward determining whether we are actually going to pursue that. If a county assistance district and its associated sales tax could provide a sustainable funding source for fire and EMS, then I believe we should seriously evaluate that. Determine what revenue it could realistically generate. Determine where it could legally be collected. Determine how those funds can legally be used. Determine the impact on taxpayers. Put the numbers in front of the Commissioner's Court and the public and make that decision. If it makes financial and operational sense, move forward with it. If it does not, then take it off the table and identify another sustainable funding source. What concerns me is continuing to discuss possible solutions year after year while simultaneously saying there is not enough money to add firefighters. At some point, discussion has to turn into action. Whether the solution involves a county assistance district, reallocating existing funds, establishing performance requirements for VFD funding, identifying another dedicated revenue source, or some combination of these options, we need a long-term financial plan. At some point, the budget has to reflect the plan. The county is growing, development is continuing, call volume and service demands are increasing, new fire stations are being built, existing facilities are being improved, yet the personnel responsible for providing the actual service are not growing at the same pace. Receiving no new GCFR positions in the next budget does not simply leave us where we are today. It puts us another year behind. And every year we postpone addressing the staffing problem makes the eventual solution larger and more expensive. That is why I believe we need to seriously examine the approximately 1.27 million currently proposed for volunteer fire departments and any additional funding being considered and ask whether some portion of future increases could be better invested in building the county fire department we know we are ultimately going to need. especially when some of the departments receiving county funding may not consistently answer their dispatch calls or provide sufficient qualified personnel when they do respond. I believe we have an obligation to determine exactly what level of service taxpayers are purchasing with that funding. This is not about volunteers versus career firefighters. It is about determining the level of service Guadalupe County needs and developing the most reliable, accountable, and financially sustainable system to provide it. We're already investing in the infrastructure of a larger county fire department. Now we need a plan to staff it. I respectfully ask that we begin having the discussion as part of the current budget process and consider developing a formal multi-year staffing, funding, and transition plan for GCFR. We cannot continue to build stations without firefighters, discussing funding solutions without acting on them, increasing funding without measuring the service being provided, and postponing GCFR staffing another year while expecting the problem to solve itself. At some point, the budget has to reflect the plan. If GCFR is the future of fire protection in Guadalupe County, then I believe it is time we begin funding that future. Respectfully, Guadalupe County Professional Firefighter Association.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you, sir.

Sir, anybody else in the courtroom today? Yes, sir. I'll see you coming up.

Good morning. How are you?

I'm doing great, Judge. How are y'all?

Well. Thank you very much for having me. My name is John Amder. I'm a resident of Precinct 2. I am also an employee with the county attorney's office. I work as Dave's first assistant. You've heard a lot. Y'all have a lot of tough decisions to make. I don't want to belabor the point. But when Mr. Fikes came back up here, He shared an anecdote that I hadn't heard before about Robin. I didn't know about that, but I'm not surprised to hear it. Because quite frankly, that type of behavior is consistent with the actions of a lot of my office's employees. I see people going above and beyond on a regular basis. Dave and I both regularly get phone calls at 3 a.m. when there's an issue. We get phone calls on the weekends, and a lot of times these phone calls are coming from employees of the county attorney's office who were contacted first, maybe because they're working... handling the on-call telephone, maybe because they're uniquely Robin Villarreal and she's the person that law enforcement oftentimes is most comfortable contacting.

These people I'm proud to work with because they go above and beyond consistently.

And I will be honest, if Robin leaves, She will be replaced. Any of us can be replaced. The problem is not finding somebody to fill that position. The problem is finding somebody of that caliber. that level of dedication. She is not a gun for hire. She is working here because she cares about the county, because she cares about the position, because she cares about the office. And I'm using Robin as an example because she voluntold herself by coming up here and speaking. But the truth of the matter is I have three rows of people here, every single one of them with my office who feel the same way. I've got a prosecutor right there. He has gone above and beyond already. He is a phenomenal asset to our office. We only hired him recently, within the last year, and he's already shining. I have gotten compliments from judges, from lawyers, people who have talked about the level our office is performing at. And I'm not saying that to pat anybody on the back. I'm saying that to illustrate a point. What we do, what the Sheriff's Office does, is very interconnected with the daily lives of people who live in Guadalupe County. As counties grow, Population increases. Crime, inevitably, is going to increase as well. Sheriff Ray is already stretched incredibly thin. You know this. You've heard the statistics. You've heard this meeting after meeting. And I'm not going to belabor that point either. But he sends his people out to make calls, as do the local police departments. They make calls. And they may get somebody off the streets temporarily. And that may... alleviate some of the immediate danger. But that's only the beginning. That is only the beginning. And when these people are brought through the justice system, whether the resolution is to try and rehabilitate them or just keep them out of circulation for the safety of the public for some period of time, It is necessary to have law enforcement that feels like they are backed up by their leaders. It is necessary to have a caliber of prosecutors and their support staff who can handle the demands of the job and feel like they're supported. I've been here less than two years. Whether you grant or don't grant, the longevity is not going to affect me. I can tell you it's going to mean a lot more to people in this office who are looking to their leaders, to y'all, for a sign that they're valued. Dave is running out of levers to pull within his office. So is Sheriff Ray. If y'all don't give some indication to their rank and file that they matter, they will be replaced. 100%, they will be replaced. Whether they're going to be replaced with people who know what they're doing, who can manage to keep the citizens of this county as safe as these dedicated people do, I would not bet on that. I know you'll have a tough decision. I'm asking you, as a constituent, as somebody who is in the trenches daily and who sees what these people are going through and what they give time and time again, Give them a nod. Let them know that they matter to you. Let them know that they are seen. I promise it's going to go a long way with them. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments.

Is there anybody else in the courtroom that would like to speak during the public hearing? Yes, sir.

Good morning.

Good morning.

How are you, sir? Doing well.

I just wanted to take a few moments to speak as a career law enforcement officer and somebody that was definitely an outsider to this county. I was brought here to look at some of the processes of the sheriff's office and see where we could improve. So being an outsider, I certainly don't have all of the politics and inner workings of Guadalupe County, and perhaps that serves as a benefit today. I want to just share a few observations that when I got here, the sheriff's office was woefully behind in a number of ways, between the equipment that was needed from safety equipment when it involves the use of a taser. We had a very outdated JPX and unutilized system. We had training. Training is behind in a number of areas. We didn't have bulletproof vests for some folks, and we had many that were expired. So I know there was comments about why those were purchased. We had ineffective in-car systems for our cameras. Most of them were no longer functional. Couldn't get the evidence that was needed for those. More important than that, we had a personnel that was deflated. They were not in a position where they felt comfortable to speak out or speak up about things that they had seen or their experiences over the time prior to my arrival. They lacked a voice. They have one now through Sheriff Ray. We gave him what was needed. Sheriff Ray continued to advocate for their improvements, and he still does. We've showed you a new sheriff's office, a mission that's public focused, but they're overworked. What we're asking them to do, what we need them to do to be a modern agency, to do what the public demands of us, is cause them to be very overworked. We've shared many of the stats involved with that. This also creates a flood downstream of those services with the county attorney's office, probation, every one of the departments as these individuals are adjudicated. I also observed a group of elected officials come together, which in my previous blue county I would have never seen. That would have been next to impossible. In doing so, they came up with a different plan, I guess something that was a bit outside of what the court had provided. I found that amazing that that group of people would come together. I just never would have experienced that. So you have an elected group of law enforcement, emergency services and professionals are all advocating for additional resources. I hope you've heard them and you choose to really listen to the cautions and not just do so in quiet contemplation. Did you actually come here with an idea that you'd listen? and determine whether or not any of that information is valid or whether you have a predetermined decision. So I do hope that this has been valuable for all the people that have spoken. I do appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the courtroom that would like to speak during the public hearing? Okay. Any commissioners would you like to make any comments? I just want to give a brief overview and make this very simple and fairly quick. We've talked about budget for months now, and there's a tremendous amount of challenges that we've had to face and address, and I want to go through some of those. But first, I want to say thank you to everybody that's in the courtroom today. Thank you for all the individuals that took time out to come up and speak. listening and making notes of the individual concerns that were brought up, I was reflecting on everything that has to be considered and what everybody got to witness from the speakers is a true representation of part of the things that have to be considered, but still really, really important issues. With a growing county, what we're all experiencing are growing pains. And at a time when there's more need in every single department, we got really punched in the teeth with a budget that doesn't provide normal revenue stream that we've consistently seen year over year. And we were on our heels from day one. We went through a budget process reviewing $27 million of requests from all departments that shows and is a reflection of the need that is within all 42 county departments, thinking we could address a number of those with the budget that was coming up. But then on July 23rd to the 25th, when we got our appraisal roll from the appraisal district, Found out we had almost $1.5 billion less of appraised value, knowing that we didn't have the revenue to cover our already coming in expenses, much less being able to address the need of the departments that have been talked about for the sheriff, for law enforcement, for fire, for EMS, for roads, for courts, for platting, environmental health-related issues, flood and drainage mitigation. The list goes on and on. So I know we have a lot to discuss today. There's gonna be a number of decisions that we're gonna have to make. There's been a lot of conversation here online and in the public, but the only decision that has been made, and I'd like this to be very clear, the only decision that has been made so far in this budget process is to cap the amount of tax rate at a 5.65% increase. There's not a single other decision that has been made to this point. I think that's been misconstrued. I know there's a lot of misunderstanding about the process. We started in May meeting with departments to have individual department head interaction. We went through, got the certified roll. We calculate taxes. We go through that whole thing. Then we come to budget workshops that happen the end of July and on August the 10th and 11th. And those were the actions that were taken by this commissioner's court is only to set that tax rate. And that tax rate can be set at anything today as long as it doesn't exceed the 3549 or what we've been referring to as the 5.65% tax increase. We could have a smaller tax increase. More money can be pulled out of reserves, out of our savings account to fund requests, positions. Those reserves could be decided upon by this group or a majority to offset the amount of tax increase to citizens. But I wanted to run through just a quick few items and show the tax rate information. We have another public hearing right after this about the tax rate. But go through and talk briefly about, this says recommended budget, but this was the start of the process. Okay. I don't want to bore you with too much, but I show this slide to show that this is the biggest change in our budget. The taxable value in 2025 going from $21.976 billion to 2026 being right under $21 billion. This has not happened previously. Typically, we have an increase in appraised value. Looking at the chart above, you look at the historical tax rate from 2006 to and you look at this drastic change that started in 2021, when appraised values increased drastically, it pushes the tax rate down. Some have said we should have left the tax rate the same. Going back and looking at 2021, 22, and 23, when this tax rate started to decrease, If we would have left the tax rate the same, we would have had over 20% tax increases. Our required tax notice that went out to the public would have showed not the 6.7 and 10.9% increases we already had, but would have showed high teens, low and mid 20% tax increases. And that wasn't palatable, it wasn't something the court wanted to do or was willing to do to the citizens that we represent. Moving forward, This was the biggest challenge this year in our county, and it's still the biggest challenge we're gonna have to face today to talk about risk mitigation, about our risk tolerance on our amount of funding we're willing to spend. The decisions we make today absolutely do affect not only the operation of the departments we're talking about, but also the citizens' tax rate, their tax liability, the need to offset those future costs, how it affects employees, what it changes on our EMS contracts, on emergency medical services, about healthcare for county employees, about paid days off and overtime lines and all those things. So where did $1.08 billion go? Well, I believe a mistake was made and a recalculation of over 65 tax ceilings was done that changed everything. In addition to that mistake in recalculation or a recapture, if you will, of multiple years of free-sealing accounts, we had additional state exemptions that came in that were approved by the voters last November that increased our total reduction of new property tax exemptions for personal property for businesses to almost $400 million. You add back in $864 million and we have a lot less money today than we did last year. So I say that there was a great representation of all the things we have to consider during the speakers because it really was law enforcement needs, public safety things that I think when we talk to anybody, it's the most talked about and wanted and needed service. When we talk to people, and I want to speak for the court, when I have interaction with the public and ask a taxpayer what you want your money spent on, they usually say public safety, that law enforcement, fire, EMS, and roads. Those are the things that people typically want a majority of their money spent on. I think everybody can agree on that, but the challenge is where does the money come from? And then if we do spend additional funds on those important priorities, how do you address those needs moving forward? And that's really what it gets down to. I wanted to show this chart because it really lays the groundwork and tells the story as to what our county is faced with today when we started out. We were working through a budget process that we anticipated we were going to be able to add positions and do things and make changes and address issues and instead we were back on our heels going we don't even have the funds to address what we have already spent. Looking down at this chart right here, our current tax rate is 3304, and it shows our property tax collections. The important line to note is this bottom. The no new revenue rate which is supposed to bring in the same money as the previous year, would have made us $4 million short in maintenance and operation. Going to a 2.2% increase made us $2.4 million short. The 4% increase I recommended originally, still, without adding any positions, any COLAs, cost of living adjustments for employees, or any major changes, left us $1.15 million short. without any of those needed resources being addressed within departments. The 5.65% tax increase simply gets us to a break-even point to be able to provide the existing services that Guadalupe County is providing today to the citizens. The chart up on top are some built-in expenses that were decided on before we ever started our budget process and before we ever considered a department request from the sheriff, from fire, from the county attorney's office, from anybody. and that was restructure of debt services in preparation to build major projects, but also trying to build and prop up an INS rate to build a jail or adult detention facility in the future. Health insurance initially was a 15% increase for county employees. Of almost 800 county employees, we spend almost $15,000 per year on that county employee to be able to receive health insurance from our self-funded insurance. We reduced that to 8%, knowing that we're going to have additional costs. We are going to probably have to pull from our healthcare fund, which is a balance of about $6 million, because when you're self-funded, you don't only pay for the service that's provided to the county employee, you also have to pay for the claim on the other side. And if that claim goes above $125,000, that hits our stop-loss insurance and administrative costs, which is an additional cost on top of that. Those are things that not everybody thinks about. They kind of take them for granted. But when you go get a prescription or you go to a doctor, we're paying about $11 million a year for our county employees to have really, really good health insurance. And those costs continue to go up, and that's what that line represents, was that built-in initial cost before we ever started. 365 Labs for a computer-aided dispatch for law enforcement. We had to do a budget amendment in the current year. This is the built-in expense for fiscal year 27, and that is the software maintenance cost just for the CAD system for law enforcement that we haven't had in the budget before. It's $800,000. When you have an $800,000 hit in some of these lines with health insurance, staggered hiring positions for firefighters, built-in EMS contracts, we had spent almost $5 million and needed items that had to be addressed in this budget before we ever started, also at the same time with the value loss of being $4 million short before we ever started. I just wanted to put some of that in reference. All what I'm saying doesn't change the fact that we're going to have to have discussions later on this agenda to talk about reserves, fund balance, what risk appetite there is for the Commissioner's Court to spend funds on needed issues on employees, on positions, Just wanted to give some of that information during the public hearing so everybody kind of has an understanding of where we started out in this process because there were no sunshine and no roses when we got these numbers. It really was doom and gloom for us going, we've never been faced with this kind of shortfall. How are we going to address all the needs?

Commissioners, any comments any of you would like to make during the public hearing?

Yeah, I would judge it. I was kind of attacked, but that's okay. For over 24 years, I tried to get ESDs in this county. But as everybody knows, county government takes three votes. I was the only one who lived inside a corporate city. Everybody else was in a corporate area. So when they said, well, here comes another tax, they said, oh, no, no, we don't want that. So it failed every blessed time. And I say, one other thing is I have always advocated for the employees. And I think now more than ever, we need to get them from the back of the bus to the front of the bus. We always fund everybody else, and then the employees are the very last to get it. When you look at the nonprofits, the state of Texas asked them to quit coming to us. We can't afford it anymore. And so for that, they gave them no franchise taxes, no property taxes, and no sales taxes. You just go to the public. private sector and then get your money. Well, they didn't. They came to the county. If you want to make some money, then you need to tell the non-profits, we don't have any more money, and all those non-mandated services that we provide, we can't afford that either. We need to take care of our county first, our personnel, the backbone of Guadalupe County are the personnel that we have. And, you I've advocated it every year, and it seems to fall on deaf ears. But this year, hopefully, they will take care of our employees first. Give them the longevity. I asked for a $4,000 bump for everybody inside the way there. It was too much, $3.7 million. And then the judge actually told me how much we're in debt, and we are in debt. Now, can we pull from the reserve? Yes. How much money do you want to pull from the reserve? say, $20 million, fine. Then we got a shortfall taken care of. But next year, your cost to government went from here to here. Next year, with the income that we're having in, it's still down here. You're going to have to borrow again and again and again. And pretty soon, you have no reserve. And then right now, the reason that we got a AAA plus rating is because we have a reserve. Chris, what was the actual bond percentage that we got? 2.8%? for the $20 million? About the interest rate on the tax notes?

3%, and then the last year it was 4%.

Yeah, 3%. We wouldn't have gotten that without a reserve, a healthy reserve. We're trying to do our very best with limited funds. So I know it's hard for you. But once again, I think the money should go to the employees to say thank you, to keep them here. And I've done it every year. And I'm sorry if the police chief's upset with me. Volunteer fire departments are just that, volunteers. We need paid professional firefighters if we're going to do this stuff right. And the sheriff's department, he needs people. But once again, where's the money going to come from? I can fund it for one year, maybe even two. But after that, the money's all gone. We can raise your taxes. I think the very first day, I said, raise it to $0.40. Oh, no, no, we're not going to do that. But that would have covered our cost. But then you have people all the way there saying, no, I can't afford a $0.40 increase. But I pay an extra $0.50, $100 valuation inside the cities, as does the city of Cibolo, Seguin, everybody else. They're right around the same cost. But they're getting all the services that everybody in the unincorporated area want, but they don't want to pay for it. So they're going to have to step up to the plate and say, yes, we'll take the ESDs, we'll take the special districts, because the sheriff can have a special district over that, which for all that money goes to law enforcement. But once again, it takes three votes to get this thing on the ballot. So that's all I got to say. Mr. Allen. Yeah, for less. But it's still, if we didn't have reserve and get the AAA plus rating, we wouldn't have gotten that. Believe me. I work in the banking business. I sit on the board of the Rexford Shares Banking Trust. And I know what it takes to get a low interest rate. And if we do away with all our reserve, we're not going to get it. It's just finance, folks.

Any other comments during the public hearing?

I'm going to speak after a while, but Judge, can you get back to that graph that you put up about the $1.04 billion?

This one?

Yes. Those of you that know me know I'm not scared to take on issues and say what I feel. If you look up there at the key takeaway... State required exemptions and corrections over 65 tax ceiling reduce the taxable value. I listen to every one of you good people and I agree with you. But we're sitting up here right now in a situation where we are taking the brunt of what the state has inflicted upon us. It's not the county employees. It's not the volunteer fire departments. It's what the state has done to us. And I seriously agree with Commissioner Ott in that I think the appraisal district probably ought to be audited too. You know, I listen to all of y'all and I agree with all of y'all, but no one brought up that point that we lost this value. We've got to figure out how to get out of this hole. And it's not Guadalupe County because I sat in last week on a, they called it the legislative conference. It was counties from all over the state. And they're all talking about it. And the cities around here are all talking about it. They're fighting and fighting and fighting. Where's the money going to come from? So we'll figure through this. We will figure through this. And we will do what's right for the people. But think about it when you talk to your state legislators, not this body up here. This body up here, yes, there are things that can be done different. I'm not going to argue that point. The other thing that I'm going to say is these people all talk about growth. And we've talked about it some in this body here. One of the things that has happened with the growth is, and I've heard it here in different ways, all the people coming in, all the people coming in, but the houses that are being built by these developers are not paying the taxes. They pay a little bit, but they're not paying what we need to pay for a jail, for sheriff, for fire. The schools, we're not part of the schools. But they're not paying the bill. But the developers are making their money and they're leaving. And they're leaving all of us right here with the problems. When I ran four years ago, I said this was going to happen. We're going to hit a wall. I didn't know the state would do this, but we're hitting a wall. And I'm very upset about what it's doing to our people that are here, our employees. I work for a company where we were taught a quality program. I have told I don't know how many people about this lately. First thing, you take care of your customers. That's our taxpayers. The next is your employees. We can't do it without our employees. And the third is management. which is the elected officials and department heads. We're trying, and we're going to try. I'm going to address one other thing that keeps coming up. Paying for fire protection with these, not ESDs, I'm willing to look into that, but these taxing districts, we looked into that. In precinct four, I'm not going to speak for the other precincts, but in precinct four, I had three businesses that I could... tax with sales tax. Three. I'm not going to do that to three businesses. That's insane. So I'm just saying, we'll get in a little more discussion after a while, but we have been given, we have been dealt a hand that is not good. And I just hope people will understand what we're what we're trying to get through, and we're trying to listen to everybody, but it is extremely difficult. So that's all. I'll speak after a while. I've spoke long enough.

Commissioners, any other comments? We have discussed this many times. We've had a lot of budget workshops, and I think all of y'all are aware of the revenue shortfall and what we're faced with. I do want to recognize former Commissioner Seidenberger sitting in the audience, who's probably very happy he's not sitting up here right now doing this today. But I get it. You know, I've been serving this county and this city and my community for over 40 years. And I do care. That's why I'm here. And I have a passion to help people. That's just a burden or a benefit. It depends on how you look at that. And as some of you have alluded to today, you know, there are some of us who are not running again and this is the end of our term. There are some comments that we don't care, but that is not the case on my part. I'm here and I care and I listen. And I hear what y'all are saying. The judge did a fantastic job of explaining the finance part of it. We are faced with a tax rate that we have a ceiling on now. We are faced with 101 requests for positions for fiscal year 27. 101 position requests. Appreciate the fact that electeds gathered together to try to come up and formulate a plan, and it's appreciated. But the five of us have to make the decision. And I've stated my apprehensions about the reserve fund savings account, whatever you want to refer to it as. As Commissioner Warburton said, it stacks on for the next year. So the $3 million keeps being thrown around with the building purchase, the land purchase. That's historically been in our budgets just because the just in case Patent comment, and I totally respect you, Patent, always. We've discussed this before. There are preliminary discussions about what may happen with that for the future growth of the county. But in relation to what we're faced with, Going forward, it's tough decisions, tougher than I've ever faced. This will be going on my eighth year, so I respect everyone and what everybody has said. In relation to people who may say things on social media and bash me, I don't pay attention to social media. I know what I know. People come up to me who know me and say, how am I doing? I'm doing fine. I take care of my family, and that's what I do. I do the best I can sitting in this seat, but I also look at the long-term future, and I've always said that. So we set the 5.65 increase. We've set that ceiling. My initial take for employees, I think in the initial discussions, we all agreed helping our employees was a 4% COLA. It went to 3%, which I think we've all agreed to, and it's a definite benefit. I had proposed also 3% plus $1,000 base longevity, which we typically had. That's still up for discussion, as the judge said. The only thing we've set is the tax rate. So going forward in our agenda item coming up, we'll have more discussion, I'm sure. But I just wanted to state those things. and clear up some of the muddy air around me personally, because I'm human and it's frustrating, but I don't take it to heart because I know what I do and I care for this community. My family, I'm generations of family in Guadalupe County, over 150 years. So I am here, my boys are here, my family is here. So I care about the future and I'm not going anywhere. I'm already thinking of things, what I'm going to do after this to help with the community. We'll figure it out because we have to. And we're going to move forward. Not everybody's going to be happy, but we're going to do what we need to do.

So I'm going to talk in a little bit of bullet points, because a lot of things were said today. And I think a lot of valuable things have been said. And I think, first of all, I want to extend some thanks to the citizens that took their time to come here today and talk to us. We appreciate you, because everyone's time is really your most important resource, your time and your health. But I also want to thank the court. Because this has been quite a ride. We've had quite a ride. We have a lot of years of experience in this court. I personally have really benefited from that, from learning from everyone here. And it is true that it is the last round, last dance for a few of us, last term for a couple more few of us. It might just be me in a few years. I really will miss the experience. I want you all to know that there's been a lot of negative rhetoric about members of this court and whether or not you agree with certain things they say. And certainly, we've had some split votes on this court, as we all know. But I have to tell you, this group works really, really hard. I mean, they really do. I have really gotten to know them in the last year and a half. It has been an honor to do that. They are unique, each one of them, in their belief set. But I can tell you that they each have a very strong belief set. And they really, truly are all doing their best and putting in a lot of heart and a lot of work. And so I truly want to thank each one of you for all of the work you've done. I think a lot of it goes unrecognized. I think that when there are problems, that everyone directs it toward commissioners' court. If you're angry about something, it comes toward Commissioner's Court. In the last month, all of us together, I mean, it's probably countless how much contact of negativity we have gotten in every direction from almost every department, citizens, et cetera. And you have to understand that all five of us are here because we want to be here. We're not forced to be here. You have to learn so many different things, so many different areas of expertise, and each one of those areas runs deep, right? I mean, all the people here that represent your various departments, your experts in your own field, we're not, right? We have to do the best we can with a combination of resources and needs that are available to us. So I really want to emphasize that because I think these last few weeks have really been difficult for all of us with... a lot of the commentary, a lot of the pressure, a lot of the hate that's been directed toward us before a lot of decisions have been made. I think that sometimes it's very hard also as a governing body because you don't want to alarm the public, but you want to inform the public and having outlets to send information to the public so everyone understands. Sometimes it's very difficult to do in a streamlined fashion. So I want to talk a little bit about my perspective. I like to do that, let you know kind of where I'm coming from in the decisions that I make and talk about some of the issues. I speak sometimes a little more plainly than some members of the court. Some of them speak very eloquently and I admire them for that. I like to do a little bit more short strokes. I've said it a couple times. I'll say it again. We had a very unexpected large differential in what we expected in taxable value, that being what we know so far, a total of exemptions in 65 and over households over the cumulative effect of the year since 2022 onward. We were informed that those have not been all accounted for. Suddenly, they were found. I believe the verbiage used was swept up into the technology. And because of that being swept up, the difference between the number that we received from our tax assessor and the number we received from our appraisal district was $1.5 billion. We received the $2.4 billion in total from the tax assessor and a $3.9 billion factor from the appraisal district, giving us a difference which became a negative in our ability to use those funds of $1.5 billion. What's unfortunate is that even though we've heard from both entities, we still don't truly understand the mistake, not because of a lack of comprehension on our part, but because of the information that's not available to us at this time. We initially discovered that on July 27. There's been a lot of rhetoric that we've been holding back information that's not true. We learned about it on July 27, and because of how that factored into the calculus of what money we had, we started this at a deficit. It was unexpected. It's not because anyone doesn't want to give money. It's not because people are holding back. It's because we are faced with an unexpected issue. I've said several times I think that we do need to engage the services of an outside auditor because I think that we are in a risky situation that we do not understand exactly what this problem is. We don't understand exactly how it happened. And it happened outside of any department that's within the purview of Commissioner's Court. So we don't have the ability to fully understand, which means that our ability to understand if it will happen again, the likelihood of reoccurrence and to which extent is an unknown to us.

it's a problem.

What I would like for us to do in the next fiscal year is engage the services of an outside auditor so that they can go through with the numbers that the appraisal district has given us, work together with our tax assessor, and see what we can come up with so that we can make decisions going forward. Now, the benefit of that is that we will be able to look at those numbers and those figures and get that information throughout the next fiscal year, plan accordingly, and speak and communicate with our departments and the public as it goes, so that this is not an unexpected surprise this time. However, the element of surprise is not Commissioner's Court's fault, and it is very unfortunate. I think what this comes down to is Who is more risk-averse than others? Because we have, as you've seen in the charts, it would require an increase in the tax rate to even balance the budget to what it was last year. So that has to happen if we were even going to get what we have last year. That's without a COLA. That's without longevity. That's without new positions. That's without regrades. That's without equipment, trucks, things that people need by itself. And then on top of that, we come down to, are we willing to take money out of the fund balance or not? Are we willing to move several line items that are set aside for capital projects, building, land, et cetera, and use that money for things that are one-time factors in part, but also largely reoccurring? And a lot of the things that we've heard today and the feedback that we've heard throughout the last few weeks have been people saying, hey, we need essential services. We need more bodies. We need people. I want our employees to get a raise as well, but we need people. And of course, as you know, those are reoccurring costs because you can pull it out of the savings account this year. But if we don't have that fund generation next year, like we've enjoyed prior years, then we would have to pull it back out again and again and again and again, unless we have a better year. No, we don't know, right? So the risk, it comes back to the risk-aversity factor. I think that myself, I am inclined, as I've said before, to use some of that money that we have set aside for land and building purchases because I think this year is unique in that we have an unanticipated problem, set of problems. And is it likely to happen again? No, not to the extent that it has at the very least. But I think that we do need to spend the money and the time to really understand what caused this. And if it's something that we see coming again in the future, that we communicate to the departments early, hey, if we have a problem coming, it might not be a COLA next year. But I think if, in my opinion, and through the people we've spoken to, my constituents, the employees I speak to, the department heads and electeds I speak to, I think if the choice was, hey, do we spend some of this money now to make whole some of the tenured people we have? and to move forward the best we can in the situation we're in, knowing that maybe next year if we're at a deficit, there may not be a COLA, there may not be longevity if we have a repeat problem, and they know that ahead of time, I think it's better to be a little riskier with it now. Now, I have to tell you what I think is not productive. is fighting between the departments, department heads, fire departments, and different people, competing interests between the precincts, different entities, different offices, no matter what you are. I look at this room. Some of you are my friends. Some of you I don't know well. Some of you don't like me at all. And that's OK. Because what I truly care about is the people. And going around and talking to people as a prosecutor, as a person in private practice, as a person that was campaigning, now as a person that holds office, I think that what really resounds and what's really the most important and what all of you can probably agree to is the people, the citizens. It's not us in this room, typically, with the exception of you that are citizens, of course. But us in the room, the ones that are making the decisions, the ones that are boots on the ground, it's not about us. It's about them. that we need to be, as employees here, as good as we can be for the people. And that's really what this is about. But I have to tell you, fire departments publicly shaming other fire departments. It's not good. It's not productive. It's not productive. It doesn't cause anything good to happen, okay? Law enforcement against law enforcement. It's not good. You're all important. You do different jobs. You have different tasks. It's true. Absolutely. Right? Different levels of things. But at the same time, the competition, we have to find a way to work together. And we're not doing it. We are very divisive among ourselves. I wish it wasn't that way. I think that it can be better. I think it will be better. But you have to understand that we have been faced with some serious challenges this year. the court has been put in some very precarious situations. There have been different things said and different future actions spoken about to the court that, of course, puts us in an odd position because each of us are trying to do what we think is truly best. And so when your back is against the wall with a situation like that and you're doing what you think is your best among threats, among division, it is difficult. But I want you to know that certainly we are all aware of those things. I want to speak briefly to the volunteer fire departments. I'm sure that's a trigger warning for half of you up here, but here we go. In Precincts 1 and 4, we do not have the GCFR staffing and personnel present as Precinct 2 does and enjoys and as Precinct 3 enjoys from the city fire departments. It is certainly an essential service. While I agree absolutely that not all the volunteer fire departments are operating at equal capacity, and they're not, I am telling you that Precinct 1 and Precinct 4, specifically the volunteer fire departments that are Marion, New Berlin, McQueenie, Lake Dunlap, Sandhills, and Kingsbury, we need them. And I know that Commissioner Gurman and I feel extremely strongly about the fact that we really cannot, for the safety of our people, go forward with a budget that does not include additional funding for them. Now, I understand that GCFR feels that if we give to one, we take away from the other. But we have to figure out a way for that not to be the rhetoric. You're very important, too, and we rely on you. We rely on both of you. But Precincts 1 and 4... And for those of you that are citizens, I want you all to hear this. Precinct 1, I have the most rural area out of any ones, 52% of the total county. We have almost doubled the county road mileage of any other precinct. Precinct 3 is 90-something percent city limits. Precinct 4 is similarly situated to myself. We have volunteer fire departments. I think at this point in time in the fiscal year, they have responded to upwards of 3,500 calls. There are some that are very qualified. There are some that are citizens that are doing the best they can. Of course, we're not ignorant to that fact. I want the court to know, and I know there's been some severe opposition to that, but I know that I can speak for Commissioner Garvin and I, having recently talked to him about this, that the two of us feel very strongly about it and feel that we are putting the public at a very dangerous situation if we do not have that in the rural area. I also support the growth of GCFR. I think that we should be forward-facing in that. One of the conversations I think the court will be having right now, and I have a feeling I know where it will go, is whether or not we are going to entertain the idea of any new positions in this budget. And I don't know that that's something that we can do certainly for everyone, maybe no one, going forward with this conversation. But I will say that I think that it needs to be recognized that the people that are the volunteers in our two precincts have done a tremendous amount of work. It's been very valuable. I know that over the last two weekends I've been made aware of many phone calls that the volunteer fire departments have received for dispatch. And they have gone and covered multiple fires to the tune of double digits each day of the last two weekends. GCFR has also been covering fires the whole time. They're busy. They are all at capacity. They are all covering things constantly. GCFR needs more people. The volunteer fire departments do need more money to be able to operate. GCFR is going to grow. All of these things are facts. But right now, today, similar to last year, you're right. We don't have a plan. I agree with you, Mr. Smith. You're correct. We need one. Right now, today, in Precincts 1 and 4, if we don't have them, we do not have people that are covering fires in the rural area. That's the bottom line. I mean, we have to have it. I want to let somebody else talk for a little bit, if you want to.

Anybody else want to make any comments?

I have more to say and some specific things that I don't know if the court wants to reserve more of the conversation for the actual action item if we want to try to cover a lot of this just up top. That's your preference. Do we want to cover more of the conversation right now up front or during the action item?

I'm just going to ditto what she says about FAR. Two weekends ago, GCFR was up north of Seguin at a big fire. It was close to 40 acres outside of Marion on fire. And who put it out? The volunteers. So to this rhetoric about are they qualified or not? If my pasture's on fire, I want a wet hose there. I want that truck there. I don't care if it says McQueenie or New Berlin or GCFR. And my constituents are the same way. And until we figure out how to make GCFR move forward, these volunteers are our firefighters. They're all we got. And we got to make it work. And to some of the points that were made, and I'm going to ditto that. Anybody buy diesel lately? And when they get to that fire, you got that big old truck sitting there. Think it's running on air? No, it's running on $5 a gallon. So we got to fund these people. I mean, there can be all the argument in the world about, and GCFR, we keep putting more money into that thing. But the bottom line is, when I look at the run numbers, the volunteers are the ones that are making it work. Marion ran 637 calls last year. Gee, I like to sit in my living room at night. I don't want to go out to a fire or an emergency call. God bless them. Marion ran, I mean New Berlin ran over 450. This year, most of them are right now at what they ran last year. So we need to fund them. And Commissioner Ott has a few other things that I'm in agreement with, but I will stand by those volunteer fire departments. to the end of time until there is an alternative. And right now, if my house is on fire in precinct four, my volunteer fire departments are the ones that are gonna come put it out. And I have witnessed it personally in my own family where we almost lost a house. And that McQueenie chief came up there by himself and started ripping boards off the house to keep the fire from going under the house. We need to support them. And we will support them. That's all I have to say for now again.

I wanted to briefly discuss one of the propositions I had within the Environmental Health Department. Mr. Warnes, can you see if Ms. Valdez is available?

I think she just stepped outside.

Thank you, Mr. Peter. While he's doing that, I wanted to bring up one of the issues that we received some correspondence on from the sheriff in regard to the chaplain position. This court did discuss the availability of a chaplain position for the sheriff's office. It's my understanding, and if I'm unclear on that, then Sheriff, would like for you to clarify this for me. We did bring this up, and I understand that that position is paid for entirely and annually from commissary funding. However, our county attorney informed us that it does need to be something that comes before commissioner's court due to some of the different expenses that come into play, retirement being one of them. Am I misunderstanding that? This is from our last conversation from our previous court.

There is no specific guidance on it.

It doesn't necessarily have to go in front of the court for the position to be created. I don't think nobody's requested a written opinion from my office. If one's created, I will draft one. But there is no specific guidance. This is for the chaplain.

No, I don't think so. I don't think anyone's requesting it unless somebody feels differently than I do, so I don't want to speak for the rest of the court members. But I wanted just to give my impression, because I know we had received correspondence from the sheriff in regard to the creation of a chaplain position asking us to do that.

And so the court has an obligation to create that chaplain position for it to ever make it into there. The question is whether or not that's going to be the duty of the court just as a as a pro forma requirement, or whether there's any authority for you to deny that request. I've not done the research on that. If this was going to be out of asset forfeiture money, you all have the authority to say, no, you cannot. Out of that, there is no guidance from either the legislature or the attorney general's office. So it would be the opinion of my office that it would be controlling at that point. I haven't done any research. I know that y'all, for it to make it into the budget, y'all have to create that position. Whether you have the ability to deny it or not has not been asked of me yet. I'll let you know if y'all ask me to prepare a... Well, no, I'm not asking you to deny it.

It was my understanding in the last conversation that we had before this court that the retirement and perhaps the benefits were the reasons that we needed to maybe talk about it as a court and vote on it, other than just the simple creation of it.

And again, if that were from asset forfeiture, you have the authority to deny or approve it. I don't know if this is just...

Simply commissary.

What's that? Since this is from commissary, there's no specific guidance on that. My point was we may have to, you know, you may have to rely on an opinion from my office to make that determination, but no opinion has been requested yet.

Okay. So, you know, I think there must be some sort of misunderstanding here, because we received correspondence from the sheriff, and sheriff, you know, any input you have is totally welcome, but in our correspondence from the sheriff, we have received that if we don't do this, then we will, there's a potential that he is going to mandamus us to do this, and As a court member, I'm surprised and a little confused about that because I don't feel like there was any negative conversation about it. I think we brought it up. We talked about whether or not we needed those ancillary funds for retirement, perhaps benefits, but I don't feel that there was any negativity from the court in regard to that position.

I disagree with you on that. I believe there's been resistance by the court to allow any additional funding from any other sources that the departments have available to us, the discretionary funds. say the hot check, the prosecutor's fund, the asset forfeiture funds that both the sheriff and I carry, there has been resistance from the court, specifically from the judge, saying that if nobody can get if the court's not going to authorize it to come out of general fund, then those of us that have other funds available to us should also be denied the ability to do that. So that, I think, I'm not going to speak for the sheriff because I don't know what the motivation behind that was. But the question would then be whether the court has the ability to deny it. That's not been presented to my office for a written opinion. I can prepare one in a day or so if that does happen. But prior to a mandamus taking place, I think the court would need that law from me before that would even take place.

What I want to note, court, is can we talk about that right now? As I stated before in the prior court, I have no issue with it. I think that it would be fine and beneficial if we did have a chaplain that is paid for out of commissary fund on an annual recurring basis. I don't have an issue with that person's benefits in or retirement. I think that it would be a benefit to the county. I think that that person would be made available to our law enforcement. I think that it's a positive thing. I wanted to see if the court would entertain that conversation right now.

Any concerns about having the conversation now?

No. There's no legal concerns. Because we're presenting the budget, there are no legal concerns about having that.

And to your point, I did voice concern early on going, would we also then consider other special revenue funds? Because you do have records management for the county clerk, the fire code for the fire marshal. asset forfeiture for yourself but if you remember at the end of those conversations it was also my understanding is that the sheriff has complete control over the commissary and could do that without our approval that's when the conversation the commissioner's referencing came up going hold on i'm not sure so that wasn't my opposition to the creation of the position i thought the sheriff could do that without our permission i i think that there's no guidance on it and so

If he were to make the request and you all denied it, then guidance would be necessary. If he makes a request and you all don't give any pushback on it, then it doesn't matter. In my opinion, there's no consequence.

But if we don't make a decision, I guess that's the question. Can he still do it if we don't say yes or no?

There's no way for him. for it to go into a budget if you don't put it into there. So the point being, the commissioner's court has to create a position for the auditor to then have a budgeted position for it to come out of that money. So is it just an act that just requires your signature, one that you're going to be bound to do, that he could then mandamus you to do or not? And I don't have the answer to that. I lean towards he can probably mandamus you should it get to that, but no request to my office has been made to make that ultimate legal decision. He can say, I'm hiring you, but until there's a position available through the budget, there's no way to make that happen. The point is, whether it's just an act you have to just sign your name to, or if you all get a right to vote on it, I guess we don't have that question in front of us just yet. If you all decide, yes, he's going to be able to use those funds to be able to do that without any question from the commissioner's court, then it's a moot point. If the court is to say, no, we're not going to put that in the budget, then is when the mandamus question comes up. That's when my opinion becomes necessary as to whether or not it can be done without y'all's authority and whether y'all could be mandamus into doing it.

I think for me, some of the confusion came from, you know, I attended one of the meetings with the department heads and some of the electeds. We were presented. We were given a proposition. There were 14 new positions in this proposition. There wasn't conversation about the chaplain. We had the conversation in court. I did not feel that we were necessarily opposed to it. Certainly not a majority was opposed to it. And so I was surprised to receive that correspondence. it was not my impression of how we left the conversation. I wanted to address it now with the court, if we can talk about that, if it's something that we would want to have included now, and I think that would end the conversation in one aspect or another. And if we need further guidance or further opinion, then we're all here in the same room moving forward with it since we are on a timeline for a response.

Sure.

Any other comments or thoughts on the chaplain position being funded at a commissary?

It doesn't matter to me.

I think we need to have some opinions from court members. As I said, I'm for it. Could any of the rest of you let us know so that we can try to include or not include that in the decisions we have today?

I am not opposed to it individually. My only question for the sheriff is there's been continued comments about deficiencies in having the number of detention officers online. I think it said 25 short. Is the chaplain more of a preference or priority at this point using those commissary funds as opposed to additional detention officer? Because in the request that we received from the sheriff, I think, and sheriff, you might have to correct me if I'm wrong, I don't remember the number of detention officers for the jail that were requested in your submission.

Yeah, according to our latest staffing analysis, we're 25 short. Really, it's 24 and a half. I'll just round it off to 25 because we can't pay for half a detention officer. Me too. In statute, we cannot use or the court cannot use commissary funds for operational costs. So I think there would be a discussion that we would probably maybe even need a legal opinion on whether or not that could be used for detention officers because I would argue that that's part of the operational cost of running the jail. So it's apples and oranges to me because it's commissary fund versus county funds. You just see it as two different things? Yes, sir.

How many detention officers were in your budget request this year?

I think it was 25. Actually, no, it was not because we sectioned it off into a four-year plan. I think 25 was the total over the four-year plan. I believe we asked for two this year. Two detention officers, correct? Yes, sir. Sorry, I didn't have that list.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the chair from the chaplain position?

So the funding out of the commissary fund for the chaplain is still at your requested rate of, is it 2201? What is the funding request, the pay rate? I don't remember the pay rate off the top of my head.

I'd have to look at it.

I think it's 2201. I think that's what that is. Is that correct?

I don't know if that's the same.

Judge, I don't want to be negative, but this has come to the court before as far as funding someone out of a special fund. And it lasts for two or three years, and then all of a sudden they come up and say, oh, we're running out of money. We need to put him back in the regular budget. So for two years, don't do it. I'll be here. I understand you want it. You feel it's really, really needed. But as long as it continues to come out of the commissary fund, I have no problem with it. But when you try to move it into the general fund, then, you know.

You have my permission to get rid of the position if it does not come out. I won't be here when that happens. The commissary fund is very healthy. It brings in more than it puts out by a long shot. So I have absolutely no qualms about the fact that the commissary fund is going to be able to pay for it.

I know you've done the research on how effective a reverend or priest or whatever you want to call him can work inside the way there. Maybe you can reach these people and put them on the right path. That sure would be nice. Thank you. It'd be nice if they didn't come back, right? Absolutely.

Any other comments, questions? No, I think we have a consensus. Thank you. Yes, I did want to talk about environmental health briefly. Ms. Valdez, if you wouldn't mind coming to the podium. Court, Ms. Valdez and I had the opportunity to have a conversation yesterday, and she did have a proposition for the court within this budget cycle that I do support and wanted to bring in front of you. So, Ms. Valdez, if I start to say this incorrectly or lack some detail, please feel free to jump in. There is a clerk two position that is currently and recently vacant within environmental health. The pay is roughly $20 an hour. Ms. Valdez is suggesting that we use that money if we are able to abolish that position because of some necessary grade and step adjustments for the planner, assistant planner, and floodplain manager. One of the concerns that I know that Ms. Valdez has relayed to me and that I certainly agree with that I agree with is that all three of these individuals are doing more complicated work than the person, the position a clerk to is really able to do from the job description and that work is being covered by other individuals within the development center. The three individuals are slammed very much so. And I know Ms. Valdez has made a request for a development coordinator. But at the very least, if these three individuals who are very slammed and, as I understand, excelling in their performance, were able to benefit from the grade and step adjustment, that would be two steps for the planner, two steps for the assistant planner, and one step for the floodplain manager. And the monies that we're currently going to the clerk to will cover all of that adjustment. It will be no extra cost to the court. These are three full-time positions that are already filled. Ms. Valdez, if there's anything you'd like to add.

No, ma'am, that is it. Basically, at this point, you know, I don't feel responsible asking for another position when we have the situation we have and the departments that are also requesting items. However, I was trying to think outside the box as I did ask for relief for those three individuals in a grading step. And so due to this position recently becoming vacant, Those three individuals are already taking on additional tasks in the office. As you all know, we are a small department. I don't have an assistant admin. I don't have an assistant director. So anything extra really falls on other employees or myself. I'm not asking for anything for myself. I will continue to do what I need to do to make the department operate. It's just the three individuals that I have, I have to think of a way to try to keep them and also help with the burden that they are taking on by taking on those additional duties. And so that is why I propose this idea to do away with the clerk. And it's not that I want to lose a position. Obviously, people are probably thinking, okay, you're asking for a position, but then you're wanting to lose a position. It's just I have to think of a way to handle the situation with what's going on right now in the office. And so that would be my proposal.

And I do want to signify that the position that Ms. Valdez did request was a position, a development coordinator, a person that would need a specific skill set and experience to fulfill. And they would be able to do a certain caliber and level of work. So the position she's asking for, that she's certainly acknowledging that we're perhaps not in a financial position to fund at this point. that sort of work was not able to be covered by the person previously in the clerk role, and it wasn't the same job description by any means or anywhere near it. So I do support this change, and I would hope that the rest of the court would as well.

Any other questions for Ms. Valdez while she's at the podium? I know, Danielle, we had originally talked about moving the position from the engineer because the engineer position is vacant, and then if there were a potential vacancy of moving that position around. But if we didn't do that and you had the opportunity of keeping that engineering employee that moves over longer and restructuring job duties, do you think this clerk adjustment is a better fit for right now to address those problems with the existing employees?

I think for right now, that position, as I've told the court, even if I do, and I'll use the word inherit that position, that position moves to my department, there already is some conflict there because they are the the pay is higher than the current assistant planner who is doing a majority of the duties for planning as well as the planner so that already creates a conflict so even when that position if it were to move over to my department yes i would ask to increase additional duties onto that because of what the pay rate is for that I believe that they should have additional duties if that position is kept. Now, if that position is vacant, then if there would be a further adjustment or we would need to realign everything, I would have to do that at that time.

And I just wanted to have that conversation because I know there's a lot of things moving around in your department and at the Development Center because of that vacancy, the pass-through program for reviewing all the plats that are coming in. Workload has gone up tenfold over a short period of time where it's busy in a lot of other departments, but I think your area has increased probably quite a bit faster than what was originally anticipated.

Yes, sir. I mean, just in approved lots, recorded lots alone, I think we've had 5,800 lots from January to July, so a matter of seven months. That's not subdivisions that are pending, development that's pending, it's not septic, floodplain, code enforcement, that's all in my department. So again, employees already have a majority of additional duties. And I know there's other departments. And a lot of these departments support our department or work with our department. But my biggest thing is, again, I don't feel comfortable sitting up here asking for a position when I do have maybe an alternative solution. And really, you know, what I'm hearing from citizens is, you know, law enforcement. And that's my thing. It should be law enforcement first responders first. And that would be fair to the other departments if maybe, you know, I'm not going to ask for something that other departments are not getting. It's not a fair. And I don't want our services to decline and affect the service that we provide to the citizens because I do really take that to heart. And I expect the employees and myself to provide the best service we can. I just don't want to see a downfall in that because I'm overworking people. And I'll be honest with you, a real eye opener to me was the other day when I had an employee tell me that they did not want to take off for a medical appointment because they didn't want to fall behind. That's problematic to me. And that's when I said, I got to start thinking of a solution. If I don't get anything position-wise, then I need to be able to figure out something to keep the people here so they don't have that fear of, oh, if I take off, I'm going to come back to 100 more emails. And that's not an exaggeration or more workload or fall behind. And so that's why I'm approaching the court with this, just to try to come up with some way to think outside the box.

Any other questions, comments? Oh, sure. Danielle, thank you. Commissioner Abbott, I was going to ask real quick, could you go through those, the positions and the regrade request you were talking about?

Yes.

For environmental health?

Yes.

I'm just trying to keep a note of what we're talking about.

Yes, no problem. Let me pull some of that.

The first position is the planner position.

Okay.

And... Okay.

Planner? Yes. Assistant planner?

No, the three positions are planner, assistant planner, and floodplain manager. The current step in grade is an 11.5. Danielle, is that correct? Yes. Okay.

I've got the sheet here.

Okay, great. And a two-step increase, of course, would be a 13.5. The current for the assistant planner is a 9.3. with the two-step increase being an 11.4. Current for the floodplain manager is an 8.3, with a one-step increase being a 9.3. Total cost on the high side of that is 24K. If you're giving the two-step increase to both the planner and assistant planner, if you're doing the one-step for each of those three positions, it's approximately 14K, both which fall within the monies that have been set aside for that Clerk 2 position that is unfilled.

Just so I thank you for going through that. Now I have the detail at least wrote down so we can revisit that.

Yes, sir. Can I add just one more thing to environmental health? So I do the environmental health hearings, and her employees that come out there are doing way above and beyond. I mean, they bring a case, and they've got pictures. They go back out to the location, take more pictures, everything else. So whatever she's saying for her employees is the truth there.

Commissioner Gurman, I'm going to cut you off. I apologize.

No, you're good. Todd, Judge, could you come back up again? I have a different topic. And he's not aware that I'm bringing this up. So we have the Marion Project. We've spent $2.7 million on it. It's going to be a, well, it is a beautiful building. And Judge Friesenhahn sent all of us recently an email about his staffing needs. There is concern that we're going to open this beautiful building and we're going to put a sign up there, but we're only open Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday because we've got to work the rest of the time. So, and we want to try to put a tax clerk there, but the tax assessor says he doesn't exactly know how he can get it done. And I know things are tight, and I have not said anything to Judge Riesenhon about this, but I'm proposing that if any kind of way we could get a part-time clerk for the JP and a part-time clerk for the tax office. And they are there. Maybe they could help each other. It could be one and the same people. But anyhow, so we can keep the doors open on a brand new facility that we've built and serve the public. Judge, what do you think of that idea?

I'm open to any kind of discussions. I'm sure everybody's got my letter here. We're not going to go into my letter if you don't really want to. I understand the situation. But at the end of the day, I've got to take care of my office the best way I can. Like I said, I'm not going to get into the merits of my letter. I mean, unless you all want to. But I'm open to any suggestions for any kind of help. And so if it's not now, maybe a few months down the road as we get going, there's other avenues. I kind of came to a few different commissioners and said, okay, how can we just change some things up that we're so far behind? You really want my office hasn't put in full time on since 2012 Last year y'all gave the part-time at the very last minute but There's other avenues that we can discuss at a different time about in the future and maybe in the future at least but I'm open to anything so making the part-time full-time would help tremendously and You're talking about a part-time or part-time to full-time? Part-time to full-time. Oh, yeah. I've got two part-times now. You can get that part-time to full-time. Oh, she is wonderful. I mean, they're eager to learn, do more. But I know that's the situation.

But that's up to you all. Well, when you look at the workload and the amount of money that you bring in from your second only to Precinct 1, and if you had a weigh station, you'd be far ahead of Precinct 1. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Well, what I've always looked for is productivity. And actually, people will say, but how much money are you bringing into the county? And you're bringing in quite a bit of money to the county and taking care of things. So I see where it's needed. You just look at the numbers. It's one, four, two, and three.

And if anybody wants to sit down with me and go over the OCA numbers, if there's any, you know, or even in the citizens want to go over it with me, contact my office. I'll sit down with them. I'll show them the numbers. I did Hayes County, Comeau County, and Guelph County. And so I can just show them the numbers.

So if you have a part-time, you could make full-time. I got two part-times. That's the answer.

It's not the total answer, but it certainly helps him at the present time. Because everybody keeps comparing us to Comal and Hayes. Well, they don't fund tax-exempt people. They don't do fire EMS. They have ESDs. So all the money goes to where it's really needed in the county employees to get the job done. So that's, once again, we need to take care of our employees first. And if there's any money left over, then you dole it out. But this year, there's not going to be any money left over.

And that's why I understand the situation. And so that's why I'm not screaming and hollering on top of my lungs. I understand tight budgets. And I'm just looking for the future, going, okay, maybe we can just keep going here. I'm trying to tell the clerks that's I don't want to lie to them, but I need to tell them something, and hopefully they'll stay.

To move both his part-times and full-time, what would that cost, Chris? I would have to run the force.

Even if it's not even, I would love both part-times, but just one of them at least that would help. Anything would help kind of deal.

We can look at one if you'll run the numbers for one. I'm not sure what they're being paid now. Because you have three and two halves.

Three and two halves. It's like $63,000.

Clark II would be $66,000.

And there's $44,000 apart time. Does that sound correct?

I think that's what it was. What would that cost difference?

$20,000.

We found out that the city church is not controlling any unincorporated area on the fire department. That's $25,000 there.

Judge, would that help us keep the doors open?

Absolutely. I mean, you know, and like I said, the numbers there, if you really want to go look at the numbers, I mean, Let's just compare us to Precinct 1. And I ran the numbers from March of 25 to March of 26, and we were 200 cases more in Odyssey. Then if you're going to go into OCA, OCA comes into as far as warrants. Judge Hunter does a lot more warrants. And then that's more of the judge's part there kind of deal, not just cases that the clerks are entering. And at the end of the day, yes, court gets busier. And the judge gets a little bit busier. But it's not the judges that are so burdened with this. It's the clerks, because the clerks are behind there doing all the paperwork.

Once again, they're the backbone of this county.

They are.

They are.

I will echo to you that the Justice of the Peace Precinct 1 is also requesting that one of his part-time clerks be moved to a full-time as well. And I would ask that if we are inclined to do this for Precinct 4, that we would do it for Precinct 1 as well.

I agree. And I'm going to add to that, in the new just the piece coming into Precinct 4, Captain Torrance, we are, and I talked, and we're talking about different ways to new programs for the wait station because, you know, that office has just clerks just putting in tickets, which it's revenue for the county. ways that we can streamline that somehow with different programs. I talked to the constables about going to the sheriff's office to that, I guess, 365, you know, to streamline that. They went on it. That's, you know, alleviated a lot of data entry from these clerks kind of deal. And so there's avenues that we're starting to look at, trying to figure it out, and hopefully down the road we'll figure it out.

When Katherine worked for you originally before she went to MVBA, she's a rising star. That woman is extremely intelligent and knows exactly what to do on computers and how to streamline things. Matter of fact, it's going to be MVA's loss when she goes out of that way. But she'll do a great job for the county and always for you. She's like having two people. Absolutely.

Commissioner, JP1 has $24,000 part-time. And then for the conversation later, we would have to determine if it was a clerk one or a clerk two. Clerk one, $62,332. Clerk two, $65,630. So those would be different sellers.

So, Judge, when you said earlier on hours, I got two part-times. So is that $44,000?

You have a single part-time line for $44,000.

Well, I guess they're taking two part-times out of it.

Right. So any department that has one, two, three part-times, there's just a single part-time line. And we put a note in there if we know how many positions, the number of hours worked, and the pay rate. So we just have the cumulative. But to your point, then it gets to a discussion for you if the court's willing to do that. Are you taking one of the part-times, which is probably half of that money, or do you want to be thinking about what the schedule is to leave a part-time and do that? Or are you taking two part-timers, making it one full-time, and telling somebody, I don't have a spot for you anymore? I know.

That's going to be a hard decision if whatever you all come up with there. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

When you look at his numbers, he definitely needs the extra staff. Once again, it's revenue coming in, and he's more than making up for it. Yeah, it's a wash.

I have a couple other individual items to bring up if we are ready to move forward. I have been contacted by Judge Kaler. He is our magistrate, as you all know. He is doing a great job. He is our full-time magistrate. Ms. Sunny Middleton, she is an attorney. She is our part-time magistrate. They do have a lot of fear, I think, going forward due to the I'm sorry. Let me interrupt myself real quick. Judge, the current clerk for the Justice of Peace Precinct 1 is a clerk 1. It is a clerk 1. Yes, sir. Okay. Back to the magistrate. So Ms. Middleton is covering every single night and every single weekend and every single holiday. There are some times, of course, that you would imagine that a person might need some time off if that is their schedule. And Judge Kaler is... I think worried that there might be, you know, some burnout in the near future. They are looking for a part-time magistrate. Reason I'm bringing this up, again, as the court knows, I am for using some of our money that we have set aside for building purchases. I'm trying to look at some things that are not huge expenses. If we can, a part-time magistrate is $35,000. That would be somebody to assist with the night's weekends and covering for Judge Kaler. I know Judge Kaler intends to be able to help with some of the other courts if and when needed. However, we don't have enough coverage for that. I wanted to bring that to the court's attention and see if the court had an appetite for that at this time. His concern is that if Ms. Middleton does become burned out, that it would be difficult to find another person. If we don't have another person to cover those hours, that would be an immediate need and a problem as we're trying to put people through that system at the speediest rate possible. I'd just like to get the court's thoughts on that. If the court doesn't have a current appetite for it, I'll move on. I just wanted to bring it up.

Do you have any comments or questions? Not at the start.

Okay. I appreciate the feedback. We'll move on to the next one. The next thing I wanted to talk about, and again, this is something I brought up several times, was our admin, Commissioner's Court admin. Again, as we've discussed with the court, I don't think that her salary, the way that she's graded, is appropriate at all. Multiple counties that are within our similar numeric comparison have an administrative assistant for each commissioner. We have one administrative assistant total for all four commissioners. I again want to reiterate my hesitation and apprehension toward losing a lot of the tenure, especially in this building. And I think it would be quite a hardship on the Commissioner's Court if we lost our admin. I am asking that she is re-graded from a grade 7 to a grade 9. The total cost difference in that is $8,000 in change. I wanted to discuss the Court's appetite on that. As an alternative to that, I would ask that the Court take half of my conference budget and give that to her. And I believe that Commissioner Grimm, I don't want to speak for you, but per our conversation yesterday, he would be willing to make a similar contribution. But I wish that the court initially would change that grade from a 7 to a 9.

what are the numbers again like the total numbers increase and the increase is eight thousand dollars and change i'm not sure about the full number but it is eight is less than nine thousand position is a seven two right now that would be paid this is with the three percent cola on the grade and step at 24 27 per hour yes And the request would be going to a 9. Correct. 2 would be a pay rate of $27.78 per hour. That's with the 3% consideration?

Yes.

I believe that is with the 3%.

Commissioners? Comments?

Our admin is just like any other department, but we're seeing more and more work. And she is getting the job done, facilitating things. I mean, there's some things that people don't see, She keeps having to deal with families that someone passes on and they don't want to accept the body. And she has to find a place with dignity to go with that. And she spends a lot of time on that. She definitely is getting the job done and I think I could support a pay increase for her. It takes a long time to train someone too and she's moved into that very well. We don't want to lose her.

So the challenge I see, and people are going to say here he goes again, is what we're doing is a leapfrog effect here. We're now going individually, departmentally, and we're nitpicking and not saying that people aren't deserving of it, but then we're going to have another department head come up and another one. Ms. Douglas is shaking her head, it's going to turn into something that we've discussed and the challenges we've faced. So again, I can't justify that leapfrog effect because it's going to turn into what we're doing. It's a process, but I understand everybody's burden as we've heard all morning from from different departments. So that's just my initial reaction, as you would expect.

Any other thoughts on that individual item?

Commissioner Wolverton, would you share your thoughts with us?

Do you have any thoughts? No.

If the court is unwilling to make that move, then I would ask that the court take half of my conference budget and put that toward hers. I want to urge the court. I don't want to comment too heavily on the changes that this court is going to experience. But going forward in the future, I am the only person that intends to run again, and I want people that are experienced and are doing a good job to stay and give the best service possible to the county. I really want to urge this court to look at our administrative assistant in the unique situation that she's in. This is the only administrative assistant in the county that serves four different elected officials. And other counties of similar size have four of them. I mean, similar budget, similar size. I mean, it's not a difference of one person. It is a difference of three people. And I do not want to be in a position in the near future where I am having to train brand-new people. I am the baby commissioner up here, and I really would like to keep as much tenure as we possibly have. We have a lot of people that have been here for a long time, and retirement is on the horizon. I'm really happy for them. I'm slightly nervous for myself with that coming up. And I would really urge this court to either please vote to take some of this money out of my conference budget. And I know Commissioner Garmins, I don't want to speak for you, but with our conversation, I know you agree to make this whole. Or give her a regrade. It is not the same as everyone else. But I have to say, I I don't think there's any issue with certain departments advocating for themselves or advocating for their people or keeping someone that is very quality. I may not agree with all of the people necessarily and the things that they do and how they handle their business, but the fact remains that people that really do a good job, we need to keep them. I mean, that's a fact across the board. I don't discredit any department for coming up and advocating for themselves. That's what I'm doing for myself. That is our one and only admin. And I'm going to do that the same as I wouldn't hold that against any other person that's going to advocate for their employees. People need to feel supported. They need to feel supported by the people they work for. I want to support our admin. And truly and really, I would ask this court to reconsider not giving that raise. And if you won't do it, then I would like some feedback on taking the money out of our conference budget. We did just take money out of Commissioner Wolverton's conference budget. We all agreed on that budget amendment to provide some of the employees in this building with panic buttons so that they are safer in this building. Certainly, we all supported that. So I know that we can make changes to people's conference budgets. So I'm asking that if we won't give her a raise, we do the same with mine.

The difference is mine was a non-occurring. transfer. It's a one-time deal where yours may not be.

I understand.

I've given Mr. Vasquez money out of my line also to take care of problems that we had that he was short on. I've done every bit of my education, and I think I had something like $3,000 left over, which was far more than what I actually needed. So some of the conference lines are grossly, you know, It's got too much money in it. All you need is 18 hours. Anyway, it's just, you know, my money went as a one-time thing to help the safety of this county.

I understand. I do. And if that needs to be something that continues for as long as I'm here, I don't have a problem with that. But, again, I really want to rearrange the necessity of keeping her here. Is there somewhere we can meet in the middle on that?

She was hired to take over the commission's court agenda and everything else and help Stephen out. Has that worked out?

She's now doing the agenda by herself.

She's doing the agenda by herself.

So it's been able to take some stuff off of Mr. Tye's plate.

I'm just going to say it again. I don't have a problem with what Commissioner Ott is saying. I will say this. I do my job differently probably than the other commissioners. She absolutely knows where I am every day. She'll say, I call in, anything going on, Taylor? No. Yes, you got to take care of this. I keep her extremely busy, and that's just me. I'm not speaking for the other three commissioners. I believe that she deserves some compensation. She is the face of this court when we are having court, because she's there on the computer. with people interacting and so forth. So I have no problem with what Commissioner Ott is proposing.

Commissioners, I did misstate the straight grade increase was the 2427 to 2778, but when you go up to step or grade, excuse me, eight or nine, that entry-level step that's highlighted is one more over. So It actually could be a 24.27 per hour to 28.46.

My calculations were not based on 28. It was based on 27.

Okay. And that is the discretion of the bosses, managers, the people in there. So you can absolutely use that 27.10 or 27.78.

Well, if we don't have three votes for it, then I don't know that that's even a relevant conversation. But I will urge this court, again, to look at what she's expected to do. And I wouldn't say this out loud without her permission and having talked to her about this, but she's expected to work for all four of us for $49,000 a year before tax. I can't imagine somebody in that position doing one job for all four people that is making that. I mean, that's an expectation to do a whole lot of things. And again, our surrounding counties have four people doing that job. I mean, it's not good. It's not a good mindset. The expectations of the task that this person has to do and the complications are such that I believe that she is deserving of a higher compensation.

Yes, sir.

I believe that there's some people who want to comment from

Because we're still under the public hearing of the budget, correct?

Correct, from Zoom.

Okay. Has somebody raised their hand or made a note on there that they'd like to speak?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Will you unmute them, please? They're unmuted. Okay. Can you hear us?

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. I just wanted to say that I appreciate where Commissioner Ahn is coming from because I would like my staff to make more money as well. They work very, very hard. And she mentioned when she brought this up that people cannot live on the amount that her employee is making. There are 138 people that make less than what her employee is making. And she wants to raise them to a higher grade, which would make 240 people that are making less than her employee is making. There are 12 people in the county clerk's office that have been here for years. that don't make that much money. So she said we need to look at all the positions if we have people making less than that 49,000 a year. So I think it's imperative that we look at all the positions. We have nine people in the district clerk's office that make less than 2312, four people in JP1, one in JP2, two in JP3, and one in JP4. Four in the elections office. Three in purchasing. Sixteen in the tax assessor's office. Eleven in building maintenance. Eleven in fire department. Six at the county sheriff's office. Two at the fire marshal's office, constable's office. Nine in adult detention. Twenty-one in road and bridge. Three in environmental health. I mean, there's a lot of people in the county that need more money. I will tell you that we are having trouble completing our job in the county clerk's office with regard to the minutes because we can't get all the paperwork in by Friday to get the minutes done.

Is there anybody else online that would like to make comment during the public hearing? Okay, not hearing anybody else. Commissioners, any other comment on those items or that item?

Yes, Ms. Kuehl. I think taking a jab at our employee is absolutely and completely inappropriate. There are plenty of people in this courtroom I could take jabs at and I won't do that because it's not professional. There are plenty of people in your office I could do the same thing with. You taking these low blows, you telling the court, good luck, publicly, you turning around and looking at another elected official and making smart comments toward her during this court is inappropriate decorum. I'd ask that you refrain from that. We are not here to tear anybody else down. You may have your opinions, but I do not think that it's productive for you to tear somebody down when they're not able to look at you and defend themselves. The things that you have said in front of this court yesterday in your hearing for your salary grievance in this last court session have been completely inappropriate and critical of people that are trying to do their jobs well. I'd ask that you rethink that behavior and cease from it. Thank you.

Dr. T?

Bet you wish you retired yesterday.

Happy retirement, Dr. T. Yesterday, yeah. Yes, ma'am.

It's my last day.

Always there to give us some guidance and redirect.

I don't want anybody to get their feelings hurt or anything because I understand the importance of this topic. Maybe these discussions should happen in executive session if you need to because I don't, it's one thing if you know the person and they're okay, but if you start calling out people by name, there's so many HR, avenues that somebody could go down, and I don't want the court to be held in the future responsible for something that you're only trying to do. Really, your intent is to help somebody. That's just my HR two cents. I don't know where we'll go from here. I'm just... just kind of worried because I don't want somebody to come back and start saying something about it's okay. It's one thing if you know the person and they're okay with it, but sometimes when you get started, then we start saying other people and they get upset. And I'm just giving my opinion.

You're just voicing your professional opinion.

My professional opinion, even though I acknowledge the very difficult situation you're in.

Yeah. Thank you for the recommendation. I think it's good for us to always remember when we're talking about positions, remember to do our best to use titles as opposed to individual names so individual employees aren't singled out. I think it's very difficult. If we were talking about a single employment action and or issue, outside of budget absolutely i think that's appropriate places to do that in closed session when we're talking about a budget and pay ranges and grades that could affect other positions in other departments i think it's very very difficult for us to go into a closed session on that part of it unless we get down to that very specific single related action but appreciate the the recommendation and the guidance i think if we can just do our best to keep Keep things moving forward, but when we talk about positions, do just that. Talk about the position and not the person in it.

I want to say that that is something that I have discussed with Taylor, and it's something that she is fine with. I definitely appreciate Dr. T's recommendation toward the others. But not being able to speak about anything that occurs in executive session, certainly I'm aware of that, and everyone sitting up here knows what was discussed during an executive session or what wasn't. So we'll leave it at that.

Ma'am, did you have something else? Ms. Keel would like to respond. I will allow one more minute. I don't want to cut anybody off. It's just I also want us to be productive and efficient this afternoon already, and we have a lot to go through. Ms. Keel?

Yes, sir. I just wanted to say that I didn't direct that toward anyone, but we are talking about one position and one employee, so it was obvious who it would be. I have no problem with Taylor. Taylor is doing a fine job. She's just not doing what we need. We need to work together longer for her to be able to get a raise. The importance of the comment was that you mentioned four weeks ago or five weeks ago that if people are making less than $49,000 a year, we need to look at that. And I think you really need to take the time to look at who all is making less. We have to start our people at $18.76 an hour. There are other positions in the county that don't have to do that. So please take that into consideration.

Any other discussion on that topic? Yes. I did want to talk a little bit about there are several regrades. And I do, you know, I understand the court is in the position they're in. But there are If we would be open to talking about this, there are several re-classifications and or re-grades for several folks that I do want the court to consider. There are some requests in this proposition with several of our departments, and there are several department heads here. If they want to talk about those specifically, I certainly would be open to some of those changes. I know Ms. Balk was unable to be here today. We did speak last night. She has several clerk ones that are currently making 18.76 an hour. She is requesting that there be three reclasses to 20.07 an hour. I do want to make that known. And there are several other regrades or reclassification requests as well. I see several of the department heads here that have made those if they want to contribute to this conversation. Of course, I'd ask that they do that. At the very end of all the things that I've spoken about, and I want to thank the court for the time that you've given me for this, I do want to talk about fire briefly. It is my understanding that from GCSO, if we do have an additional position and the court has an appetite for that, that it be the fire captain. I think that that would be something very effective in their leadership that they have wanted to reissue their request for in talk about how it is necessary. I do think that forward looking with them and helping them continue to grow each time is important. I understand the situation that we're in very much so, but I do think that it is unlikely that we will have a problem of this magnitude next year. And again, if we do, we will know about it certainly much more in advance at this time. I also wanted to say that there are three position requests in this proposition from the county attorney's office. Having spoken to Mr. Wilborn, I understand that if there were to be one, it would be the legal administrative assistant for felony. I do want to issue my support for that request for him. Having worked in that office and looking at the volume that I once knew and knowing how much the population has increased, I do think it is imperative that that office have more staff if you want to come up and talk about it. I just want to issue my support for that. I think that the folks that are doing the prosecution there, it's just an incredibly important job. Having done that myself, It's so important, and I think there's so much that goes unsaid. It's interesting. There's all these different firefighters that everybody knows, and law enforcement everybody knows, and then there's prosecutors, and I feel like we're kind of like this where, gosh, y'all, you guys, not me anymore. But in this category where people are like, oh, yeah, someone takes care of that at the end, but no one really gives it the recognition it deserves, and I do want to issue that support for them and that administrative assist. I understand that it would be of tremendous help to this office.

Thank you, Commissioner Ott. And I won't speak for a long time. I am still making that request. We've made it clear that we think that that could happen financially. If the court is not inclined to give that additional position to me, and if the court's not inclined to give me the two position regrades, I would ask that you all authorize me and my office to create that position and fund it for at least the next year through asset forfeiture funds and to include those position regrades paralegal positions. There are two paralegal positions that I requested that for as well. So I know the stance that has been taken thus far. I would prefer those be taken out of the general fund and not from asset forfeiture. I have enough money to fund that position for two years out of asset forfeiture with the money that currently exists. I don't want to deplete those funds in that manner, but I would rather deplete those funds than lose the people that are going to wind up leaving because they're being overworked so handily. So that's going to be my request, that the court put those into the budget, either through the general fund or, worst case scenario, through asset forfeiture.

Dave, I was going to just point out, I know you've probably looked at this, but there's been a lot going on this budget season. But if you look at within your department, please notice that within the grade and step, in addition to the COLAs, a number of employees also had a grade or a step increase because it's every other year, which equates to a 5.6% increase. There were a couple of employees that were fixed, if you will, because they weren't placed on the grading step correctly, that resulted in a larger increase.

And I haven't seen where those were, so thank you for pointing that out, Judge. I'll look at it.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you.

And again, I don't want to speak for several of the other department heads that are in here, but please know that I would welcome you to come up here if any of you want to talk. And that being said, I want to shift to the last topic that I had other than that, which is law enforcement. First, I want to tell you that their proposed budget was a clerk position for the Constable Precinct 1. I have spoken with the Constable's Office, and Precinct 1 does have a part-time, unfilled deputy position currently. That deputy position is funded at either, I believe it's $33,000 or $5,000, and the Constable's Office would... ask that this court, instead of continuing to dedicate funds to that unfilled part-time position, the constable's office is having a hard time and has had a hard time filling that position because they cannot find someone that wants to work only part-time. They are requesting that that position be shifted to a full-time deputy. I do support that. The difference in cost and salary for that is $38,000. I understand there are additional costs that are associated with benefits in retirement, so I do want to acknowledge that to the court. But again, I would ask that Constable Precinct 1 be considered for having that part-time deputy moved to a full-time deputy and remove the request for a clerk from that. Again, I would like to say that Precinct 1 is increasing, as we all are, in population. We have 52% of the county. We do have the weigh station. And as was previously acknowledged, Precinct 1 is the busiest court-wise. They are doing a lot of work. They are covering Judge Hunter's dockets. Judge Hunter has dockets three to four days a week. And I would appreciate the court's consideration on that. Do we want to talk about that for a second, or law enforcement as a whole? Because I do want to talk about the Sheriff's Office next.

Court, y'all's preference?

Constable individually or just continue with the law enforcement conversation?

Okay, I want to keep on going. Court, I'm going to talk about the elephant in the room. I am not a fan of how the Commissioner's Court has been painted in social media. I think that was very difficult for all of us to stomach. I think that all of us up here are trying to do a job It is very difficult for all of us when we receive phone calls and emails from people that are angry at us from all of the things on social media that we've received. I will only speak for myself in saying that it is very frustrating to have to tell people that my position is that I support law enforcement when I continue to get feedback that I must not because of... things that they see on social media. I think that what's important for all of us that work for the county, this is our dedication, right? And so we call it, my dad and I, we used to work, both of us in the Harris County Courthouse, we used to call it the county mental bubble, right? Because those of us that work in the county, it becomes your world and it becomes the echo chamber of what you think, but What's way more impopulous than us is the public. And the perception of the public is not the same as all of ours, because we live and breathe this every day. So I think that what's important is to think about how the public perceives certain things. So at least for myself, despite not liking the light that I have been painted in, it does not change the fact that I do continue to support law enforcement, and I do think that we need more boots on the ground. I think that we are not able to fulfill the request anywhere near what we thought or hoped we could, and certainly not to the extent of the request. I know that this court has been really discouraged by a lot of the things that have been going on in the media, and I want you all to know that I feel for all of you And I very much appreciate all of the work that all of you have done. I think that you've done an incredible job, each one of you, for your time and for your dedication. I don't think that it's fair the way that we've been perceived. But I do ask that we try to look past that and do what's right. And in my opinion, I know we're all doing what we think is right. So I don't mean to disparage anyone's decision that's different than mine. But I do think that we do need some boots on the ground. And I don't mean to disagree with the recommendation presented here by the elected officials. I appreciate that the elected officials and department heads got together and made a recommendation. I would be more comfortable with boots on the ground deputies than I would be with several more people in the office because I think that the concern is more people to respond to calls. That would be my... My number one thought. So I would ask that this court at least consider several positions for the sheriff's office in the form of patrol deputies. If the sheriff wants to talk about preferring one of these office positions over that, certainly I'm open to that. My thought is boots on the ground. I know that we can't do a lot, but I think that we should try to do at least some. So I do want to issue my support for that. That includes Constable Precinct 1, moving the deputy part-time to full-time. I think that we should look at doing three more deputies for the Sheriff's Office, patrol deputies. I think that also I want to acknowledge some of the conversation that's happened in the public about being worried about some of these folks being able to cover some of the schools. I know that's a more complicated conversation for this court to have, perhaps at a later date. I will say that I am close to several people who do school safety resourcing and auditing for the state on a personal level, so I have been engaging in conversations with them about different options that we can discuss. I know that might be a bigger piece than we can bite off at this moment. But I would ask the court to consider some of those and see if we can really do our best at looking at that, maybe despite some of the feelings. And again, I'm not indicating that anybody in the court makes decisions based off of that, but I do want to acknowledge that that has gone on. And I want to acknowledge that nevertheless, I think that everyone is doing... what they perceive as right and what they believe in in the best way they know how. We may not always like it. I certainly don't. But I am asking that we do help and we do further a few more positions for the Sheriff's Office.

Commissioners, any thoughts or comments on those items? You're going to take that out of reserve?

Yes, again, I'm going to reissue the request I made originally when we first talked about this, that we do have the $3 million set aside for land and building purchases. Part of the conversation today did surround us having a building in Precinct 4 that we're worried about staffing, a fire station that we don't have enough firefighters for. The building in Precinct 4, we're looking to try to put some folks in there, both in the tax assessor's office. We have some space that's unfilled in several of the JP's offices, things like that. We are, and I know that we have to do this to anticipate growth, absolutely, no doubt about it, but this is a weird year. I don't want to repeat myself with some of the things that I've said about anticipating the changes, but I do think that we cannot look away from the fact that the population is exploding. And I do not think, no matter what, that we can say same amount of firefighters, same amount of law enforcement, way more people in the county, that that's safe. And even if it's just a little bit, I think it is better than nothing. I think we need to try. So yes, I understand that it is coming out of the reserve. I understand that that is a... fund that is not ever changing. And it is not, we can't rely on that to continue to be supported year after year. But I think that everybody in this room has heard enough about what we've talked about that we don't anticipate the same problem to be reoccurring. And that next year, if we are in some sort of extreme dire straits, there may not be a COLA. We understand. But I think that people right now would rather be supported, have a few more boots on the ground, have the extra felony paralegal, move a part-time to a full-time, have an extra firefighter, things like that right now to the best that we can. And next year, if we don't see that sort of abundance, we don't see that sort of abundance. I understand we can't pull continually from a general fund, but I do think that right now it's more important to me to have those extra personnel than to buy land. And I acknowledge that it is a recurring cost, yes.

We also need help in every department we have here.

I understand. I do. I do.

Everybody is a valuable cog in this machine.

I understand. I'm not trying to prioritize anybody over anybody else. It is simply that... Law enforcement is law enforcement, and when any of us need help, that is who we're calling. If we have a fire, I mean, those two things are the life or death things. I mean, everyone here has important jobs. I have an important job, but their job is more important than my job.

I understand that we have JPs that need extra people. We have the county attorney over that way that needs extra people. Actually, he needs more space than extra people. So there's a lot of things we're going to look into, but... It's a tough one. If you spend all this money this year, where is it going to come from next year? That's my only question.

I understand, and like I said...

I don't have a crystal ball. I wish I'd say the governor would get his head out of his backside and get things right, but it's going to be very, very difficult.

I understand that, and like I said, you know, we're spending... Sorry, I can't remember this figure, but I know our COLA was 1.8 or 2.4 for the 3%. I know it's one of those, and that's obviously a big difference, but a lot of numbers that are in front of me right now, but if you know, if we come to a situation where we can't do that next year and that might be something that offsets it, that might be something that we have to do. I acknowledge that and understand that, but I think if you ask anyone in this room and you ask people in the public as well, would you rather look at that for next year or would you rather at least have several more boots on the ground? I think their answer is going to be boots on the ground, firefighters. I think that's going to be their answer. It's what I believe. It's my opinion. So I just want to make sure that I... Get that off my chest and make that clear.

I understand. I understand completely. But we need to also understand that next year, I've got two guys that are going to be here. We're going to have to do something about tax rate because you're creating more cost, more overhead, and the only way we're going to be able to pay for it is the tax increase. And we've already heard the people complain about that. I understand that. I do. Because I do believe you voted no when I said 40 cents, because that would have covered everything.

I voted no to a double-digit tax increase. That's correct. Because I think a double-digit is more than the populace can stomach. I don't think people want a double-digit tax increase.

But you want to fund all these programs. The only way you're going to be able to fund these programs is to do that.

I don't think that we need a double-digit tax increase.

So you think you can do it without that?

Well, I think that the total, if we look at some of these things... Not just a few of them, just everybody.

Everyone who actually needs extra people. And every office needs it.

I understand that every office needs it, and I think that that's not feasible right now for us, to be able to do these things for every office. I wish it was. I don't think it is. I know that there are some that feel that all or nothing is the approach. I'm not one of those. I think that sometimes we have to look at certain things and make decisions. I know it's hard, and I respect your decision. And if your decision is not the same as mine, I respect it.

I do.

Well, the horse is beat to death. Take the saddle off.

Commissioners, any other comments?

I'm so sorry. One more that I didn't bring up. It was a request by several of the retirees and retired law enforcement. They asked that the court also think about the retiree COLA because they are not feeling that the COLA this year is adequate. I did inform them that I would pass that concern along to the court. So I am doing that.

Chris Klein, could you... Can you give us just a quick summary without, I mean, details of just how the retiree COLA works, how it affects our retirees, what that looks like, and what we've historically done?

Historically, we have given a raise to the retirees.

Can you get your microphone? Thank you. Sorry.

Didn't want you all to hear my crunching over here. Yes. Historically, the county has done retiree pay raises every three years. The problem for the county with retiree pay increases is that if we're doing it every year, they increase our mandated contribution rate, which affects the entire payroll. The last COLA, cost of living for retirees, was done in 2025, so we'd be scheduled to do them again in 2028. Right now, we're looking at a funded ratio of 91.6, which is incredibly important for our unfunded actuarial liability for our pension plan, right? And that's what changes that number.

What that means, right, the simple version is for TCDRS, Texas County and District Retirement System, we take a look at all of our retirees, what that pension cost and liability is on the county side, right? How much money we're funding out of our budget that's paid for with tax rate to say if all these people are retiring because they're this age, this is what we owe, how much of that is funded and how much is still a liability or a potential cost hanging out there. So one, we want to see the retirees get a bump because their cost of living is going up, but we want to watch that ratio Because if we never address it, the county could have a huge bill hanging out there that's a bigger check that has to be written at some point as your work age and population of county employees goes up over time and people start to retire at a higher rate. That's a real cost, and it can be millions of dollars. So it's just one of those things you have to continue to kind of be – be diligent about, but also be incremental and change and just keep chipping away so that future bill doesn't get so large. And it's a weird dynamic when people go, retirees get a cost of living. Well, it's, yes, but like you said, historically, we've done it every three years. Doesn't mean, to your point, commissioners, that it couldn't be addressed every year. It couldn't be done on a different timeline, a different amount, all those things. It's just, it's another cost to a county budget.

I appreciate the information. Thank you so much.

Any other thoughts, comments during the public hearing? Just get the reserve. We've had a lot of this discussion this year. We've talked about the unprecedented value loss and at the same time the unprecedented amount of need that departments are feeling. I have mixed emotions about it because I've tried to tried to remove myself from having a number of budgets under the belt and how things have happened before because this is different. We've never had to address our issues like this before. I too have felt frustration about the way things have been handled and communicated because I don't think it's been as productive at times that it could have been. I think there's been some things that were intentionally stirred up that haven't been as as helpful and assistive in these conversations, but I also understand that people feel like they're at dire straits to try to address the needs that aren't being looked at the same way. I'm extremely conservative. I don't just say that. For all the departments coming up saying they don't have what they need, maybe that's proof I'm a little too conservative sometimes, but at the same I am truly concerned about the future of our county and level of spending while also trying to address the needs that are in all these departments. I won't be here next year. That's been referenced multiple times, but like commissioner, I still care. I don't have to be here. I could not show up tomorrow and say, good luck, I hope it works out for y'all. I could have done that months ago, but I'm still here. I plan on staying until my last day December 31st and doing my best to try to do my job. I won't be around to have these conversations next year going, how do you address a budget shortfall? What's a tax rate have to look like to support budget decisions that were made last year, which are today? How does a depressed real estate market play into that? What about the state legislature right now about to consider changing the over 65 exemptions to 55 to have a lower level of freeze? School tax exemptions going up to $140,000 when we have brand new homes being built in Guadalupe County that are $140,000 to $170,000. So it's all those things. Anybody that has talked about spending money out of fund balance as a backup plan, they're not wrong. There's no right or wrong answer. Again, it gets down to a discussion about risk and what is the court willing to risk and anticipate is going to happen. Again, my very careful nature is concerned about spending $3 million out of fund balance on reoccurring, whether it be equipment or operational positions, because what I've been told and what I've looked at from a county budget standpoint on revenue is that all of this tax the taxable value issue and the freeze recalculation was not completely taken care of this year. We don't know that for sure, but we expect and anticipate there may be some residual value loss next year. Now, could that be half a billion? Could it be 100 million? Not sure, but there's going to be some of that. The other thing is real estate market that we're watching right now in our county is the foundation of what the tax base is going to be for next year. it's going to be very similar to what it was last year because there's not much has changed. You have higher interest rates. You have costs going up. You've got these geopolitical events that are almost war that are driving things. Cattle are being let in from Mexico. Cattle market's off for the last few weeks. Fuel's up, but oil is stable. I mean, there's all these different things that are going on. When I think about a budget... All these people are right. The county employees are not just a line in a spreadsheet. But also on this side, if those numbers aren't in that spreadsheet, the positions don't exist. So there's gotta be a balance and consideration to what that economy looks like for the county, what the tax rate implications of the decisions we make today are. Maybe there is some middle ground. Maybe there is some flexibility to do that and not spend as much out of the fund balance. Because I can't... I hear all the need more so now today than ever before, but I don't know if I can get to an item on the agenda later and say let's spend $3 million, because I think that $3 million turns into another $3 million next year before you start, still with increased EMS, still with a change in debt service, still with extra colas and adjustments for county employees that turns into five or six before you've made any decision again and still gonna have the need for law enforcement, still gonna have the need for fire, for more road construction, for EMS contracts, for expansion of all the services. And I think that's where the biggest concern for me, it almost feels like to me watching, this is my 16th county budget, right? Watching history repeat itself going what happens and what today and what money is spent today is absolutely going to be the first amount of money that's spent next year if things aren't completely different. And everything that's shaping up through September 1st today is not completely different than last year. It's almost identical. versus the freeze recalculation. Everything else is looking very, very similar, which makes me believe with my history and experience at the county in doing budgets that we're gonna have similar revenue issues next year. And while spending money out of that fund balance addresses some of these issues now, you're almost as a court and a county committing to a certain amount of tax increase before you start next year. And if everybody's okay with that, let's be okay with it, but let's have that conversation. Because if it were another automatic 5, 6, or 8% tax increase next year because of what we're deciding today, while still having to find other money to expand law enforcement, fire, EMS, other departments, pay for employees, insurance, road construction, and flood mitigation, is everybody okay with that? Because I think that's really what we're talking about today. And again, I will be watching from a field feeding cows, not thinking about county budgets, but somebody's going to be sitting here and going to have to address those things going, I really wish they wouldn't have spent that money the way they did. Or maybe they did the right thing, but it was on a measured amount to try to fix some of the problems, but not to dig too deep of a hole. Because I think in the sense that we can spend too much money, we can also be too careful and shut everything off and just create bigger problems in the future. What's the court's thoughts on... spending some fund balance on some of these needed things now, but being okay with that built-in tax increase if that's the way it works out?

Well, you're right. It's going to be a built-in tax increase. There's no two ways about it. It's not going to set well with the people, but if they want the services, this is the only way we're going to be able to get to them. Once again, if we continue to dip out of our reserve, like I said, $3 million this year, well, next year it's going to be $6 million because you already take the $3 million out. And so you want the same thing. It just keeps adding and adding and adding. Pretty soon, your reserve is gone if we don't get some large corporation side here that's got a lot of taxable value to it. Because right now, rooftops don't pay the bills. I know we were criticized for the data centers. But if it comes to tuition, you've already run the numbers on it. That will almost double our income or what we get on taxes. And then we won't have any trouble. But right now, people don't want data centers. But we have to have some sort of large corporations come inside the way, because rooftops don't make it.

Not just talking about those projects, but just economic development in general. There's a lot of conversation that goes on, and I completely understand any citizen being concerned and not supporting the idea of abatements or incentives for projects. But also with the history of the county, I've also watched projects be built that otherwise would not have been built in Guadalupe County in this region or in the state of Texas unless you had cities and a county coming together with Chamber of Commerce and EDCs saying, we want this type of activity here, we want these businesses here, we want these jobs here, and we're willing to prove that by supporting you. So I know it's very easy, and again, I respect the people that oppose them, to look at an abatement and say we're giving up this much value. But I would argue in every one of those situations, on the opposite side, count the other value we have received because we wouldn't have otherwise received it. There'd be thousands of jobs not located here. We wouldn't have an Amazon in shirts. You wouldn't have a Caterpillar. You wouldn't have Niagara, Mauritius Steel. You wouldn't have retail coming in, the Academy facility. The list goes on and on, not only in central Guadalupe County, but on the West End, in smaller areas, Tinker and Razor's over by the New Braunfels Airport. That's a holiday monitoring, like a pipeline leak detector facility. manufacturer of the components that do that, and they're in the county. That's not in the city, and they wouldn't have relocated here. You have all of those things, and I understand it. People say make them pay their fair share, and we understand that and respect that line of thinking. I know I do, but I also know there would be a lot less jobs, a lot less industry, commercial, and industrial projects that would have been built in and around Guadalupe County if we wouldn't have participated in some of those. You're right, Ben. You talk through all those things and there's a lot going on in our county. It's an exciting time to be in county government. Believe it or not, even as I've joked with my family being the largest human pinata in Guadalupe County, I still enjoy the job, still respect the people even if we don't agree. We're all experiencing just extreme growth, a lot of growing pains. We're also in a in constant transition and constant shift of what needs are and what's going on, what the public wants, how we communicate with everybody. So it's a different time, but it's also, I tell all the elected officials, all the employees at the county, we are the lucky ones. Not everybody gets to do what we get to do. So I hope no matter how the budget conversations go today, everybody remembers that.

Judge, when you talk about the... The abatements we've given, it's just on brick and mortar. Furniture, fixtures, and equipment is not abated. Ladder roads are not abated. So we're giving up a very small amount to be able to get more in the future. And that's what some people just can't see. Yeah, we're going to yell that. Why did you give this guy a nine-year abatement? Well, it's actually nine-year on brick and mortar only, and it goes down to five years. So at that point, plus the rollback tax that we're going to get will be a huge shot in the arm. There's a lot of things we have to look at to make sure this county continues to run properly. I don't know if everybody understands it until they sit in this there and look at the numbers. How do you stretch that dollar? It's not easy.

No, and that's what we're being asked to do, right? Yeah. So in our next public hearing, we'll talk about the tax rate. But currently, we have that to go with, right? So bottom line to me, it comes down to what I've said before. 101 positions, we have to decide if we're going to fund out of reserve additional. 3% COLA, I'm still in favor of that, or even a 4%. possibly bringing back the baseline of 1,000 in addition to. But scenario, let's just say, okay, $1 million land purchase thing comes into play. Where do you go with it? Who gets what? What positions get funded? How does that work? Those are the decisions we're going to have to make, and it's 140 and we're in our first public hearing. But to me, that's the bottom line, because we can't do 101 positions. Law enforcement, fire and rescue, EMS, everybody has a need. We talk about the growth. It's really exponential growth. I think that's what we've faced. We have growth, but it's like exploded, right? And so we've tried to keep up over the years. But we have been conservative. That's what this court has been doing. fiscally responsible and put us in the position that we're in, where we have that option to go into reserve if the court decides to do that. But to me, it's a matter of choice on where that money goes. $3 million or $1 million, you still have to decide if that is going to come up. So I'm still being fiscally responsible, as you all know I am. It's tough, but boots on the ground for sure. Support law enforcement. That was my first love, a career, what I wanted to do. And maybe I'll do that on my next career. I don't know yet. But it's challenging. And you all have sat here and been patient. And it's been very respectable conversation. But I think we need to move on. because we're going to come right back to it in an agenda item.

So everybody ready to close this portion of the public hearing?

Yes, sir.

All right. We have been on the proposed Guadalupe County budget for fiscal year 26-27 public hearing. We will close that public hearing at 1.43 p.m. We'll move to item B under public hearing. That's the proposed Guadalupe County tax rate for 2026. We will open that public hearing at 1.44 p.m. Give me just a second. I know we've talked a lot about the budget this morning and early afternoon. As stated, the court previously took action to vote on a proposed tax rate of 3549. The current tax rate is 3304. No new revenue rate or the rate in which is calculated to bring in the same money as the prior year, excluding new property, came in at 3359. With that prior vote on the tax rate, of 5.65 percent increase. Again that proposed rate is 3549 and that is broke down with maintenance and operation at 2808, INS or interest in sinking at 2.0212 or 2.12 cents and lateral road at 0529. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to make a comment during the public hearing on the tax rate portion? Taylor, anybody on online? Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any comments during the public hearing portion on the tax rate?

No, sir.

Yeah, I know we had a lot of discussion on tax rates early on in the budget process. We looked at multiple options. Recommended was 4%. The change came in once we voted on the proposal to 5.65. I know the Commissioner's Court absolutely did not want to have to consider the tax rate increase, but as we've talked about in detail with value loss and additional needs on a substantial level. This was the tax rate of 3549 is that tax rate that basically got us back to even with the value loss that we've been talking about all morning. That was just to fund current operations prior to considering any additional future expenses or additions. With nobody wishing to make comment during the public hearing on the tax rate, we'll close that public hearing at 1.46 p.m. We'll move to item six on our agenda, which are consent items. The following may be acted upon in one motion. A commissioner, the county judge, or a citizen may request items to be pulled for separate discussion and or action under consent items. Item A, the bill list. Item B, the EVA list. Item C, the PCA bill list. Item D, Departmental Monthly and Revenue Reports for July 2026. Item E, in accordance with Guadalupe County Travel Policy, authorization for Judge Squires to travel out of state for the following educational training. National Judicial College designing and presenting courses effectively. Faculty Development Workshop, September 28th through October 1, 2026 in Reno, Nevada. Item F, the Texas Veterans Commission Notice of Grant Award R-2025-2018006653 in the amount of $110,000 for the fiscal year 2027 Veterans Treatment Court. Item G, the contract renewal with Granicus for Swagit election suite and cloud camera support. Item H, TAC County Information Resources Agency, or CIRA, enter local agreement renewal. Item I, ratify the non-renewal letter for the Global Tel Link Agreement for the inmate phone services located at 2617 North Guadalupe Street, Seguin, Texas. Item J, the official bond oath and rider for John Edwards, number 89018120, part-time deputy constable, Precinct 3, Guadalupe County. Item K, the civil process fee schedules for sheriff and constables. Item L, the naming of the following private lanes in Precinct 1, Riyadh Lane located off FM 1044 and Charo Lane located off Woodrow Center Road. And Item M, the excavation permit applications for Wild Road located in Precinct 4.

Judge, I would like Item E pulled for discussion.

All right, we will remove item E, the travel, to discuss separately. Any other items, commissioners, you'd like removed from consent? No, sir. Hearing no other items to be removed, is there a motion to approve the remaining items?

I'll make the motion. Yeah, second.

Do you have a motion and a second to approve consent items as listed except item E? Any other discussion? All right, hearing no other discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. We'll move back to item E, and that was in accordance with Guadalupe County Travel Policy authorization for Judge Squires to travel out of state in September 28 through October 1, Reno, Nevada. Commissioner Warburton.

Judge, it seems that he has sufficient hours this year, and once again, it looks as though he's using taxpayer money to get his doctorate in jurisprudence. I don't think he should be getting his doctorate on the backs of county taxpayers. So I would like a motion that we do not approve his out-of-town, his out-of-county, or actually his out-of-state travel. There's plenty of courses in Texas that he can go to that would take care of this.

I would ask, Judge Squires did ask if this was pulled, that he had the opportunity to step out of court and come speak to the court in regard to this item. Would the court be inclined to continue with the agenda until his arrival? And I just let him know.

Not today. I'd like some other time if he wants to come inside here. But he has, you know, how many hours does he need?

I don't know anything about his hours. I can't say that. He gave me a little blip to talk about if the court wanted detail and also asked that he could come address the court if it became an issue.

Well, I've just asked to pull it. If somebody wants to make a motion to approve it, they can do that.

Okay. Well, then let me give the court... Oh, excuse me, Judge.

No, I was going to say there was a motion to deny it. Is there a second on that motion? I just don't want to leave a motion hanging out there. Was a motion to deny the out-of-state travel for Judge Squires. Is there a second? Okay, that motion fails for a second. Is there any other motion that would like to be considered? I move to approve item E. I have a motion to approve the out-of-state travel. Is there a second?

I just want more information. I'm on board with that idea.

He is walking over currently. I can give you what I know for now. He says this is judicial training. This is part of what he needs to be on the teaching faculty for the National Judicial College. There are less than five judges in Texas that are on this faculty. He has received a full scholarship for this conference for tuition and fees. He would be asking for reimbursement for food and travel. and has attached the agenda and scholarship letter to the item and is on the way. So that's what I have at this time.

There is a motion to approve the out-of-state travel. Is there a second? That motion does fail for lack of a second. Do we want to... Do you all mind if we take like a five-minute recess to fill up water, use a bathroom? If the judge is coming over, it kind of coincides with what we need to address so we can keep moving on. Is everybody okay with that?

Yes.

Let's do nine minutes. It's 1.51 right now. We'll recess. We'll come back at 2 o'clock. All right, coming back from our break, we will reconvene this regular session of Commissioner's Court at 2.10 p.m. We were on item E under consent, which was pulled for separate discussion. And that item is in accordance with Guadalupe County travel policy authorization for Judge Squires to travel out of state for the following educational training, national judicial colleges designing and presenting courses effectively, faculty development workshops September 28 through October 1, 2026 in Reno, Nevada.

No, Judge, I know you came over as we were talking.

Do you want to come up and give any additional information?

I'm here to answer any questions you already have.

Court member?

Oh, go ahead. No, no, no, go ahead.

No, I was just going to ask if there were any questions, comments for the judge while he's here?

I just want to know how does going to this conference help Guadalupe County when it's become a teaching facility for the National Judicial College? How does it help Guadalupe County? And do you even get any CLEs or continuing education credits for it?

Well, I'll answer both those questions in order. So I think continuing legal education for us lawyers and judges that require that is Number one is statutorily required by law. Being a licensed attorney and a member of the Texas Bar College, I'm required to have 15 hours. And then as a member of the Texas Bar College, I'm required to have 30 hours. So continuing legal education, I think, speaks for itself. Any education, I think, speaks for itself, and it helps me serve my constituents by being a better judge, by learning the techniques that other judges across the country and the world are using to effectively manage their dockets, make sure cases are heard in a timely manner. The list goes on and on. So the second question was, do I receive any continuing legal education credits for this? Every class I've taken with the National Judicial College, which, by the way, is the largest judicial training organization in the world, comes with CLE, and I do receive CLE credit for the classes I take with the National Judicial College. This course specifically is designed for people who have been invited to the National Judicial College to become members of their faculty. I did an informal search for how many judges in Texas are currently serving as faculty members at the NJC, and I think there are less than five in the entire state. So I think it not only is a wonderful opportunity for me professionally to grow as a judge, but it would also be a feather in the cap for Guadalupe County to have one of less than five in the entire state of Texas be a faculty member on the National Judicial College faculty staff. Not only that, I received a full scholarship to attend, full tuition scholarship. All the fees are paid for. The hotel is paid for. All of my meals, except for one meal a day, is paid for. That's right. And so the only cost I'm asking to be covered is my flight and one meal a day.

Question being, how many CLEs do you get by taking this course? I couldn't find any inside the way there because it was all about teaching and getting a degree to be on this thing. Once again, how does that actually help Guadalupe County?

Well, I've already answered that question, and you've asked two questions there. So the first one I've already answered. The second one is I don't know until they actually finish the class. So every hour that you spend in the class, and I think there are four days. I don't know exactly how many. It's in the PDF. You get about an hour of CLE credit for each one hour that you take there. So maybe 40, 30. How many hours do you need per year to continue your license? My license, 15. To be a member of the State Bar College, I need 30. Once again, to be part of the State Bar College, once again, how does it help Guadalupe County?

That's all I want to know.

How does it help? I think education inherently helps me do a better job. And as a former educator, as a professor at St. Mary's Law School, coming from a family of teachers and professors, my father was a professor at Texas Lutheran University for 40 years. I have two brothers that are teachers. One is a professor, full professor, tenure professor at Texas A&M. Education is part of my blood. And I think education is important for everyone to have, whether that is technical training, whether it's a college degree, whether it's practical on-the-job experience. It's inherently good.

So this course, if you retire, you can just move right into the teaching degree with this.

Well, I could potentially teach in a non-compensated role right now if I chose to.

That's my question. I just don't see how it benefits Guadalupe County other than we'd have one on the board. What part of my answer did you not understand? That you said that it benefited Guadalupe County to be one of five people on this prestigious, I guess, faculty.

Well, just like our deputies and law enforcement officers get Master Peace Officer certifications, how does that help them?

Do they just get more money?

Well, I don't get any more money for it. I'm doing it because I love learning.

I just think if someone wants to do that much for their own benefit, that they should pay for it. That's just what I'm thinking. It's my opinion. It can come to the vote. You can ask the other questions. I see a lot of money going out of this place. We already have your CLEs in place, and this will give you more.

This is a full tuition scholarship. All I'm asking for is a plane ticket and one meal a day.

That's it.

I know that you didn't use all of your training budget last year, and you donated that for emergency buttons, and you don't value education like I do, and that's your decision. That's right. For me, it's important, and I think for the voters, it's important, and the voters voted me back in knowing that I am very qualified for my position, and I am so because I take continuing legal education. And I try to improve daily. And so learning is a lifetime experience for me. Are you heading for a doctorate degree? I'm going to the PhD program. And this would help you tremendously? This course does not count towards the doctoral program. It does not? It does not.

OK, I heard you. Anyway, that's my question. You heard what? I'm sorry? I said I heard you when you said did not go towards it. OK.

Any other questions? Any other questions, comments? And like I said, I'm sure there's differing mindsets on training and all these things. I think what we're used to as a group is probably seeing more training that is tied specific, like commissioner's court training is gonna be South Texas Judges and Commissioners Conference specific to roads, budgeting, disaster recovery and response or whatever it is. So even with some of these items, I don't know who's concerned about this and who isn't on the court, right? I think you probably had the interaction with the most concerned on the court about the training. But I think just at first glance, it was kind of like, OK, is this a normal judge's training? Or it sounds like it's something a little bit. It is absolutely abnormal. Yeah, it's just not something maybe everybody's used to seeing, and that's probably the initial knee jerk was kind of like, how does this fit the same way? So I think that's probably where some of this initiated today. Well, I appreciate you soft-pedaling that concern. Just trying here.

Doing a great job. Uh-oh.

I want to tell the court just a little bit. With my experience as a lawyer, there are certain trainings and certain things that you can't get into until you have some sort of qualification that's certainly more applicable for judges. I do think the more qualified that we can have our attorneys and judges be, the better. This is something I would support if any of our attorneys attorneys wanted to do it or if any of our judges wanted to do it, if they could get into it. I also think that accolades received by our leaders are a positive thing for the county. I think it makes the county more attractive. I think that if all of our judges could do something like this, you know, if they wanted to do it, I'm sure they could if they wanted to, I would support all of them for doing this. I think, you know, Chris Klein won an award recently. I think that's awesome. I mean, different ones of our elected officials that are acknowledged for doing a great job in their own fields, I think, is a good thing for the county. It's a great look for the county, and I think it attracts quality people. I think it's a good thing. I think that any of us that are winning awards or doing things to better ourselves in our respective fields is a good thing.

Who handles your load when you're gone?

Who handles your load while you're gone? Your cases? My cases? Yeah. So I still maintain all of the filings I handle while I'm gone. I'm able to do that from my laptop. And I schedule my docket around being at the CLE. So no cases will be missed. Nothing will be dropped.

Any other questions for Judge Squires while he's at the podium?

Motion to approve item E on the consent list.

Second.

We do have a motion and a second. Give me just a second. Motion and a second to approve item E that was previously removed from consent items. Any other comments or questions? Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion does pass four yays, one nay. Thank you. Thank you for your consideration. May I be excused? Yes, sir. Have a good day.

move to item seven which are action items discussion possible motion relative to item a request to fund the kingsbury volunteer fire department for its supplemental funding for fiscal year 26. mr pender judge commissioners this is a supplemental funding request to follow up with the money that was allocated in the budget this year for the kingsbury fire department they're utilizing their funds to purchase some radios they've already purchased over those radios this is just the agreement put forth to you guys so you can authorize them to receive those payments, and later on we have a budget amendment to move the money to their line.

And the supplemental or additional budget amendment is on the agenda later to move the funds?

Yes, so the funds allocated for this is $6,685. They actually spent more on the radios. They spent $8,000, so they're out of pocket a little bit, but this is just what the court had allocated for them.

Move to approve. Do you have a motion? Is there a second?

Second.

Do you have a second? Any other discussion?

I was just going to say, Judge, I have the paperwork to send to the auditor's office with the cleared check and everything, so we'll get it all cleared up this week.

Okay. Do you have a motion and a second? Any other comments or questions, court members? Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign? Aye. Motion does pass four yays, one nay.

Item B, order prohibiting outdoor burning. Mr. Pinder. Judge, commissioners, as you can see and as you have heard, fire departments are busy. And so what this is is just to implement the burn ban effective tomorrow morning at 6 a.m. for 90 days. Currently in Guadalupe County, we're at 629 on the KBDI. Bexar County is at 550. Comal County is at 585, Gonzales is 646, Hays County is 580, and Wilson is 626. Several counties around us have started to implement those burn bans, and it's my recommendation to do so also.

Do we have a motion and a second to approve the order prohibiting outdoor burning?

Any other discussion?

isn't it true patrick that uh most of the time when we do this you make it rain so you can pull it all it started raining last week when i put this on i filed it on on monday we got about three days of rain last week and there's a tropical storm coming into the houston area so hopefully we'll get a little bit of rain this week okay then you have everybody asking why didn't you do it sooner right yeah all right we do have a motion and a commissioner just real quick so patrick i've been asked in the past about those numbers that you that you keep giving out kvdi numbers what's the threshold what does that mean 500 is the threshold so basically they're measuring the moisture content in the ground to a certain level so when i say 500 that's five inches under the ground six hundred six inches so the moisture content in the ground it's it's about that deep so gotcha perfect that's very deep any other comments questions

Right, we do have a motion and a second to approve the order for the burn ban. And item B, hearing no other comments or questions, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. Action item C, approve the change order with UES for additional construction material testing services for the Emergency Operations Center project in the amount of $7,120. Mr. Pinder.

Judge, Commissioners, UES is the fund we have hired to complete our third-party inspections and testing on the facilities. This change order is to include some of the items that were not listed in the original scope of work. The funds coming out of this is for the The lines that we have set aside currently. So we have the funds in a separate line that's in a contingency fund. So I did, we do have some other information that was just, they'll be coming back with another proposal. We have to have a third party inspection for the insulation on the exterior of the buildings and the interior of the buildings. And so this is, this was just made aware this week, actually yesterday of that. So there'll be another proposal from this firm or a different firm for that. One quick, how did all this fall through the cracks? What's that?

How did it all fall through the cracks, not knowing that this was coming, that it couldn't have been in the original quote?

So the original quote covered all of the building, the site work. This, I don't know. This is just different additional man hours. We've been back and forth with this firm and also with the contractor. And the firm was... This is UES. UES.

And they were... This is all the firm that we picked. We hired this firm, yes, sir. So we picked them, we gave them all the information they needed, and now they're coming back saying, well, you didn't have this there?

The scope of work seems to have changed. There's additional added items that the contractor did not have. The general contractor or general conditions, there's been some additional changes is what I was told. So whatever the architect drew up was incorrect?

Or lacking, I should say.

I don't know if it's an architectural issue or if it's actually a construction issue. I was just advised we need to do some additional testing. Just like the city has requirements on their third party, this could be a city requirement for a third party inspection test. You know, they're going to test the asphalt. They're going to test the concrete. They're going to test compactions. They're going to test steel. They're going to test all the different things. This is just the firm we hired to do that.

It's not like a portion of the building was missed in the scope of work and we're having to test the ground where an expansion of the building is going, right? This is additional required testing on the existing plan that was in progress.

Yes, correct. Like this one has caught some construction issues like concrete compaction testing 23 days after the concrete was poured. The concrete didn't pass the test, so we had to go back and revise the foundation, things like that. So for like a dumpster pad, things like that.

This is all planned?

Yes. It's all in the budget. How much does it cost?

No, no, no. I mean planned, like, construction-wise. Because to me, change order indicates unplanned.

This is a change order based on this inspection testing. So this is what they think we'll take to get to the remainder of the project.

So, you know, like, when we had that soil testing issue and we had to retest and there was a change order with that, too. Now, these were the people that ultimately were doing that testing, right? Correct. Except for that the change order came through someone else's name?

No, it was this firm.

There was somebody else's name on that change order, though. It was probably about five months ago.

So BSW is the architect firm. They're the ones that, and Guido Construction. So BSW, who was the architect, and Guido is the contractor. So now this is the firm that actually did the testing. So Guido actually ordered the testing through UES because that's the firm we were using. So Guido initially paid for the change order the first time.

This is kind of the fear and the concern that we had going into this is that, you know, we have this deadline, and then the change orders started coming in. I didn't really think that the first version of the dirt testing was... I didn't really agree with it. I didn't like it. I think it was a foreseeable thing that they should have not had to come back and ask for more money for it. But are we in a situation where we're on such a tight deadline with this funding that we really just have to move forward? I mean, how many more of these are they able to do?

Well, I think that's the other question. And maybe y'all, I mean, Commissioner, you know, or Patrick, you know, but it really is, you don't want to, we don't want to be in a position where we feel like we're forced to make a decision and they keep just having these change orders over and over and over and over.

I think we're there.

So it could get worse.

We do have another agenda item that's going to talk about a construction management company to help us look at those things. I'll let Commissioner Inkoke speak on this from his perspective.

Okay.

That's all right. I mean, I can talk about it now or then.

If this is something that we have to do to move forward with this thing or we're going to ultimately lose money because of the federal funding involved, then I guess we have to do it.

Correct. It's part of the, you know, we had an original agreement with UES. This is third-party inspections. This was something that came up with the EOC project. And it's adding $7,100 and $7,120 to their original contract.

Is there a requirement by the city as the permitting entity to do this testing? Or are we testing this to make sure what we're building meets a certain... It's a specification.

This is materials testing to make sure it's meeting the specifications. like they they tested the concrete to make sure it met the psi they're testing the steel to make sure that's going to hold up they're testing the the sheet metal they're testing the the different falls back to liability who dictates the need for the testing there are owners reps so if this if this firm doesn't do the testing then there's nobody at the county that can watch and oversee the testing so they're having an engineer sign off on this saying that it will not fail if it does fail the warranties could go back to it's basically coming back if we didn't do the testing we're not covering the investment properly to make sure that it was done right to begin with and then if we don't do that we run into a problem we don't have anything that we can lean on to say see

We didn't do that, so we're not sure whose fault is it. Then it becomes a back and forth type issue.

Or by insurance. Right. So like if there was a foundation issue, later on we can go back and pull all the engineering reports, all their testing reports, because they send me reports every day. And so at the end of the week they compile them. So we can see all the reports every week. They're out there every day pulling test samples.

Is this part of the grant that we got, or is this out of our budget? This is out of our budget. It's not.

And we have the funds gallons.

If there's no further discussion, I'll move to approve a change order with us for additional construction material testing services for the Emergency Operations Center project in the amount of $7120. Second.

Do you have a motion and a second, Commissioner?

One other question. We're already testing the concrete, correct? Yes, sir. What else are they going to test? The cinder block, the grout, the mortar?

I'll send you the actual full report, but they're testing everything on the project. There are third-party tests. They're actually going in and doing the steel test there. I mean, the pressure tests. The rebar and the slab they're testing. Yes, yes. They tested the gravel. They tested the concrete. They tested all the dirt compaction tests, all those different things.

And we pay all those bills, not ARPA? Yes, sir.

The original scope was... So the total for everything is $72,000. At the end of it, $71,750.

Why was that not part of the architectural bid? It's not part of it. It's the soft cost.

Right. It's the owner's responsibility. The owner's rep. Because they can't hire an inspection firm. It's not ethical. We have to.

If they hire their own inspector to tell us all the work they did is okay, then how are you supposed to, how's that on the up and up front? It's like a lot of times where you have the professional services, engineering, geotech, some of that where it's the owner's responsibility to do those initial services. Just like on road construction where you may be required to do initial design, look at cost of utility relocation, all those things, and right-of-way acquisition before you actually get somebody else. It's kind of similar, right?

Are you going to need this on Marion?

No, I've already paid all the bills on Marion. All the additional testing? Yeah. Okay. We did it. Yeah. That's why I'm asking this question.

This stuff coming up after the fact is what bothers me the most. It should all be brought up front so we know exactly what it's going to cost. This thing is just, what's the cost overrun on this project right now? I can't quote that off the top of my head, sir. I'd have to get you. It's too late now, but I'm just curious as to how all this stuff sits through the crash. We're still within budget? Yes.

Yeah, there's some contingency funds. We're still within budget. I think last meeting we talked about there was over $200,000 in contingency that was still available. So we're within the budget, within the fees, within everything that we've anticipated.

This is something we have to do. Yes, sir. Correct. That's our contractor.

We do have a motion and a second. Any other comments or questions? Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. We'll move to action item D, award the contract for RFP 26-16 drug testing services to DSI Medical, the sole responsive proposer. Mr. Cunningham.

This is tied to consent item F, which is the Texas Veterans Commission grant award. On July 21st, Commissioner's Court approved the order to advertise and the specifications for this RFP for drug testing services. When it closed on August 10th, we received three submissions, but only one of those was responsive. That response was reviewed by various departments, and DSI still meets the needs for this contract.

Commissioners, DSI is the group that I believe is currently being used for veterans treatment court. Yes, sir. So when we have veterans come into that program, they all have a device, either a self-check device or an ignition interlock if it's tied to a DWI. They also, as part of the treatment program for 14 to 16 or 18 months, however long that individual is involved, they have random drug tests that happens once, if not multiple times during the month, and then they're also going to probation to have testing done. I do want to take just a brief moment to say a big shout out to Doreen in my office, who does all of the work, all of the background paperwork, everything, not only for Veterans Treatment Court, but also for this $110,000 grant, which covers 100% of the cost for the veterans in the program on their devices, some additional treatment and things that go into that. So without her time spent on that, these veterans would be paying hundreds and hundreds of dollars each every month to be involved in the program. So I know we only got one. Things have been working out well. She keeps them walking the straight and narrow. Confident we can keep things going. I just wanted to say thank you to her for all her hard work while we were talking about that.

Judge, I'll make a motion that we approve Item D, award the contract for RFP 26-16, Drug Testing Services, the DSI Medical, the sole sponsor proposal. Second.

Do we have a motion and a second on Agenda Item D? Any further discussion? 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 E, Task Orders 1 and 2 with Broaddus & Associates for Owner's Representative Services for the Emergency Operations Center slash Warehouse Project and the Emergency Response Center Project. Mr. Cunningham.

Broaddus & Associates was awarded the primary contract for the owner's representative services. The first project that was requested that they be brought upon was the Emergency Operations Center and the Emergency Response Center. Mr. Pinder and purchasing met with Broaddus & Associates to discuss a potential scope of work, and they came back to us with these two proposals, but not to exceed amounts. It's up to Commissioner's Court to formally activate them for these projects.

All right. So these proposals are for the two projects with ARPA funding. If the court wishes to bring this owner's rep on to help manage and go through some of these processes, possibly save us some money, look at cost savings, streamline the process. Again, this was a proposal not to exceed. They did a proposal on each project, and Mr. Pinder may have some more specific details, but it's just for the consideration if we want to get them in five months on a five-month deal to finish this out.

And I know there may be mixed emotions about having somebody come in to help oversee construction projects, but I feel like this is extremely unique because it is tied to ARPA or America Rescue Plan Act funds, which are federal dollars that have a hard deadline of December 31, 26 to be spent. The other thing is, Mr. Pender, I want to say thank you on behalf of the court for taking on additional duties. Patrick's also not a construction manager. He's done his very, very level best to be involved in a number of different things, try to help out, oversee this, and deal and mess with North Guadalupe Street and go through all these things. having somebody come in that knows construction that can help facilitate some of these things and even if we don't save money but promote efficiency and get to the end of the project and it done be done correctly or we we know ahead of time if something's going to pop up like some of the inspection stuff we just talked about I think it could be a benefit. This might not be a good fit for every county project, but I also feel like once we get to a jail conversation, a government center, a large bond call, that we're going to absolutely have to have construction oversight involved, and this may be a good way to dip our toes into that to see what we like, what we didn't like, if the company's good, if we'd like to change. scope of work when we go out and bid services and go, okay, look, the main thing is get us done the correct way in budget by the end of the year. But I feel like there may be some other benefits to it. Any other questions or thoughts, concerns?

No, sir. I will move to approve for Task Orders 1 and 2 with Broaddus & Associates to be the owner's representative services for the Emergency Operations Center Warehouse Project and the Emergency Response Center Project.

Second.

I do have a motion and a second on Action Item E. Any other discussion? Hearing no other comments or questions, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. Thank you, Don. We'll move to Item F, approval of the additional services request number one with Pape Dawson Consulting Engineers, LLC, the amount of $4,500 for revisions to expand the sanitary sewer line as part of the North Guadalupe Street public water and sanitary sewer extension projects. We are hitting on all the fun topics today, aren't we?

I saw today that most of these are mine, and I should have rethought that. So, Judge, Commissioners, I spoke with Commissioner Engelke about this. So, to give you an update on the water and sewer line on North Guadalupe Street, they have tied everything in. Water is tied in from in front of the, or in front of Animal Patrol all the way down to the 12-inch or 16 inch line that is in the corner down there by the shirt at the triple the sewer line is tied in in front of the sheriff's office and it's extended all the way in the current facility that is the EEOC building has the water and sewer tied in so the line is in there currently back filling pavement things like that down by the sheriff's office Commissioner Engelke and I spoke about potentially extending from the current or where the manhole is in front of the new facility a water sewer line to where animal control is located. What animals control currently is, I believe, on a septic tank. So the plan is for Pave Dawson to do the design and engineering to extend it from there to this location, and then we're just going to cap it off, stub it up, just leave it there. If the animal control facility is upgraded later, the septic tank fails later, we have the ability to come in and Tie that in at that point. This is just for the engineering costs I did speak with the contractor once he has the actual plan He can give me a better hard number on the actual installation He's not anticipating the construction cost to exceed more than ten or eleven thousand dollars at that point We do have the money in our construction line for that but it's just to get the sewer line across the street and then they can finish the project as far as road surfaces and things like that. They're currently on site and they can do the work. They're still going to stick there until we can get this part taken care of. They're anticipating another week or two and they'll be done. Okay.

Good afternoon. I do believe the animal shelter is on sewer already.

Yeah, this would just be to run those. Okay. To hook it up to the city sewer system.

Is animal control on sewer or is it on septic?

It's on sewer because there is one of the parts that we wanted to get was, as Commissioner Engelke knows, there's that port right there by that window that kind of smells. Right.

Yeah, so there's conflicting. They will need to verify that. And Wolverton may know the historics of it. And now Danielle is up here. So the general idea in the beginning was, while we're doing this, let's do this now. for future.

Right. So I did try to confirm with the city to figure out if it was on septic or sewer. They have no records of either. They actually said that the last record there was that they had was in 09, but it did not state if it was on sewer or septic. And I think that building was built in 05, is that correct?

Somewhere around there.

So we don't know. Without going out there, I mean, we can go out there and probe if y'all need to to see and look around, but city could not provide any permitting or any idea what it's on.

Yeah. I mean, it's fitting for animal control, right? I mean, the discussion.

Y'all can check on the animal control. The architect on animal control. That was when you were here, Commissioner. Sorry. I'm pretty sure I said no. I have no idea. I don't recall putting a septic tank in there.

So, Pike Dawson came in. We had the survey companies come out. That is why we extended the sewer line all the way to in front of the sheriff's office. Correct. The city had no sewer lines over there. So that's the whole reason we spent the $400,000.

That's what I was going to say. When we did the law enforcement addition where dispatch is upstairs and the new portion of the building, we built into that parking lot from the back of the jail or adult detention facility forward and I feel like we had to go a fairly long way from the parking lot in that back corner to relocate to get out to the street but that line ended before the metal building on the record management. I don't know that that line extended that, but I also don't remember that being a focus of ours because we weren't talking about an extension. We were just doing a connection. So how do we, I mean, I think it's smart to consider this now, but how do we find out if it's really, do we have them go do line locates? I mean, snake a camera, do anything else to go, hey, prove to us how it's connected so we can make a good decision?

We can work with environmental health. Commissioner Engelke and I, we can try to track this down. But the survey companies are out there, engineering, like they did the entire Guadalupe Street from Strumple all the way to I-10. So there was no... sewer line. And Jennifer from the city did not show any indication of new or existing sewer lines in that area. The water line ends right there by the hydrant, but we took it all the way to the sheriff's office.

I know Zach's coming back, but Chris, do we have a bill that would show different from the city for animal control like other buildings? Like do we have something, yeah, do we have a different water usage amount in that?

Yeah, it would have its own line as well.

Right, because, I mean, if it's just bathrooms and that, it may not be the same.

I talked with Doug Pyatt, who's the current supervisor at the Animal Shelter, and he was there when it was built, and he's telling me it's on site.

It's on sewer. I do not recall ever putting it in a septic tank.

And Mike actually brought up a good point. If it was on septic, it hasn't been cleaned out in the last 15 years since it's been there. So we would have had problems by then with all the animals and the waste. But the best way to find out is to have Ricky get it somewhere.

We need to verify. Put a camera down. You'll find out.

A mystery to be solved at another time is what Stan is thinking.

This is really a thrill. This is interesting. Yeah. Yeah.

Next one.

All right. Is there any other discussion on Item F? No, sir. So if everybody's okay, we'll take no action on Item F, and we'll wait to get some additional information. We'll move to Item G, Budget Amendment 26-93, to transfer funds from the Volunteer Fire Department allocation budget to Kingsbury Volunteer Fire Department contingent upon approval of the funding request by Commissioner's Court, which was earlier on this agenda.

So Chris can write the check.

Motion to approve item G. Second.

Do we have a motion and a second to approve action item G? Any other discussion? Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. The motion does pass four yeas, one nay. And we'll move to item H, budget amendment 26-94 to transfer funds from the emergency response center or fire station budget to the emergency operations center slash warehouse for additional professional services and appliance expenses. Mr. Pender.

Judge, commissioners, we're starting to buy the equipment, things for the building. We notice that there's more money in one line and not as much in another line, so we're just... moving the funds around. So we're moving the money from the fire station into the warehouse. That's all this is so that we can align with the purchases. Since we had to spend some money out of that one line for the $120,000 permit for the city, we just have to move some money so we can keep ordering the equipment so it'll be here by the time the building is ready to open.

And we do have some additional funds that are basically carryover in capital project fund $700 for OFI owner furnished items or FF&E furniture fixtures equipment because we won't be finished by the end of September, the end of this month. It's going to go into the first few months of fiscal year 27.

Do you need a conference table? I got a brand-new 144-inch walnut still in the box. Let me measure it. We have two big conference rooms.

Whose conference table is still in the box?

Ordered for Precinct 3, the Elbel building, along with the two workstations. You'd be surprised what I find over there. I've got a big screen TV I'm still looking for the cord for to see if it works.

Shoot me a text with the size of this commissionary, but yes, we definitely include that in our furniture purchases.

You can certainly come get it. Reallocate it. Like I said, it's still in the box. I was talking with the...

Any questions on that budget amendment?

No, sir. Move to approve budget amendment 26-94, transfer of funds from the Emergency Response Center fire station budget to the Emergency Operations Center warehouse for additional professional services and appliance expenses.

Second.

We do have a motion and a second. To approve that budget amendment, any other comments or questions?

Yeah, I have a question. Yes, ma'am. For some of the things that Commissioner Wolverton is talking about, could they be used in lieu of some of these furnitures or fixtures?

I've got pictures of them. I'll be happy to show them. Okay.

So we have not ordered the furniture for the building. This is for, like, refrigerators, those other items, shelving, wire shelving for the warehouse, things like that that are also additional costs. Don's office is bidding the package out for all of the furniture. So if we have, like, the conference table or the two desk stations in the offices, yes, we can definitely. So we can definitely do that. We allocate county resources to the different buildings. Yes.

It makes me think you really want to get rid of that box.

Seven boxes.

Okay. All right. We do have a motion and a second. Any other comments or questions? No, sir. All right. Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. We will move to item I, budget amendment 26-95 to transfer funds from the jail sign on recruitment bonus budget to overtime budget for additional cost.

Any questions on this item?

I know originally with Mr. Hernandez, sheriff and previous sheriff, we had a real challenge trying to hire detention officers and trying to find unique ways and any kind of tool to attract anybody became a conversation to have a sign-on bonus because the jail and the SO were in dire straits, right? But with the activity that's going on now, it seems like we need to shift some of those resources to overtime to be able to compensate current staff and kind of refocus instead of trying to attract its let's pay the people we have because they need to work more hours, correct? Okay. Any questions or comments on that? Is there a motion?

I so move.

Second. Do we have a motion and a second to approve Budget Amendment 26-95, Action Item I. Any other discussion? All right. Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. And we'll move to item J, budget amendment 26-96 to transfer funds from elections, hourly employees and election equipment for additional early voting clerks, temporary, part-time and election judges and clerk expenses.

Is Ms. Keil online still?

Yes, sir.

She's unmuted.

Okay.

You are unmuted.

Earth to Theresa.

Ms. Keel, can you hear us? Theresa Keel, can you hear us? Hello? Maybe on the phone or something. Yeah, she's on the phone. We'll talk briefly for just a second. If somebody wouldn't mind texting her, please. I know that currently there's a vacancy within the elections administrator position. We had a new EA that came in that was operating off of a prior director's budget. Historically, the elections budget will... seesaw a little bit because one year you'll have a presidential election which is very, very busy with a lot of expense for not only ballots and overtime but also election and early voting clerks and equipment and all those things. Then when you typically go to more primary or local races, it's still very busy but it's much different than that presidential. So the budget goes up and down. I think with Ms. Kuehl being more involved in the elections now, with a big election coming up, trying to get staff ready, this is trying to reallocate some of the funds that are within the budget to where it's needed just to be able to handle the upcoming elections. I think that's a fair description of what's going on. Okay, can you unmute? Ms. Kuehl, can you hear us?

Hello. Yeah, hang on just a second. Sorry. I can hear you. Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am. We can hear you. Okay. We're on the budget amendment for elections moving from the hourly employees and election equipment to the early voting clerks, temporary, part-time, and election judges.

Yes, sir. We are out of money. And we have to have people come in and test machines prior to October 1, because the ballots have to go out, I believe, on September 15. And we need money to pay people to do that. Or we won't have an election.

And you're confident in moving it from those lines, and you feel like even if it's moved, it's not going to affect anything else negatively?

am NOT confident I requested Roxanne and Chris to look and that was the suggestion given to me okay so no I'm not confident about anything out there well I'm trying to trying to become more confident I did contact Missy and had her come out today and that's who I was just visiting with and we might look at some help out here And Lisa's here. We're doing everything we can to make it happen.

Teresa, I should have thought a little further ahead when I asked that question. I apologize. But on the hourly employees, because of the vacancies, I know the money's good there. On the election equipment, you and I previously talked about the potential decertification of only a few curbside units, but there wasn't clear direction on that. We had left election equipment in with the new elections administrator coming in, not knowing if we were going to need those funds. So I think we're safe in that. And I think everybody hears you that we need the early voting clerks, temporary, part-time, and the judges to come in, test equipment, and be able to run the upcoming elections.

Correct. The equipment that was going to be decommissioned has been extended to be used to November. So it will be needed next year. And I don't know if you and Chris discussed that in budget. I have no idea. But something will have to be done for next year.

We did talk about that, but I think we were also uncertain on what was going to be decommissioned and when and what that looked like. There were also talks and interests by certain people wanting to switch all election equipment altogether at one time, which is a couple few million dollars that we didn't have in those conversations. So I believe there's additional funds in a smaller amount for some election equipment, but not to replace the whole system.

Right. I totally agree with you. Okay. That would be a long-term thing.

Right. Any other questions?

Is there a motion? Yes. Move to approve Budget Amendment 26-96 to transfer funds from elections hourly employees and election equipment for additional early voting clerks, temporary part-time and election judges, and clerks' expenses. Second.

We do have a motion and a second on Action Item J, Budget Amendment 26-96. Any other comments or questions?

Just one question. When will we get an idea how much it's going to cost us for this new equipment?

You're talking about the entirety of replacing all election equipment?

The ones that are outdated that we have to.

Teresa, did you have any quotes or estimates on the curbside or polling requirements?

I do not at this time, and I was just thankful that they extended the time through November to allow us to have that, because we were looking at purchasing. This is what we were looking at purchasing. So instead of purchasing new equipment, we were looking at taking the voting, the express vote machines that we have, and being able to run those out to curbside. But what we needed was carts transport them and so we were looking at purchasing carts to carry those very large machines that we all vote on out to a curb and I did not feel like it was in our best interest to purchase a and spend money for something that, if the company is decommissioning these machines, are they coming out with new machines? And I don't have an answer to that question yet. I've still got questions out to that company. I'm hearing that they need to and they want to, they just don't have them ready yet. Which is why I guess that it was left or extended to go through November. Maybe they're still trying to gather new equipment to get through until it's done. If that makes sense. I'm sorry.

After the 26th election in November, our next major one will be in 28, correct?

I don't know. I can't answer that question. Because you have entities that have, I mean, we may have a runoff in November, so then that's going to run into January. We have special elections. Entities call special elections all the time. We had nine elections from December to June of last year. From December of 25 through June 26th, There were nine elections that were held. So I'm just not knowledgeable enough to tell you the answer. I'm sorry.

That's a good point, though. I was explaining a little bit before you got on about historically with elections budget, how it seesawed a little bit based on presidential and gubernatorial races and elections. But you are correct. One thing we have seen also over the last couple of years is more additional activity for city elections, for primaries, for small local elections, for bonds, for schools. So like she's saying, instead of having one big election, one smaller, it has been more active across the board also.

We may have a big one on the Justice Center, the new Justice Center.

Any other comments, questions? We do have a motion and a second on agenda item J, the budget amendment number 26-96. Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Hearing no opposition, that motion passes. Move to action item K, the capital project fund bill list. Move to approve capital projects fund bill list.

I'll second it.