Commissioner's Court - Regular Meeting

9 o'clock, dude. Please rise for the pledge. Jim Wells County Commissioner's Court for today, September 4, 2026. 9 AM is now in session. How's everybody doing this morning? Good. Good. Agenda item number three, public testimony. We have one, Mr. General Murray. Please introduce yourself to the court.

Greetings, Commissioner's Court. My name is Gerald Murray. I'm a candidate for Justice of the Peace in Precinct 5 in Orange Grove and the surrounding area. I won the primary in election and I am unopposed in the general election in November. I expect to take office in January of 2027. I'm therefore interested in the budget for 2027 when I will take office. I'm concerned about a proposal to limit JP offices to one clerk and limit their salary. I've heard that the JP Precinct 5 office very often needs more than one clerk to keep up with demand. Placing a limitation on salary does not allow for inflation or other economic factors and would make it difficult to hire qualified applicants. I've been told that truancy cases have gone down in numbers, but how can we know if those numbers will remain down? I have also heard that civil cases have gone up in precinct five and placed an additional workload on the clerk. If the clerk needs sick leave, has vacation, or needs to be out of the office for training, I believe it would be prudent to have a backup to cover that absence. The current Justice of Peace has hired and utilized additional clerks during her term to keep up with demand. Why should I be limited in hiring an additional clerk when I take office in January if I find that there is a need? That seems to me like it will only undermine the office. I propose that the JP office in Precinct 5 will continue to be allowed to hire an additional clerk if needed as they have in the past. And that salary will not be capped, but allowed to be fair and practical. My goal is to provide the best possible service to the constituents of precinct five. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Anybody else would like to address the court at this time?

Yes, Judge.

Good morning Judge, Commissioners, Michael Guerra, Jim Wills County Attorney. I'm here today joined by the District Judge, the County Court at Law Judge, the District Attorney, and the Director of Adult Probation, Ruben Lilerio. We are here as we move forward with today's RFQ on the jail evaluation to put our position on the record regarding the current jail situation. I have a prepared statement and this will be posted to our page later this morning so that everybody can know exactly what is being said here this morning. Jim Wells County's jail crisis requires an immediate and practical solution. We cannot continue spending more than $100,000 every month to house inmates in other counties while usable capacity in our own 88-bed jail remains offline. In years past, this jail consistently passed state inspections, including unannounced inspections, with the same staffing and personnel budget. As recently as August of last year, it housed 74 inmates. Today, it houses fewer than 40. The Commissioner's Court deserves specific, documented answers. How many beds are unavailable? Why is each area unusable? What repairs are required? What will they cost? How long will they take? And can the work be phased to restore beds quickly? General statements are no longer sufficient when taxpayers are paying six figures each month and these expenses are draining county reserves. We also disagree with the implication from the sheriff's recent interview that anyone on the court side has asked him to simply release inmates without appropriate court orders. That has not happened. The courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and probation officers have worked together to reduce unnecessary detention through lawful bonds, pretrial supervision, probation, ankle monitors, and expedited case resolution. Every release must be authorized by a court and supported by the law and the facts. No one is advocating the release of violent, dangerous, or high-risk offenders merely to create jail space. It was also disappointing that at Wednesday's budget hearing, the sheriff did not request additional funding to repair the jail or restore its existing capacity. Instead, he requested approximately $1.4 million more to continue housing inmates outside of Jim Wells County. That request funds the continuation of the problem and is not a solution for it. At this point, I personally don't believe a completely new jail is necessary, but if the commissioner's court eventually chooses that option, the earliest realistic bond election would be May of 2027. Even if approved, which is not a sure thing given the amount of long-term debt taxpayers already carry, particularly those taxpayers here in Alice, a new facility could take another two and a half to three years to complete. Three more years of outsourcing at the present rate would cost our taxpayers at least $3.6 million without creating a single permanent bed in the meantime. Our immediate course should be clear, determine precisely why the existing beds are unavailable, obtain credible repair estimates, fund the necessary work, and restore the jail to its rated capacity. We must fix what we have. Continued delay only transfers taxpayer money to other counties while depleting the reserves Jim Wells County may need in the future emergency. The present course is unsustainable, and the time for a documented repair plan is now. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

You're going to have a chance to respond during budget hearing. So now you will, but I mean, you, you have your expenses coming up, so you, you can, you can speak during. Yeah. Would anybody else like to address this time? Hearing none, we'll move forward. Agenda item number four, Norma Salas, grant administrator, 4.1, discuss, consider, and take action to award the architectural engineering firm for the Jim Walz County Jail Evaluation Project number 2026-CJ001.

Good morning, Judge, commissioners, and everyone. We're here today with our evaluation of our RFQ. The RFQs were turned into our evaluation committee, and Mr. Bettis is here with the report.

Judge and Commissioner's Court, J.C. Perez, Jim Wells County Clerk, and also a part of the committee that evaluates any project that comes to the county. And we did have five different And each one is listed and the total that they received. The committee has given Turner-Ramirez Architects with the highest total as the recommendation from the committee.

Motion to approve, Judge? I have a motion. Motion to approve Turner and Ramirez Architects as the... Second.

I have a motion and a second for the discussion. So we do have Turner and Ramirez Architects as the first... That's the first one and the recommended. And then we have Broadus Associates is the second one.

Can we schedule a presentation at some point on this architecture?

Yes, sir, we can. OK, I have a motion and a second. Mr. Guerra, just for knowledge, our knowledge, if, I mean, this is not going to be funded through any grant or anything. This is going to be funded through the county budget. So during the presentations, if we We feel, the Commissioner's Court feel like that'd be an issue with Turner and Ramirez. We can go to the second one.

I was going to point that out. Perhaps it would be good to maybe amend the motion and say, because they are ranked, so the next would be Broaddus and then Brinkley Sargent, so maybe if we could announce the rankings so that we have it on record that if the negotiations with the highest ranking applicant doesn't go through, then we move on to number two and so on. If number two, the negotiation doesn't work with Broadus, then we move on to Brinkley Sargent and then ICE and then Butler-Cohen. So maybe, you know, adopting the sheet as presented with Turner Ramirez being the primary, the starting point, in other words.

I'll amend my motion and make a motion to accept the list that was given to us by Mr. Perez, showing Turner Ramirez as the number one architect and then Rhodes as an associate, second, Brinkley, sergeant, Winnington Architects, third, and then International Consulting Engineers, fourth, Butler-Cohen Advisory, fifth. Second.

Okay, I have an amended motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? And we'll try to get that presentation as soon as possible. We can make a rush on it, but if there's none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Agenda item number five, budget workshop number two, 5.1, fall 2027, budget workshop session. We're going to go ahead and go. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and go into the budget workshop brief. Review, it's a continuation from the budget workshop one. Here in 2027, the proposed budget revenues and expenditures using the no new revenue tax rate brought us a negative $648,997.55. We went ahead to have a safety net. We approved the proposed budget. As point 7, 8, 7, that would bring us 1,474,908 dollars. We made it a point to. Have the understanding that we wanted to. continue with the goal that we had two years ago. We were able to have the same tax rate approved the last two years. We wanted the same one approved this year, which is 0.767, and that would bring us 800,000 891. 891-538. I'm pausing because I was thinking about the other number that we have. And that would... Check that. The tax rate is 0.767, and it would bring us the $891,538. The difference is we started this budget hearings in the black, $14,306.72. so that being said uh we're moving forward to approving and disapproving the recommendations or the requests so the first one on the list is uh the county judges non-departmental these were the contract maintenance which was the uh implementation of our software and case management system, which was iDocket. We now have a case management system that we feel is going to be more efficient. It's going to be able to run our cases a little quicker through our justice and civil courts and our district and county attorney's offices. So that being said, we had an increase, a request, an increase of $68,200 to fund that case management system. Now, the other one is safety payments, which is an increase of $1,000. So that's $69,200. These are both absolutely needed increases. So that being said, I entertain a motion we approve that. Judge, what's a safety payment for? A safety child is what we get from Mary. Mary, you'd like to explain that a little more about the child safety payment?

The child safety payment is collected on every month, or basically every day. We get a certain amount of money that comes in, and it goes to the county.

And then... It gets dispersed into several different entities for the... Yeah, it goes into three of them.

This is something that's required by law, right? This is something that we can't avoid. Thank you.

Motion to approve item of provision.

Oh, I made a motion.

Oh, you did? OK, I second it. I'll second.

I have a motion to second. Any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Approved. The second one is a county court at law. And it was to move a part-time into a full-time position, and that would cost a total of $34,422. I don't know, you want to expound again on it, Judge, or?

Good morning, Judge. Good morning, Commissioners, from Mother's Police, County Court of the Law.

Judge, I do. And just to, you stated $34,000.

Actually, that would be the total. Currently, that would just be an increase of $15,000 is what I'm asking for our budget.

Cindy, is that verified? Because that's what's on the $34,000, what's on the sheet.

So the $15,000 is for the salary portion to move up the employee to a full-timer. I do have to add the fringe benefits to include to the budget because it's actually adding a full-time position. So that's where the additional amount comes in at the $34,000 that you're looking at, $34,422.

Judge, does this position help you expedite more cases?

It has. It has helped the office greatly. Ms. Gladys Zanguma is the secretary for the office, and she has been a big help to the office. I did provide you guys, the commissioner's court, with a list of her duties. And I think she's been an analysis of this office. And in addition to that, she would have a little bit more time with the office. I definitely think that office would run a lot more efficient. And of course, we have attorney.

County court of law. It's been in existence for 12 years.

Yes, sir.

It's always been under funded back in 2,016. We took away the secretary, so he's trying to reinstate what we took away 6, 8, 10 years ago. It's a very busy court. You know, it's probably, you know, it's probably one of the, I mean, you process hundreds of cases every month, you know. And, you know, to do it with two secretaries is really, I commend you, you know, because for 12 years, you know, we, you know, it's struggled. And I think it can become more efficient, you know, we have another secretary.

Thank you for that. Yes, sir.

Or clerk, whatever it is. Yes, sir.

Commissioners, I can reaffirm what the judge is saying. The employee he's talking about, Mr. Nguma, has become the primary court manager for the criminal docket. As he said, we meet at least two times a month, sometimes more. Our dockets average more than 50 cases each time. So we're and this is again, this is one of the methods that we're using to address the jail capacity issue. So this is a very important position and it can help us in more than one way, not just by moving the cases on the criminal docket, but addressing the overcrowding situation.

Thank you for that question. I'm sure if you're going to ask a question or something.

City Council Chambers, me yeah I thought that'd be i'm sorry I mean I was just don't think I was gonna say would be if there's any way I know we're only supposed to go 29 hours a week. City Council Chambers, I mean. Like every once in a while you can go over or whatever, because just by adding a new employee that's already 1213. That's like night adding $19,000 just for the French benefits. If you could, you know, work it in that that way, and the only thing also about I know what Mr. Garcia said was, you know, back when you lost a secretary, but with all new softwares coming in 10 years, it makes things more efficient, more easier, faster, you know, things get done faster. But then, you know, if I'm not for sure, you know, about this jail situation, if that can help, and if it does, if we do hire somebody and the jail situation gets better and stuff, then if she's not needed, would we be willing to go down? As always, when you go up, nothing ever goes down.

I understand.

That's all I was going to say.

Okay, thank you for that. I'd like to echo what Mr. Garcia said. It's not really putting in a new full-timer, it's just adding it to a full-time. And if it's going to help us process more caseloads, I can't see why we can't say yes to it.

Certainly has. And she's taken on some of the workload of my court administrator and court manager. So that allows them to be a little more efficient as well in the processing of their cases because they all handle. Ms. Tanguma has kind of taken the, not necessarily the lead, but she is kind of responsible for all our criminal docket. So that allows my court administrator, Ms. Barbara Ramirez, who handles, at one time was handling the criminal docket. She still assists with the criminal docket. But she handles all our family law cases and all our civil matters as well. And Ms. Perez handles all our CPS cases, juveniles, attorney general cases. And Ms. Ramirez also handles appropriate matters. So that allows them, frees them up a little bit to be able to do a little bit better in processing those cases. You have court. On a weekly basis? Pretty much, yes. Every week, pretty much.

If not, it's very seldom that you don't.

Every other week, we definitely have Mondays, we have our criminal docket. On Tuesdays will be our civil day. Wednesdays is our CPS day. And Thursdays is our Attorney General day. And we leave Fridays open for any visiting judges that need to come in to handle any cases that I may have a conflict on. But within those weeks, that's every other week. But within those weeks, we also have dockets for civil matters as well.

When there's visiting judges, your office still has to do all the work?

Yes. No, they do. They coordinate. They put together the dock and they coordinate with the visiting judge and his staff in getting those scheduled.

Mike, having heard all the comments and everything, I'll make a motion to approve the increase.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you, Judge. Thank you all very much.

Thank you, Judge.

Thank you. Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, collection fees, $3,000. He's not here today, is he? Cindy, you want to?

Robert says that he's on.

Judge, are you online?

I think I was just unmuted. I think I'm good now.

Can you hear us?

Can you hear me, sir?

Yes, sir. We can hear you now.

Okay, good morning county judge commissioners and all other county officials judgment jp three. Going off of our numbers for this year we're requesting our offices requesting an additional 3000 on our collection side as of now we're at a negative 1540 for the year. that's up to July 2026 ultimately the money comes back to the county minus a small percentage that goes to the collection agency. So ultimately it does come back to the county. Last year we were at, we finished at negative 12, 24, 70. So we're just trying to increase it a little bit to be able to cover those collection fees.

Is there a motion to approve, Judge?

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries.

Thank you, Judge. Thank you, Commissioners.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Justice of the Precinct 5, this is the clerical position that we spoke about. Commissioner?

I was the one that brought this up last time. Whenever it was 87-507, that's whenever Precinct 5 was doing all truancies, and they had two full-time and one part-time. Right now, it's being done with one full-time employee. And that's why we brought it down to 55. And even at 55, there's still $23,000 left in there if you wanted to hire a part-time employee. and that would still leave 6,000 balance for, it's an adequate cushion for future raises. And that's if there was an extra part-time hire. And it's like I said, again, I'll say it again about new software, new software has come up, things get done faster, it's more efficient. And I mean, we're trying to balance the budget and I mean, all I know is we're getting by with one right now. If a part-time is needed, well, there's money in there for part-time at 55.

I know that the work salary was, back in 2025, was $32,000. And it reflects $87,000 for this coming cycle. So there's something to be said that it's over. I kind of agree with you. I don't know about the numbers, but I think from today, $87,000. From 2025, it was $32,000. So actually, they're not spending $87,000.

Yeah, see, I don't know how it was $32,000 in 2025, but I mean. Yeah, right there, it's in their budget. Yeah, I know. Why would it have gone up to 87? Commissioner?

Yeah, they're proposing 87 for that department. It's a total. I'm just going back to what the history of spending, and it was not 87.

Cindy's got it.

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. So the expense that you're seeing on there is the actual expense for the one full time position is what Mr. Garcia is talking about. So that's, that's just actual just because the full time and part time were unused going on for a couple years now. So they just have been vacant, so unused. So the 32 Mr. Garcia is talking about is the actual expense for the one position that that is filled. Yes. A full-time.

Yes. So that what's left is actually for a part-time and a full-time?

Yes. So what's on the request right now that you're looking at is, it was the request to us to defund, I guess, remove one full-time position. So what's left is one full-time and one part-time position, plus a JP, of course. And there's cushion. Right, right, right. That number that's left in that line item can be interchanged.

I haven't seen the numbers, but I haven't seen the numbers, but I'm just concerned, is there enough cushion? Because currently, the clerk is being paid not as well as she should be to cover that entire office. From what I understand, she's practically overwhelmed and needs help immediately. This is just hearsay because I don't go to the JP court because I have not been elected yet. But I would just be concerned that there be enough of a comfort zone there in the budget to be able to hire a part-timer and give the current clerk a raise to keep her. Because in order to keep somebody in a position, of course, you've got to pay them fairly. And practically.

Thank you very much.

You will have some riches because you get a full-time and a part-time lift, right? Which takes a lot of work off of the full-time. Exactly.

Is there a compromise that we can have or a recommendation to where we're cutting it to for May?

Getting rid of the full time. So we get rid of the full-time, then you'll have one full-time and one part-time. And right now, neither one of those are filled.

So there's just one full-time. Besides the one he's already got. There's only the other one. So there's going to be one extra full-time and one part-time extra. Right now, there is.

If we cut. So we're cutting away the. If we cut the full-time, there'll only be a full-time and a part-time.

With cushions.

With cushions, OK.

a motion so what's the motion after all what's the motion oh I make a motion for the justice of the peace to be as presented on here where this way it's we brought it down to 55,000 we're getting rid of the 32 445 and fringe benefits for a full-time which leaves money enough for a full-time and a part-time, if needed.

Are you removing? You want to remove one full-time? Yes. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries.

Judge, did y'all vote on the very first portion of that in regards to the JP salary? Y'all discussed the clerical, but not. Is that all one motion, a total?

No. We didn't discuss the salary.

Salary on JPs, when JPs come in, they've been taken down to 50s. to the 50,000 mark. And I think it was just overlooked, so I brought it up. Because four years ago, all JPs were brought down to 50.

Except for one, right? Except for one.

Well, JP3 was lower than 50, I guess, because of the workload. I'm not for sure why. But then he came back in, and we approved it to be brought up to 50. at another commissioner's court.

In their office?

Currently? No, currently they're all at, not all, I don't have the salary schedule in front of me, but I believe JP3, JP4, and 5 are all at the $54.75.

That was with our. Yeah, but they started. Oh, yes, back. Yeah, they started at 50, all of them, even JP3.

JP3 was a little lower, and I believe the next year he got that little bit of increase to where they were all at 50, or whatever, I guess 50 was the amount.

Okay, so he got elevated.

Yeah, so now them three particular precincts are all at that same amount.

Otherwise, at that time in that year, Except for Precinct 3, they all got moved down to 50.

Correct.

Including, they're all even, including 6 too, correct?

Precinct 1 and 6 are at a different salary.

Oh, that's right. And that's historic too because 6 used to do truancy before 5 did. So they were already higher. So 1 and 6 are a little bit higher. The other three are all at the same level.

I'm just going to make a comment, Judge, on this for whatever it's worth. I've heard in the past somebody decides to run for a position, and they realize how much the pay is. That's what you're running for. And I know it's all right here to increase or decrease. But if an individual is running for that spot at that price, and then we're knocking it down, is it the right thing to first do? That's my comment.

Anybody else want to comment?

Are they still doing truancy in the court? Mm-hmm.

Precinct, I think, three? I think he doesn't have truancy.

Is there any further discussion? Can I entertain a motion?

I make a motion for the JP Precinct 5 to be at 50,000 for the year.

Is there a second? There's no second. The motion dies. County attorney I don't think there was any any.

That's correct judge of the state supplement increased and so that creates a corresponding decrease of the county portion and we have already I think that's going to be taken up.

Next Friday.

Or no.

So what you're seeing right now is for next year, because we did get that clarification on the state supplement for county attorney. This year it was adopted the same way. So you'll see the next budget amendment on the next commissioner's court to correct that, to reflect those numbers for this year's budget. So that's what we just submitted.

Do we really have to approve or disapprove this?

Well, only because that's what the numbers need to reflect in the budget. Anytime I make a change, it needs to be approved through court.

I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. That's assessor collector two hundred dollars on gasoline oil and make a motion. We approve second of a motion in a second any further discussion. All right motion carries. Yes, ma'am. Information technology, I think originally when it was presented, it was presented that we were going to increase $292,000. But after Ms. Cindy meeting with Mr. Silva, that's just an increase of $99,000 to his current budget, not $292,000, correct?

Yes, that's correct. I did clarify because what's already in the budget, he just wanted to, with the breakdown he showed you all, it's a 292,878 total to the budget, not in addition. So the increase is the 99,296 is what he's requesting.

Motion to approve item, the request from IT technology, 99,296.

I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Same sign. Motion carries. That's basically a necessity we can't really... courthouse and buildings rental of space i know we we rent a couple of spaces i think i know for sure we have one rental coming up in december so that ten thousand dollars is to cover any increases and if there's no increases well then that money will not be spent i'll make a motion we approve Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Crossable Precinct 3. He's not here today, but I know we had several requests. And once, Miss Cindy, when you added The fringe, the total amount is $81,659.

Yes, Judge, that is correct. I think the initial request that Constable Long provided was just the salary portion. So I did add the fringe benefit. So that's the total you're seeing on the worksheet.

And for that first one, the salary, the only way we could adjust it is if he would have went into the... Salary, what is it called?

That's correct.

That wasn't done.

That was not done. If you did not receive the letter within the five days of the proposed budget being filed, then the court is not allowed to make any changes to elected officials' salaries.

So what that, in essence, what it means is once we file the proposed budget, any elected official that would like to grieve his or her salary to increase, he'd have to submit the request within five days and then go to the grievance committee. The grievance committee will approve or disapprove and present to the commissioners court. That was not done, so that request cannot be approved. Then we have travel. And his current travel, that 18-6, that's all together, right?

That's correct. It's part of the grievance amount that he would have to grieve.

That goes into agreements also. So we can't approve that one.

We worked real hard to get that evened out among all the constables. I think we are even now. We are even now. At 18-6, so I would recommend against throwing that out of balance again. I know he's had to go pick up some prisoners. Well, I don't know if he had to, but he did go pick up some prisoners out of county, and He wants to be compensated for that, but he's already got, that's what the travel allowance is for. Okay.

So, okay. That travels on salary? Ours is not on salary. It's not considered salary, right? Yeah, I believe it is. If I'm not mistaken, the last time.

Yeah, travel is just part of the salary, you know, judge.

Yes, that's correct.

So back in the year before I came, several travel were, let me make sure I'm saying this right.

Your travel goes into your W-2 form, right?

Yes, it's part of a, yes, it's a calculated amount for the retirement and taxes.

So back then when they approved it, it went to the agreement?

Yeah, anytime there is an increase, then it goes through the, not agreements, it's just it was proposed already in the budget and as long as the notifications were published in the paper. Okay. That was a procedure.

It was put in the proposed budget. It was put in the proposed budget. That's the difference.

Yes.

I understand.

Okay, so we cannot address that one either. Then he had postage of 280, increased by $40. And conference and associations, 500. He was requesting a deputy, wasn't he?

Does he have to?

You don't need to vote on that.

Huh? A deputy?

Oh, yes. I see that one on top here. Requesting a deputy for precinct 3, $42,640. I think back when we made those cuts in 2016, all the councilors lost their deputy. And right now, every one of them remains without a deputy. So I'll make a motion that it remains that way. I'll make a motion. Oh, you're going to make a motion. OK. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. No, we have to go back. So the travel also is denied because it didn't go through grievance. Postage, $40.

Motion to approve.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Increase of $500 in conference and associations.

Motion to approve.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. OK, I want to get this straight because on the form that I have, it doesn't .. OK, so we addressed the two salaries, which was the constable and the travel. And then deputy constable, we approved that. We addressed that one also. And then we address postage and conferences. No other requests on that one, right?

Got them all?

All right. Next one is the Sheriff's Department.

Good morning, Judge, Commissioners. I'm Joseph Guy Baker, Sheriff for Jim Wills County. First, I would just like to say the opening vicious attack on me is not founded in any, I don't know of any statement I've ever made accusing the court, accusing any of the judges, or accusing the probation department of not doing their job. of releasing people, of holding people unlawfully. I don't know where that came from, but I would like to address those. If there's any statement I've ever made, it's just been to show the fact that the prisoner detention is not solely tied, even though it's on my budget, it's not completely determined by me. I've never said anything negative about any of these, the other departments. So I'd like to know where that actually came from, whether there are rumors, whether there are actual statements, I'd like to see them so I can address them. Cause I've never stated anything like that because I don't believe that. I believe that every one of them are doing their jobs appropriately and I've never said anything contrary to that. So that was completely unjustified. Now, moving forward, For the 2027 fiscal year, like I said before, in the beginning, all I want to do is solve problems. The county is facing a difficult budget year. I understand that. We want to help. For fiscal 2027, I'd like to commit an additional $200,000 that's legally available from the Sheriff's Office asset forfeiture funds toward computer hardware, software, technology, licensing, subscription, and related law enforcement system expenses. And these are so that the taxpayers won't have to provide, will help the general fund through 2027. This is a practical way that I can help address the current fiscal situation that we're in. This will provide the necessary services for the jail, dispatch, investigative, records, and public safety operations. This doesn't change the legal requirements for what I have to do to use the asset for future funds, but I can use them for that. And also, I just want to say that we're trying to do what I can do to help the county take the burden off the taxpayers. In fiscal this fiscal year, in 2026, I've either spent or allocated around $1 million from asset forfeiture funds. And in 2027, I've already got around $500,000 set aside. I've added the additional, like I said, the additional $200,000 I believe I can do. I do this in good faith, trying to help solve problems. Again, the statement that was read in the beginning during public testimony, I don't know where that came from.

That doesn't help us solve problems.

I've never said anything negative to any of you judges, to the DA, or against the county attorney. And if so, I'd like to see it so that I can address it.

OK, so we have a whole slew of requests. One, two, three, four, five. Well, no. One, two, three, four. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 requests. A total of 1.9 million. The first one is salary for deputies. Over time, $35,000. What I'm trying to do is I'm trying to grasp. I'm trying to grasp this. I'm trying to understand it, trying to wrap it around my head. I don't understand how it can jump from merely three years ago, two years ago, from running the budget from what we had it to having to increase by almost $2 million. And what we're trying to do is we're trying to make sure you have what you have, Sheriff, to do your job. The issue that I have aside from all these other requests that you have is the 1.4 million. Because what we have to do all together is make sure that that 1.4 is not spent. Not even talking about the other request. The other request, I don't even know if I can even consider approving. We have to do every single thing we can at the Sheriff's Department to make sure things are getting done as efficient as possible. The 1.4, I don't want to say I understand because I still don't approve, even though I know it might be spent, if that makes any sense. Because I'm afraid that if we approve that 1.4, guess what? going to spend that 1.4 and that 1.4 is going to be on there the following year too i don't want to approve this and we let go of the gas we need to do everything we can 110 percent and and uh uh What I question, Sheriff, is the amount of inmates that we can house in there. And I know we had a presentation earlier and they made the point, they made good points too, and that's one of their biggest questions that need to be addressed because we should be able to and especially with the amount of jailers we have right now, which we're almost fully staffed, right?

Yes, fully staffed with lacking too.

It's under my inclination that we can do better and have to do better and need to do better to house more inmates here to cut the bleed because Our constituents, our taxpayers need to understand when we house inmates somewhere else, we're not only getting a bill to house them, we're getting medical bills and we're getting prescription bills. And we're trying, the sheriff's trying, I know you're trying, Sheriff, I'm not saying that. That's not what I'm saying. These are things that have to be done. The more we have here, the less we pay over there. And to approve today 1.9? Let me explain it the way a county judge is going to seize this. The way I see it is we're trying to stay at the 0.767. Okay. I'm not just saying this to pull stuff out of my, my head or a lack of a better word. I'm saying this because I'm looking forward. We have an evaluation of our, of our jail that's fixing to be completed. And we just approved the architects and the engineers. So if the recommendation is that we're going to go out for a bond for a new jail, We are looking at raising taxes by three cents. Okay? We're at 767 right now, .767. If we raise taxes at all right now here by the 25th of September, one cent. The .77 We have to go out for a bomb for $28 million to raise it 3 cents. We're going to hit our cap at 80. Sheriff, this is what I see. This is what I look at. This is what I'm trying to make sure that we stay here because if we don't stay here, we can't do this. Any type of catastrophe that we have, we will not be able to address. That's the bottom line. Those are the facts. I'm not pulling no punches. I'm not doing anything. If it was the sheriff's department, it was the DA's, whoever's department it was, I'd be saying the same thing. The only thing that's going to save us if our valuations are higher and we get more revenue. This is what causes a county judge to lose sleep at night. And I'm not trying to be trying to put on this show or anything like that. I'm stating the facts and I'm stating the facts about the 1.9 request.

I got several things to say. One is I don't think that building a new jail given our current situation is a proper solution. I've never said we need to go build a new jail. And the reason I say that is because housing an inmate across the street costs about, it's over $300 a day. We're paying $70 a day at Maverick County and $75 a day at, I think, Geo and about $73 a day at Jim Hall County. What we need to do is we need to house as many inmates as we can possibly here because the amount of money it costs to run the facility stays the same. You're correct. And we will evaluate that. And we're going to house as many inmates as we can. But you also got to understand that we're having to transport back and forth for court and all these things. We have to make room for those things when they happen. So we have to make space to fill the space up for court. So the daily inmate housing that we can have daily changes depending on what the court schedule is and what our transport schedules are. I will operate the jail as efficiently as I can, staying within the Texas Commission on Jail Standard Rules and Regulations. I will not violate those. You don't want me to because it involves the whole county. I'm not saying we need to build a jail. I'm saying if we're going to keep this jail at least, we need a plan. We need a long-term plan. Until then, We need to, if one dorm goes down, that's 12 inmates, I can't, if the toilet doesn't flush in one dorm, that could be 12 inmates I cannot house there. Now, I gotta get that fixed as soon as I can, but then if something else goes down, if a intercom, one intercom goes down, then I have to move 12 inmates, you know, depending on which dorm it is. That's what affects the daily amount of inmates I can house in the jail. We need the estimate. We need the assessment so we know how to move forward in a long-term plan. I'm not advocating building a jail next year. I'm not advocating raising bonds. I'm not advocating any of that. We need to repair the jail so that we don't have the toilets messing up, the intercoms not working, so that I can house as many inmates as I possibly can in that jail. But to say we need to hire additional staff, no, because is still cheaper to house inmates on contract than it is for us to house them over across the street but we have to have the facility because we have to book them in we have to take inmates from other agencies we have to do all of these things so we need to make it that i agree we need as many inmates as we can house over there we will we have to comply with the the jail uh the test the laws that govern the operation of the jail that's all that's all i'm trying to do yeah now Whatever they did in the past, you know, I don't know. If we had someone made a statement, a judge, and I'm not trying to say anything negative about it, but it was uninformed about at one point we had 87 inmates being housed at the jail. Technically, that's impossible because we're only rated at 88. And if we go over 90%, you also got to understand the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, we cannot, if we have 88 beds. Let's just say that they were all working and that we could house that many, which we can't. But let's say they were. There is still, if you go over 90%, you gotta have headroom. If you go over, 80% is where the Texas Commission on Jail Standards recommends that you stay. If you go over 90%, then they come down and ask questions as to why you're over 90%. And then they put into a place to get that number back down. So just because you have this small number of beds, Even if everything was operational, you cannot max out the jail. Now that you need to, if you want the county attorney to look at those rules and regulations, that's fine.

I don't know. That's where they're at. I haven't heard anybody use that number. The number I used last... on Tuesday or Wednesday was 74. Because I think last year, we have 74 this year, we're housing less than 40. And I think that's a big disparity of where we are at and where we can be.

And we definitely can look into that and do the best we can. But like I said, we need the repairs done. We talked about doing repairs. You were going out for RFQs. We decided to wait on those until we got the RFQs back. Is that true? Is that correct? That's what we decided was the best thing to do?

Maybe there's some miscommunication because... Or what's not being used right now we can't wait for that we need if there's some if there's some some repairs that we can do now that we can have some let's get it done let's get it done, because that evaluation is going to be done. I am thinking we won't get that for another 90 days.

So I'm talking about the old jail side. And the reason I want to hold on that is because we can only house minimum security inmates in the old jail side. So we were talking about repairs on the old jail side with the bars. They're just bars. They're not. We can't use those to house medium or high security inmates anymore, according to Texas Commission on Jail Standards. So we may have one, maybe three inmates tops, the trustee type of inmates that we can put there, and we still put them there. But to go and fix everything over there to me is a waste of tax dollars because I can house those other inmates at Maverick County at $70 a day instead of $323 a day. So how many can you house on the newer part? I'd have to get with, I mean, I don't have the numbers in front of me. I'm just over here trying to answer. I know that we're definitely where we're at. I'll see if we can increase what we're doing. I'll look and we'll look at the jail standards rules again. I'll reevaluate them. We'll definitely do the best we can, but it's not going to be enough. Look, when you run the arrest reports since 2021, They're pretty much the same. In 2022, they spiked for some reason, but other than that, they've been pretty well 1800 arrests per year. And it hasn't changed. Now, what has changed is the violent nature of the arrest. And I've never said anything about the courts because when we have, when we go from a misdemeanor and you know, and the judges or whatever, the JP or whatever bonds they set, I've never, question that, that's not my lane. I try to stay in my lane. But the number of arrests have not increased. The violent nature of the offenses may have increased. And so that could be contributing to a lot of this. I don't, once the arrest is made, that's all I can do. The rest is up to, and this may be where I'm getting the the judges and the courts and the probation feel like i'm attacking i'm not attacking them for doing their job i come i don't want to let any violent person out of jail i'm just saying that everybody is coming at me and attacking me for something that's on my line item budget that many departments touch that i can't control that's what i'm saying now i don't think the judges or the JPs or probation, I think they have to do their job as well. This is something that we all have to face. It's something we all have to come to together and work together on. But coming and attacking me or saying something I've never said, I don't understand. That's not gonna solve anything.

All right. So let's read it back into the budget. Well, aside from the $1.4 for prisoner detention, we have another $528,527 in requests. Is that counting the $200,000 I took off? So here we have a computer hardware and software. That was 128,000 requested. Is that what's going to take?

I'll take that off. 200,000 is what I'm going to add to the budget for computer hardware, software, and anything else that comes up for, like, for example, replacing computers, which I authorized yesterday, stuff like that.

OK, so $528,000 minus $200,000, $328,057. $328,527. Cindy on prisoner detention. On prisoner detention, we have a separate line item somewhere in a budget other than the Sheriff's Department. If we approve anything of the sort of the 1.4 million, just like it was mentioned earlier, it will continue to be on the sheriff's budget, even if we rectify the problem, correct?

What's the question?

OK, so if we add $1.4 million to prisoner detention into his current budget, and his current budget, current budget 8.769 for 2026. 8 million 769. what page is that right here page 33

That was estimated for 2026.

2027, the proposed budget is $7,140,512. So if we add the 1.4, that's going to increase it to 8.5. OK. So if we do that, that budget's going to be like that every oncoming year. Or we put that in a different spot, or it doesn't increase his budget by the bottom line. Because if we do that, it's going to be harder to take it off later on down the road, correct?

Not necessarily. I mean, every budget year y'all have the they have the room to increase or decrease. But as far as a prisoner detention, I mean, that particular expense is a sheriff's department expense. So for financial and accounting purposes and principles, it does have to be in there. Now, can I and I know the sheriff's question. He had asked before if we can itemize prisoner transport, prisoner, what was the other line item?

I wanted to separate detention from transport.

Yeah. So, I mean, I can create those two. I can split them up.

Could you put it in reserve and contingency for the Sheriff's Department?

That would be another option because I could do that as well. I mean, but it's still going to be in the Sheriff's Department as it should be. But yes, we can do a reserve for contingency just in the Sheriff's Department.

Well, will that affect the SB 22 money? And I understand what you're saying, Judge, and I agree with you. We don't want to raise it where if we can get this under control and the prisoner retention comes down, the rule is from year to year, if we lower the sheriff's office budget, we lose the SB 22 money, which I don't want to lose. That's I think that's what the judge concern is would be my concern.

We would not because right now it has not been we haven't decreased it. But we could if we did put it aside in a reserve for contingency in the Sheriff's Department would probably be the safer line item to put it in.

But so that we won't if we do we wouldn't lose this between two money, right?

That would be an option.

And that estimate of 1.4, it goes from 600,000 to 2 million with the 1.4. That estimate is what we need? Based on the 2026 projections, it's at 2.23, but I believe that we can

Again, trying to increase, me looking at what we can increase before I even came here, try to increase more inmates we house over there, trying to separate the transport. We're doing a lot of transport ourselves with overtime, but we're obviously running out of overtime too. But I think that we can maintain, I'm gonna try to maintain, do the best I can to maintain it at that point.

Just commissioners, I don't think if you you raise it by 1.4 million was going to happen next year, 1.9 2 million. I don't think we should increase any amount and of that detention funding. You know, along with being an elected official comes responsibility and the problems that come with it. So I'm against any increase.

Anybody else? I'd just like to say just one thing, which I've said over and over again, which still remains true, is I am statutorily obligated to accept all inmates that come in for this county jail. Just one reminder.

I know that we're not the only county facing these issues. I think there's Stark County, maybe a couple of other counties. I think we need to... We need to collaborate with them to see what they're doing with arrests, with different type of offenses. Maybe we can adopt some of those procedures and alleviate some of the issues that we have. I think it behooves us to call the different counties and collaborate with them. to save as much as we can, every single penny that we can save by adopting any of those procedures that they're doing.

I'd like to say a few other things. You know, we have expenses from jail detention and jail medical expenses from the year 2020. 23, 24, they started going up. 23 was 3,067 for jail detention. 24, they bumped up to 454,000. Okay. 25, they almost doubled to 725,000 for inmate housing. Then 2026, 1.739. I could understand there was a gradual increase, but a dramatic increase of almost over a million dollars. That's just Too much for me to swallow. Also, medical expense has been a consistency to the year 2025. 2026, it doubled, $437,000 in medical expense, hospital medical expense. 25 was 173,000. So those numbers to me, they're just too extremely high, too extremely of a jump.

I agree with you. I don't like the numbers either. The simple, hard, just honest answer to that is that statutorily the county has to pay those funds. They have to take an inmate, take care of the medical costs. If they're in our custody and they have to have a surgery, they have to go to a hospital, We have to cover those costs. The county would be liable if we did not. I mean, I don't like them either, Commissioner Aguilar. I wish we could bring them down. If there was something I could do, I tell you what, you guys probably don't know, maybe I should make a law. I have hospitals billing me every time. I have a clerk that checks every bill, Mr. Smithwick, and I sign a denial on payment, two or three denials every single day from because the inmate was not in custody on that day or for whatever reason, I look, do we owe this bill or do we not? I'm already doing that. I've been doing that. I don't know if it was being done before, but I am doing that. If they were in our custody and we took them there, we owe the bill. And I can't legally not provide the medical care. I don't know how else to say it. That's the law. I don't like the numbers either. Like you said, we're not the only county dealing with this. There was changes to the law on the court side when it has to do with, you know, certain violent offenders and them being able to get bond. They have to abide by those rules and those new laws that were established. I understand that. And I agree with it. But a lot of these things is what contributes to this. It's not one day I decided just to spend more money. It doesn't go in my pocket. It's not like I decided one more day just to keep everybody in jail. I really don't. We need to come together and find a solution. I agree. But blaming one person and telling them what's on your budget line item so you need to fix it, that's not going to solve it.

If we don't allot for any money for the prisoner detention, and like the sheriff said, it's not up to him. He doesn't know how many people are going to cause problems in Jim Wells County, and they're going to come. If we don't allot for any money, any extra money, then where are they going to go? What are we going to do? Something has to be done. Yeah, we're going to get the jail fixed, but I mean, You know, he has no control how many people are coming in every day that the JPs take care of or, you know, how fast the courts are going through or whatever. I mean, geez.

We can't also have an open checkbook either.

Sir?

I said we can't have an open checkbook either. I'm just making that statement, nodding off what you said. I don't understand what you're saying, but I'm just saying that the county cannot have an open checkbook for every extreme expense that everybody, I mean, some departments go over. I mean, we all stay under budget, and it's hard. It's complicated. But, you know, we do what we can, and I think every department should do the same.

There's no doubt that you're going to spend over $600,000. There's no doubt. No doubt. The exact amount, we do not know. I think, you know, setting aside a reserving contingency would be an option. But I just don't know. You were saying something about you can house somebody out of the county cheaper than you can hold them here. So why do we need a million for?

Because I've looked at several different models that we can go to. But it always boils down to we have to have a booking area. So unless you shut down the entire jail, which cuts out all of the maintenance, all of the electricity, everything that goes with having a facility, You're not going to really save enough money because you still have to book them in. They still have to be a place for you to hold them. You still have to feed them until you can. And then you can try to look at maybe just having a booking as holding and then transport them out. This is not a long term solution because what if something happens to one of our contracts? You know, so I decided that's not the best option to go. Now we need we need someone to do an assessment for us. Like I brought up, the RFQ, whoever ends up doing it, I don't really care, but we need a professional to do that assessment to get a long-term plan that you guys can agree on and work with. In the meantime, I think we need to get the jail that we have operational because the amount of money it costs to have the facility open – You might as well house as many inmates as you can over there, even though it costs us, like I said, over $300 a day. That cost is still going to be there, whether you have five inmates there or whether you have 70 inmates there. That cost is still going to be there. So we need to maximize that first. Then the rest of it, until we can get this situated, we have to send out.

We just had enough money to house 75 prisoners within our budget. I know what you're saying, but you're wrong in the fact that whenever the ADP went from, it was about 65, when it went up to 65, they already started housing out of county.

and when it went up to 75, they were already housing out of county. So even though you're seeing an ADP number there, there were still contracts with those out of county. Up until, yeah, I don't understand that part of it, sir. But up until, you know, way back when, when you had 40 inmates, yes, our facility was there. When the expansion was done in, what, 2004, I believe, You know, up until then, there was 40 inmates in the jail. I could still hold 40 inmates in the jail, but when the ADP started rising, Before even I became sheriff, contracts were already made. 2017, there was a contract made. I don't know how much it was used, but I know for a fact in 2024, they were already, when I came here, they were already housing inmates outside of this county. This is not something, this is a trend that's been going, not just when I became sheriff, and that's why it's being portrayed. That's not true. This trend was already happening. They were already housing people out of county when I got here, when I was elected sheriff. It is already on the rise.

If we go with your proposal, certainly we're not going to be able to hold the line on the tax rate.

The reason we have goals and objectives with keeping the tax rate the way it is, is because in the past, we have approved up to a negative $2 million budget without having to go to the taxpayers. And right now, I do not want to go to the taxpayers right now. I do not. And not only because I don't want to do that to the taxpayers, but also because of the thresholds that I spoke about earlier. So it's 1027. I'm going to recess for 10 minutes. OK. Jim Walsh County Commissioner's Court for today, September 4, 2026, went to recess at 1027 AM. It is 1048, and we are coming back to regular session. So. We do have the Sheriff's Department budget requests in front of us. Is there any recommendations from the commissioners or on what your thoughts are? I know Mr. Aguilar has expressed his thoughts.

Judge, I had a Concern here on the jailers, they're requesting for overtime. And my concern is that if we're not, the jail's not fully, it's full with the inmates, which maxed out at, what is it, 78? We only have 33, then why are we needing overtime for it? That's one of my concerns there.

The jail is now maxed out at holding 33 inmates. The overtime, you have to understand that too, I've already explained this, sometimes we have to clear out inmates and bring other inmates in to conduct court. Then we bring those inmates back or keep some of those here depending on what the court has determined. Some inmates we house here because of ongoing court processes. The overtime is for when people are trying to limit the number of contract transports that we're doing. And plus, to be honest with you, the MHMR transports, the juvenile transports, it's more than just inmates. Those can't wait for me to set up the contract to do those transports. So the overtime is spent on doing covering shift or doing transports that we do ourselves. We still do that. It's not that we only use contract transport.

Sheriff, I know you committed $200,000 for the computer hardware and software. Is there any more that you can use for OT for overtime?

I have been. I will continue to do whatever I have to do to keep the community safe and public safety. These are what I'm asking for. Like I said, that is my requested budget. Whatever you give me, I'm going to do my best. I'll come back to you if I need more. But I have used... have used like i said it's probably over a million but right about close to a million in july was uh 930 over 930 something thousand dollars out of asset forfeiture funds for law enforcement related expense that i have used to try to offset taxpayer dollars i will continue to do that as much as i can i have obligations i have to buy you know vehicles i have to pay for uh all of those things i just have to make sure i can complete those obligations uh so It's not that I'm not already doing it, I am.

So prisoner detention, we cannot ignore it. We know it's an issue. And if we ignore it, then we may have some backlash when we do our audit, have our audit completed. So that was the question that I had for financial advisors. So we have to to do something on the prisoner detention. And whatever we do there, we will put in a reserve for contingency and keep a close eye on it and do balance transfers or budget transfers to address them. Now, The issue at hand is how many of these are from prisoner detention. And so we have prisoner detention, prisoner hospital, and a prisoner detention hospital. And those are the only two. Sure. For the prisoner detention?

Yes. Right now, the prisoner detention is also included with the transport. Yes. And the rest, yes.

Okay. So that being said, we do have to do something about the prisoner detention. And my recommendation to the court is still remaining with the same tax rate, 0.767, because with the 767, anything other than prisoner detention is going to lower our negative from last year. That means we're making tremendous progress. The only issue is the prisoner detention. um that being said will remain same tax rate and we will address the prisoner detention and if and if at the end of the year next year we're over it's going to hit our fund balance and we won't have to raise taxes right now or do anything of the sort to go to our taxpayers. So what we got to figure right now is that number. And if we want to approve any other of the requests aside from prisoner detention.

Judge, I've got a question, and it's a two-part question, because I just was reminded of this. If you do increase that amount, and even if you call it a contingency fund, and this is probably a question for Cindy, does calling it a contingent budgeting take it out of the SB 1022 consequence? Because once we put that in, If next year we don't need it and try to reduce it, it could have a consequence on SB 22. And the second part of my question is, if that happens, is that consequence only to the Sheriff's Department? Or would it affect, because I also get, and so does Carlos, SB 22 money. Or would it affect all three of our officers?

So in response to the first question, I think it'll go into the second question. So the first question, I think the the solution and I during research is what judges kind of alluding to is on the 1.4 million, that it just will not be put in the sheriff's department line item, but essentially in a reserve for contingency. general fund so it not even touching the Sheriff's Department budget so obviously still an expense to general fund but once he has reached his threshold if y'all leave it where it sits right now at six hundred thousand so as he reaches that six hundred thousand let's say April he reaches a six hundred thousand or June Well, anything after that, he would have to request a budget amendment from reserve for contingency, because that money will be sitting not in his expense, but in the general fund reserve for contingency, bring it to court and court approves as it is necessary. So that way it will not affect, because yes, it would affect all the other entities as far as SB is concerned. So that would be the solution to put it in general fund reserve for contingency.

Okay. But as the year progresses and we are moving money from the reserve to the sheriff and let's say in 2028, we don't need as much anymore budgeted in there and we try to come down. That's what triggers Because you can't use, they don't want SB 22 to offset, to create a savings for the county.

Yeah, so the safeguard would be to keep it in the reserve for contingency.

And that will keep it free of the SB 22 consequence. Correct, yes. Okay. Because I have three employees that completely depend on the SB 22.

I know yourself, Carlos, and of course the Sheriff's Department has a big chunk that goes to his employees as well.

Okay. We're not going to totally approve this until the 25th.

Well, you would have to approve, if that's the route y'all want to go, you would have to approve the 1.4 additional million in the request, I'm sorry, in the reserve for contingency line item, because that's not in the proposed budget.

Whatever amount we have.

Yes.

What I was trying to allude to is we're not going to officially approve this until the 25th. So, if we need to call, Yeah, we can definitely.

It's still a moving budget. I mean, we don't finalize and you don't adopt the budget until the 28th. I believe we had a little bit of a change on that. Yes. So, yes. So if we need a call in another workshop to discuss updated numbers, we can do that.

Okay. Now. Question is, what are we going to prove and what are we not going to prove? I think the 1.4 is non-negotiable. The Prisoner Detention Hospital That brings us up to 1.7.

I have a question. Can the prisoner transport be excluded from the prisoner detention reserve for contingency? Can you exclude the expense of prisoner transport from the reserve contingency when you need the money for prisoner detention? So in other words, just designate it to prisoner detention and not transport.

I mean, I can create a prisoner transport expense line item, but as the proposed budget stands, obviously there would be $0 in there right now. So if you would want to split that $600,000 of that that's in his detention and split it out, like $200,000 for transport and $400,000 to detention, y'all would have to make that decision now.

Anything that comes out of the reserving contingency, Would have to be approved by the court anyway. That is correct But is it going to be limited only to detention though?

It won't be a chance for anything else.

That's correct Yeah, so anything that falls in detention and currently what falls in prisoner detention are the transport bills and the the housing bills and Yes, yes, so yeah, and it will have to

It's probably, it's sort of, just for my understanding, you know, like when we have a commissioner's court meeting, could you provide the number of prisoners you have housing here in Alice and the ones that you're transporting? That way we can have an update of how the expenses are. or occurring, right? So starting maybe the next couple of commissioners' court meeting at the beginning, you can, in public speaking, just tell us, OK, we're housing 35 prisoners here, 60 over there. It would be something that I would like to have, just to the expense.

So I give it to the judge, but I know that there could be a quote a rolling quorum kind of issue with those kind of emails. I've been told the reason I don't send it out to everybody that that that one that I send breaks it down. How many inmates are house where I mean we could you just want to know like each commissioner's court. Yes, like for that day.

I may be able to help, Sheriff, because we get from Sergeant Salas, we get the update. So every Tuesday for the past couple of Tuesdays, I've been sending it out to basically everybody in the criminal justice stakeholders. I did for the same reason. I only copy the judge because I can't copy the whole court. Right. So if you all want, you can come to judge's office and Isabel can can print it, print one out for you. But we do that every Tuesday and it has it broken down by total number of inmates, total number of inmates here. Recently, it's been Maverick and Jim Hogg because I don't think we're using geo at least recently anymore.

Not as much. They're more difficult to deal with. Yes. Yeah.

so but that that comes out every tuesday usually we get it before noon and by five o'clock that day it goes out to all the the judges clerks staff uh probation everybody gets copied on that great so um

that we approve 1.5 for prisoner detention and prisoner detention hospital. And we keep a close eye on it. We'll put that on the reserve for contingency general. As far as the other ones, I can't approve those. I can't seem to approve those other ones.

So you want to approve a 1,000,005 reserve and contingency, which would be available in case we need it, right? And deny the rest, Judge, for what? What are you talking about?

Yes, sir.

Well, yeah, that cap to lease payment What is that, Cindy? That's negative.

I guess the sheriff could explain better, but it looks like he was just trying to deduct that and maybe allocate it to some other line items. Is that correct?

Yeah. So I bought all the vehicles for the sheriff's office through asset forfeiture. So to try to help this work. Traditionally, you've given me $50,000 a year for that purpose. This year I took and distributed that to help balance the budget. So if you approve and deny all the rest of that, you just cut me the $50,000. But if you, you know, again, I'm trying to do the best I can. All the vehicles that needed to be replaced, I bought them all out of asset forfeiture funds. But I could use that $50,000 for deputy overtime if you're going to cut everything else. because right now you don't have enough money in there to pay for the holiday pay. There really is no deputy overtime. It's whatever staff is working the holidays that every other county employee is off, then that still falls short to even paying them their holiday pay.

So there's going to be 1.5 in contingency. The bills come in. he exceeds whatever you have there on your budget, the bills are still coming in. Do we approve, disapprove? It's just, we only approved the transfer and that's it. The money's still gonna be there.

Yes, the money is, if you do approve the 1.5 in the reserve for contingency, yes, that's placing the money in the budget to where if and when he needs the amount, then that's when it would have to come to Commissioner's Court for approval. But, I mean, I get what you're saying. The services are already rendered at that point, and it's hard for, you know, to deny it.

How do you deny that? Well, it's for us to keep track. That's good.

I mean, the goal is not to use the $2 million, but, I mean.

Yeah, but if you, surely we're going to use up the $600, and then how much of that, so you're saying $1.5 in addition to the $600? or does that or does that include the 600 that's in addition to the 600 because we're saying we're going to spend two million dollars 2.1 now 2.1 so okay so now if it goes past that it's going to dip into the fund balance now i really need an answer to that question because this becomes the floor from here on and in 2028 if we want to we say okay we got it under control we need to come down and we cut, that could, we could be punished for that under Senate Bill 22 and lose our.

That's why we have it in the reserve.

Well, that's my question. Does calling it something else, because really that's just a name. Does the comptroller care?

Yeah, we'll have to clarify it with the SB representative. Okay.

Well, otherwise. Correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, the one point, the reason I say 1.5 is because the request for prisoner detention is 1.4. And then we're giving another 100 to the prisoner detention hospital.

But the one, if you're going to do 100 or entertain the additional 100 for detention hospital, that's totally separate. That's its own line item.

So then it'll be 1.4. 1.4 for the reserve for contingency. And then $100,000 for the prisoner detention hospital. Now, that's why I asked earlier, that $2 million is accurate, as we can make it, right? OK. Anybody else have anything?

Yes. Let's see. If the commissioners court approves that amount, I'm concerned because what if you approve that amount and next year you have a bigger problem? I understand that, you know, you're going to improve this amount. But from what I see as far as the track record here, I don't see no decline in anything. It's just increase, increase, increase. So you guys better be prepared for next year.

So the reason why we have to do this is because we know we have a problem. If we don't, if we ignore it and not put it in the budget, then we're taking a risk on getting a write-up and our audit. This is why I say when mistakes happen, or when things like this happen, it's much more than just a commissioner's court making a yes or no. There are some things that can happen with our audits. There are some things that can happen with other things that if we don't address them now, it's gonna pay, we're gonna pay later. And that's why we utilize our financial advisors, our CPAs to give us these answers because I don't want to not do this and it looks like we're ignoring the problem. We know we have a problem. We know we have to address it one way or another. And the way we're gonna do that is we're going to put in the reserve for contingency We're going to keep our same tax rate not putting on the taxpayers backs. And if we go over next year, it's going to come out of the phone. Is that what we want to do also? No, we want to keep our phone balance, but we have this persistent problem we have right now and we have to address it. THIS WAY SO WE CAN SATISFY ALL AVENUES OF OUR SYSTEM. NEW SPEAKER I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE THING.

BY NO MEANS AM I SAYING THAT I'M AGAINST THE I KNOW WE HAVE AN ISSUE AND WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT. I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH THE NUMBER THAT WE'RE SHOOTING FOR. NEW SPEAKER GIVE US A NUMBER. There's so many other things that we need to address to be able to create more space here, all of us together, not just him, not just this guy, not just judges, all of us. Something needs to get changed, but we all have to come to a number to where it's not so high. I mean, I've always said to my family, if you're spending $4,000 a month and you're making five and you're spending six, you don't need another job. You just need to spend less. what are we doing? We all went through that. I've been through that. I came in with 32 employees. I have 17, 18 right now to try to increase their pay. And we do our own roads so we can sub it out. There's so many things we can do. And I'm not saying that you're not doing it, Sheriff. I'm not saying you're not doing it. I just say that all of us in Jimmels County have to do our part in one way or another and figure out what can we do. There's a lot of areas we can cut. We have to try something different. Just throw money at it. I don't agree throwing money at it. It's... You know, I wish the number wouldn't increase a lot more than what we did last year. But that's my opinion.

OK. Shoot out a number. I mean, this could be a baseline number. If we think, if you wanted a smaller number, would you consider something on that number there?

On the 1.4? So based on 2026 projections, when I gave my budget, I didn't want to ask for everything. We're looking at a projection of 2.23. So I'm already expecting to try to mitigate that number. The 2 million, I mean, if things continue the way they are, that's where it's going to be. I'm not gonna lie to you, and that's just the truth. Now the projections are just a projection based on where we were at in 2026 when I created the proposal. But that projection was at 2.23 million. So I cut that out because I think we can try to manage that to keep it at two already. So I've already cut that part out. That's where it looks like it's going to go. And if it's in contingency and it doesn't go, they're great, right? I mean, I'm going to do the best I can. I'm not going to spend the two million just because it's there. I don't even, like I said, I don't tell the DPS or APD or any other agency to go arrest more people. That's, you know, we're just operating the way law enforcement operates. And this is where we're at. Like I said, the number of arrests has stayed consistent. You know, it's not just Jim Wells County Sheriff's Office inmates over there. It's every agency that operates in this county. In fact, we don't even have half of them are Jim Wells County, not even half are Jim Wells County inmates. Well, that'd be my guess. I mean, I haven't run the numbers, but it's how I have looked at them a while back. And as far as I understand, if it's in contingencies and we don't use it, that's good. And it doesn't affect, if it doesn't affect SB 22, which was my concern.

And the amount we have on there, if you don't use it, it remains there. And it's not affecting our current tax rate, not affecting our current budget per se. and if and if you don't use it basically lose it and it don't it don't uh get uh it won't hit our fund balance so um i just don't want to to put that we're going to add a half a million dollars and what's needed is 1.5 or 1.4 you know now if uh that that 1.4 i just didn't come up with it i mean I think, Cindy, would you agree that that 1.4 It's the mark or if it's less, let me know and I'll recommend it less. I just need to make sure that it's going to hit the mark and with the information that I've been provided, you know.

I mean, I think you're getting the 1.4 from the sheriff's request because he has $600,000 in there and I think his goal was to get 2 million because the sheriff is projecting that. I mean, if you're asking for estimates, the way the expenses are going, that's the way he's going. Now, we're looking for solutions to decrease that expense. If the sheriff is going to commit to that decrease, hopefully we have unused money as a goal. We don't want to spend the $2 million. No, we don't. Sheriff?

Well, I don't want to. The fact is, if we can house more inmates over there, I mean, I've been thinking about ways to reduce this for a long time. And we're going to continue to do our best. And I would hope I could. I mean, I can't sit here and promise you, yes, I can, because I have laws that I have to follow. But at the same time, if, you know, depending on the transports and everything, there's so many things that are unpredictable. I don't know how many people are going to be arrested next month. because there's too many people, too many agencies involved. But all I can do is run the jail as efficiently as I can. And that's pretty much all I can do, and I will do that.

I mean, that is his request. I mean, we, you know, if we go back, you know, and nobody has, you know, the estimate, what's a reasonable estimate? I'll go back to $500,000 if you ask me, but...

The projections that I gave you is on is basically estimated based on what we spent in 2026. So when I got to when I got with the auditor and got the the most updated city, what are we going over this year?

Like what is so in August, our year well year to date expense, true numbers for 2026 is 1.2. And that's what I think 1.2 million through August in actual prisoner detention. So that's a combination of the housing and transport.

Okay, so in all actuality, the 1.4 is a conservative number then? Yes. Right.

Because it's... I did back off 200 and, like I said, the 0.23. If I projected it out, it's 2.23, and so I went with the conservative number.

So at the projected expenditures through the end of this year, you're looking to make it up, to true it up, it'd be $1.62 million. And there's no reason to believe that that's going to go down next year unless you put some money in that line item for repairs. Otherwise, it's just if you don't repair, if you don't spend money repairing some of the cells, there's no reason to believe he's not going to have to spend that much next year as well. I understand. I understand completely.

I mean, we can redirect. I mean, and that's, you know, court. I know this is just the sheriff's request, but absolutely, if we're looking to, you know, repair the jail, put money in repairing the jail, which is the goal, to house back to the 70, or whatever the number is. That's not in here as a request, though, but...

I've been making, you know, repairs to the jail. You know, if we keep that same... line item there, we should be able to make some of those repairs. We also need to, obviously, we need the estimate or the assessment done. But we're still making repairs to the jail all the time. I have that in the budget. And I've been doing that since, you know, I came in. So we're continuing to do that. It's just, it's an old, old deal.

I need to know, is the 1.4 a conservative number?

If you're appropriating money, Judge, that's a number.

OK, so does anybody have anything else they want to add or recommend? All right, so I'll make a motion that we approve 1.4 in the reserve for contingencies for prisoner detention and 100,000 to the prisoner detention hospital. All the other ones are denied.

And you put it in contingency, right?

Yes, sir. Cindy, just a question. If this money is not used, it can be also used, like, for repair of the jail and stuff like that? No. For serving contingency?

That would have to be brought to a commissioner's court.

No, we're going to use it for just detention.

Well, when it's in reserve for contingency, it's just sitting there. So anytime it gets moved out, it has to be brought to court. I mean, whoever submits the request, more than likely the county judge would make the request because it's in general fund. I mean, it can go out to a line item, an expense line item, but it has to come to y'all for approval. Because the reserve for contingency isn't just for the sheriff's department. I understand that, yes.

We're going to have, for the lack of better word, control of where that money goes when it's requested. Right. And it's going to be up to us to approve or disapprove, whichever way we want to use it. Not whichever way we want to use it. The intent is prisoner detention.

Judge, commissioners, let's say Turner Ramirez gets the bid, is finally awarded the bid and makes their recommendation, hopefully by the end of this year. Where is that going to get paid from?

This year? We've got to pay from this year's budget?

No, not them. Whatever they recommend as the fix. Where is that going to get paid from?

Well, that's what we're going to have to see. We're going to have to... Review what they what they recommend how much it costs and and like like like we said earlier it's not going to be a quick fix unless unless it's it's it's a minor repairs that we have from courthouse and buildings that we can we can utilize. So we don't have a line item for whatever right we've got right now there's no line item, so if we do. If we do want to. add money for that week. We can add it to this and understand that it's the intent is is for president 1.4 for prisoner intention and we add something for that. It's it is the attendance for that. But we don't know. We don't know how much that's that's the whole issue. We don't know the amount of money.

Sure. If you have a line item amount for the repair and maintenance of jail for $130,000. So you used out of that money only $44,252 to do repairs roughly?

I haven't looked at it. I know that we have done a lot of repairs. I've replaced AC units and everything else. And that's why I was saying is that we do use the money for the repairs. The issue would be the old side of the jail, because there's plumbing and other more expensive costs there. But yes, we use that money to repair the jail. I believe we've probably spent more than that. I know last year we spent more than that. I don't know if that's the exact number. that we have right now.

But I thought that repairs were under your... We have both.

He's got his line item for repairs and I have $600,000 for housing building. And for that matter, for the fact that that matter is, Some of the repairs that we're doing this year and some of the ACs and stuff like that that we've done this year, we're not going to have those expenses next year. So I mean, I'm very tight. I'm very concerned with that budget line item. So we will have some money for that. I just don't know what the final numbers will be. Like I said, there's $600,000 in there. OK, so I have the motion on the table for the 1.4 and 100. I'll second the motion, Jeff. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, same sign. Nay. Motion carries.

Thank you.

Juvenile Probation Department. Okay, we'll go with the Adult Probation Department.

When you got your morning commissioners or.

Basically, I guess the request we made was to benefit a program that actually addresses the issues that have been discussed today, the jail overcrowding. Ruben Valerio director with the permission. The county contribution that we currently get was negotiated by the prior director in the court at the time. I don't believe there's ever been an increase to it. The increase we requested was requested for purposes of addressing training issues that have increased after the COVID limitations were taken away. And resources that we provide for our clients when the magistrates or the judges request county pay or CSED pay for monitors that have increased in price as well. That's the justification right now like I said the number that was provided Was based on numbers when this program began now, they've tripled or quadrupled we have 1596 to be precise not 1400 Any further discussion all in favor say aye aye opposed same sign

Motion carries. Do we now have probation department?

Judge, commissioners, I have nothing new. Just basically what I had asked for Wednesday. As far as the increase. Nothing, nothing else.

Make a motion we approve. A motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries.

Thank you.

County agent, yes, for $500 for the expense. What was it exactly? Agent. Vehicle.

Vehicle.

Yeah. It's $500. I recommend. Second. Second. A motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Commissioners, I think.

A doubt for basing .

Yes, we got a doubt for basing. There was only one. Was it Precinct 4? Yes, sir.

And all the changes are within my budget, Judge. I'm just transferring. I don't think we need to approve that.

I'll make a motion we approve.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All done.

I'd like to say something. and form a committee or something on getting salaries for all positions and elected officials. I'm going to give an example here on, say you have a constable, and just about every four years, they get a new elected official or elected official. And say it's at 43,000. Then you have a constable that's been there for 30 years. They've got the years he's gotten his raises and his raises, and it's 68. Just because you're running for that position, you're going to get 68. It doesn't make sense. You're doing the same thing that is possible. Say precinct one, precinct six, but because this one's been there for 30 years, getting all the bumps and bumps, That doesn't make sense to me. And I don't understand when you say that you're running for that position. Running for a position, to me, is running to make it better. You know, to change things or whatever, to make a difference. I don't know about running, but the thing of it is, is I don't understand why, you know, Four years ago, it was automatically down. And then this one's not because, well, we're running for that. They're running for that position. They're running for that amount. And it just doesn't make sense. I think that maybe I need to put on a commission report or something. Something needs to be done about the salary. And that means even commissioners are not putting just everybody else but us. That's everybody. You know, there needs to be a beginning somewhere. You can't, you know, take over somebody's job. They've been there for 25, 30 years and got all their bumps. And then somebody runs for this one that every four years has been changing and changing. So it's the difference between, say, 43 and 68. It's a big difference. Same job. A lot of money. And that's taxpayer money. I just called it...

We need to get that on the agenda. Anybody else? OK, so I know we originally said that we would come on the 18th, then we moved it to the 21st. But we did. have a meeting, or Cindy did, with Carlos Rodriguez, our chief appraiser, and he had to post our rate in the newspaper, and it has to post for 10 days. What we got to do is we're going to have to wait until the 28th to approve, Monday the 28th. So in our schedule, we have Tuesday the 29th and Wednesday the 30th as as if needed dates. So I guess the 28th is that Monday, right? September 28 is that Monday. We all have to be present. So I want to make sure that everything is good. Hold on. OK. All right, so I'm getting a text from our, Cindy, did you get it? I don't know if we have to make any changes, or is that just for you?

This thing fell off. OK, can you hear me? OK, so it looks like, and this is going to address, I think, Weichel's concern, is that y'all can, and this is from our independent auditor that was texting Judge. In regard to the reserve for contingency, there it is. Makes a difference. But that you can, I guess, put the specifications as far as only for emergencies or unexpected costs for the sheriff's department.

Basically, unexpected costs.

So if that's... The wording that I don't know if you have to go back to it, but that's what he said.

naming it reserved for contingencies.

No, but you can put like that does the disclosure on how to be not just. yeah.

Okay, so we're good there. So we'll be approving adopting the 2027-20 Jim Wells County budget. We'll be ratifying the property tax for 2027 and set the tax rate for 2026 on Monday, September 28th. 9?

9 o'clock?

Yes, 9 a.m. At that time, Cindy will have all the changes that we made today, and we'll have the total.

No, we all have to be present then.

Yes, sir. All present, and we have a record vote. So we'll have all the final numbers. I'll give a review before we complete everything we need to complete. Other than that, I think The budget hearings have served their purpose. We addressed the issues that we needed to address. Again, thank you to all the departments who assisted in us meeting our goal to keep the same tax rate. And whatever has been approved, It's needed. It's not something that a wish list or anything like that. So that being said, I commend everybody. Thank you all very much. Anybody else want to address the court at this time? Hearing none, can I entertain a motion?

Motion to adjourn.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries.