Commissioners Court - Regular Meeting

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

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

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

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

So one of the things that when this was brought up earlier, I said that I wasn't educated enough about at the moment because I had reshifted my focus a little bit with the most recent proposal. So I'm glad that you're here to talk to us about it, is that I know that sometimes the county attorney can fill the role of a staff attorney in a sense. But when it comes to things that are, of course, criminal, then you would have your conflict of interest. So I wanted to talk a little bit about that and talk about maybe I think really also research for the courts probably, right, and briefing on poten

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

So I wanted to talk about suppression issues as well for the court. And just what that means is that often in cases, one side will present a motion to suppress, and so that will be suppressing evidence so that the judge or jury, whoever the trier of fact is, cannot consider that evidence and ultimately reaching a verdict. And so that decision by a judge is really important because if they do suppress that evidence and later it's appealed and that appeal is granted, that it means that case has to be tried again with that evidence in consideration for that subsequent verdict, which is bad. It's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.65 increase is pulling 2.1 out of reserves. So we could move money from the two, the building and the land purchase.

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

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

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

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

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

So 5.65 will reflect the 6.2 in the notice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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