Commissioners Court - Regular Meeting

Janine, thank you for being here. We really appreciate it. And, you know, to recognize the importance of this document. So thank you for being here.

Thank you so much for being here and representing Wimberley.

I just want to make sure this what you read is that what's in the backup? I think it's different because I had a couple of a Challenges I had a couple of changes to the one that was in backup or just some typos and such No, don't reread it what part did you want to go over the last paragraph the last two paragraphs It's the same it's the same okay the paragraph just before that And also it If nobody has a problem with it, our CERT teams have done an amazing job the last two years in helping our elections department. I just want to be sure and say thank you for the help and assistance that was

I just think this is important. They've shown up at almost every polling location.

Judge, I just want to also thank Chris and the entire team. We have an awesome team that does so much for our county. I don't know that we even realize the amount of work that they do. on a daily basis, and there's a lot of late phone calls, a lot of weekend call outs, and I just really want to say thank you and appreciate every one of you.

Yeah, I just want to echo Commissioner Inglesby's comments and the support that you give our elections office every year. I know y'all are tight around election season, but yeah, it's a job that nobody knows what goes on behind the scenes until you're right, until you can't log on to something or password doesn't work, or all those things that we take for granted, I think, on a daily basis. But thank you so much for you and your team, for everything y'all do behind the scenes. And we sure have.

Yeah, I feel like y'all don't get a whole lot of, like, thanks for letting my email work today. Thanks for making sure that nothing went wrong today. You get a lot of, hey, everything is on fire. I need it fixed, like ASAP. So it's definitely sometimes a thankless job, but we very much appreciate it, and it's extremely needed. And so every single thing that y'all do, it's It means the world to all of us. Thank you.

I would just say much to what my colleagues said relative to you never need a fireman until your house is on fire. You never need a police officer until you get robbed. But you don't realize that they're protecting you every day from those issues. You all do the same thing. Our every employee in our county whether it's our transportation department doing or whether it's our IT or Elections Department during election to functionally operate it takes y'all and I don't think they're y'all get that that pat on the back on a regular basis So I'm glad that we're doing something to recognize that but

Good job. Good job. Good job. Good job. Good job. Good job. Good job.

Matthew, I see that fire burning. You ready for next year?

AND JUDGE, THIS WILL FUND A FULL-TIME HIGH-RISK JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICER WHICH INCLUDES TRAVEL AND EQUIPMENT.

No, it's just accepting the license agreement for their panel.

Let's see. I have just a quick question for Tammy Crumley, Judge. On item number 15, I know that we're asking you to repair this freezer for $18,775.86. What is the cost of a new freezer? Have we had issues with this previously? And are we just putting money into something that we should maybe consider buying new?

I'm happy to do that unless I don't know what that's going to cause. If they're not able to utilize it at all, are we getting spoiled food?

Can we maybe look into this today? I can look into it while we're here. Why don't we do that? We'll pull this one out.

And what else? That's the only one I made a note on as well because I know we bought walk-in freezers for less than that.

I'm recusing myself from G1 due to my stepfather working at Quiddity and yes to everything else.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ESTABLISH THE NO PARKING ZONES ALONG SUNRISE DRIVE AND SUN RICE CIRCLE, WE'VE HAD MANY RESIDENTS CALL WITH SAFETY CONCERNS, BASICALLY. THERE'S JUST A LOT OF PEOPLE PARKING ALONG THOSE SIDES OF THE ROADS, AND THEY'RE BLOCKING DRIVEWAYS, AND SO WE FELT, AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE FELT IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT TO GO AHEAD AND ESTABLISH THESE. PERFECT. NO PARKING.

This is just an update. The original AFA adopted in May lacked a couple of things in it. And so this is an update of that, bringing in the specific items that TxDOT has requested. There's no change in cost and no change in scope.

Sure. Actually, it's in the backup. Let me pull it up. Sure. Let me pull it up real quick. On May 12th, the Commissioner's Court considered the AFA for an updated Amendment 1 for 150 and 12 project and associated resolution. Following a partial execution of Amendment 1, TxDOT identified that the amendment template that was provided did not include project-specific language that has since been provided in a revised amendment for execution. Approval of the AFA Amendment 1 is requested to incorporate the required language to ensure consistency with updated TxDOT requirements.

Judge, both of these were selected back in November, and this is the negotiated contract that's coming back for consideration.

Judge, the City of San Marcos has requested our tax assessor to collect the PID taxes, and so this is at their request.

CHASE, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

In typically or in a real logistic sense, the problem that we have is that we still have to, no matter whether or not we're updating our tax software or not, we still have to hit that 30-day shot clock. And we can do that internally. We just can't file the final plat with the clerk's office until we have assured that they paid those taxes. Please call the roll.

All right. This is basically a grant that's going to help us with our Clean River Act, and it's going to be spanned on FY27 and FY28 with a 40% match and then a 60% match from Texas State, totaling to about $153,000.

This grant will help us with trail connectivity within Hays County. It requires us to have a 10% match, which will be around $43,000 with a 10% match from Great Springs Project, which is about $43,000, and then 80% with Campo.

Judge, we're reducing the cost for the, wait, we're reducing the prevention cost as one video will cover the necessary needs and then also removing the assessor expense as the SO will cover these costs.

I just wanted to reiterate Commissioner Inglesby So judge, can I we just let the sponsoring?

Well, I know we've had this conversation multiple times and we've actually voted on the adoption of option two. So at this point, unless there is a drafted amendment to not go with option two, it's pursuant to us to go ahead and adopt that and move forward with our budget. The budget as amended right now is 1.26 cents over our current tax rate. And we can adjust that today during our budget workshop at any time. However, we have to have, you know, I would just clarify to my colleagues that we are not amending the budget that was given to us a month and a half ago. In order to amend the budget

Same. I am supportive of this agenda item and what we've decided as a court. I think we've kind of talked this to death, but I'm ready to move forward with it.

So, Judge, I just felt that last week was really important to get some people together to talk about what some of those issues were. As Eric mentioned, it's a $66,000 savings overall, really not a whole lot of savings. regarding those. I mean, I appreciate the discussion and I'm hoping that, you know, we can maybe look past that and then on as we continue to move on, Eric, then maybe we maybe do things just a little bit different to ensure that we're looking at all of the positions equally and if there aren't matches, then, you know, we make some kind of determination. Did you have a comment?

Thank you. Thank you. And then I would just say, Judge, I mean, you know, last week I made some comments regarding, you know, the process that we've used in years past and just feeling that it's time to move forward with a holistic approach to our employees.

I would have appreciated to know all of the, you just handed me 30 pages of information that I 100% cannot go through in 10 minutes. So my question is because we talked about that there's 46.5% of the 318 position blocks that do not have any large county representation. So how did you come up with what all of these pages came with? Where did you pull those positions from? What was your, I mean, I know that we went through a ton of different verbiage. I don't think anyone could have read all of that and understood what 100% was going on.

So you didn't weight it based on them not having or having the smaller counties that you added to? Because I also think it's a little bit confusing. If you looked at the presentation, you said how we came up with those 13 comparables. when you look back at September 15th of 2025 and how we came up with those comparisons, we said, hey, here is the, is it SHW? SHRM, yes. Yeah, the SHRM and the World at Work data of 30 to 40% below and above budget and 30 and 40% below population, right? Correct. So you look at that data and how we came up with, I think it was five from what that, five came up wi

And I completely understand how we're never going to have a perfect study. I get that. My biggest concerns are, I mean, the transportation department, that's a perfect example of something that across the counties, small, large, doesn't really matter. You're going to be able to find those comparables because we all do road work, right? I feel like when I looked at transportation, they had a lot of small counties that were pulling them in a direction, right? Not down necessarily, but They had a ton of small county representation and large county representation, which really gave a good picture

And do you have the data on all of the county, like in terms of Travis and Williamson and Bexar County, how many positions we've lost? And by the way, court reporters is one of the worst examples you could have given. But do you have any other type of data that you can show me from that?

Okay. Next time I really, because I feel like I was the one that dug the most into this study and understanding the numbers and the justification for it. And I truly want to support and be there and understand what is actually being derived from these numbers. So I would have appreciated to know these 30 plus pages of work that I'm sure is great. I just haven't been able to review.

Commissioner Smith. Yeah, I just, one of the things, and this is just, in the wayback machine back in 2022, 2023.

When we looked at the salary survey, the MAG study that was done, one of the things that Commissioner Schell and I looked at were actually taking our departments, department by department, and instead of doing an overall salary survey every four years, really putting our departments on a rotation, where we are looking at those departments maybe on a three-year schedule, but we don't get hit with these $4.5 to $6 million every four years that we have to come up with and gradually look at the number of employees we have on the civilian side. We have that rotation. When we look at the SO, we know

I would move for full adoption given the original salary survey information.

Not including what he just recommended and gave to us.

Can I say something? Sure. I want to just say I appreciate Marisol so much for saying that. We haven't ever given the positions, and nobody wants to come up and say, hey, I'm going to be making this much more. But her making $40,000 more with this study, she's not the highest one that's getting a jump. I just hope everyone understands that. I mean, there's a lot of positions that are getting $40,000, $30,000 pay increases that I just don't think we have done.

I don't think this is cooked enough to be able to vote on it, but I've been preaching to the abyss so whatever I Would I would also say I appreciate your comments however It's our employees job to follow the direction that we provide and in this scenario I We are choosing to look at our HR director and the expertise that he has there and not how, you know, at the end of the day, from a personal standpoint, I appreciate Marisol's comments, but I also know that at the end of the day, from her position as auditor, she's going to audit and make sure that everything that we do in the salary survey

COMMISSIONER WRIGHT- And, Judge, we didn't get any paperwork regarding that. So thank you, Amanda, for being here.

So this is the item that we have to take a vote on for those? Yes. So I'm supportive of the district clerk's request at 6%, and I appreciate that consideration of that. amount of increase and not the full 12%.

Yeah, I think I prefer to hold off on that one, Judge.

And I appreciate that. I didn't know you were here to bring that up. I, you know, I guess my concern though is here we go again, right? With the market. So are we going to compare everybody's? You know, if we feel that we're not making what we should be making, are we going to select what elected officials pay?

So you're asking for a 3.22% raise? Yes, ma'am. I think justification, again, I think market studies, I mean, it can go crazy. I do think it's important to know why a grievance committee was created in the first place in the state of Texas is because it was to protect elected officials from a rogue commissioner's court and that. So I don't necessarily think, but this is the chance for you to say your piece. So when it comes to your market study, I'm supportive. When it comes to Ms. Calvert, first of all, the mess you probably inherited, one. Two, the fact that you had to run a campaign twice.

Thank you. Commissioner Smith. I've got two things I wanted to say. The first is, when we adopted the salary ladder for elected officials, was that four years ago? Three years ago? The first time we did it. The two of y'all were here. I don't remember. We were having multiple grievances a year, mostly from our constables and our sheriff. We've tried to alleviate that. We put this in place, and I will say that I'm The one thing I wish and I would like for us to consider in changing that salary schedule or that salary ladder is that in cases, we've had multiple cases since I've been here. We've

I would like to consider these separately possible.

I'd like to move to adopt the elected official salaries with the two amendments adopted in court today.

I was watching it. I was pumping and watching.

Just as a reminder, as we've done in the past, if we make any adjustments to the budget as we currently have adopted, before we can go and make that final adoption, generally, Scott will run out, make those changes, get printouts for us, bring it back, and then we'll have our finalized motion.

Scott, I wanted to ask, the DA's positions that are up there, did we actually approve those or did we say we were going to put money aside when the new DA came into office and then we would make those determinations?

Okay, and then the new attorney-free mental health and juvenile programs, I DON'T RECALL. IT'S BEEN A WHILE. DID WE APPROVE THAT POSITION ALSO? IS THAT WHY IT'S IN THERE AND WE'RE PUTTING THAT ASIDE ALSO?

So given the ones that we haven't adopted or looked at yet, the two would be the New World ERP Cloud and the civilian bilingual pay. I'm going to wait for the judge to get back up here. No, it's okay. I would move for adoption of the new world ERP cloud. And I say that, I want to discuss that specific item. I know that as we move forward, Marisol, how long have we been waiting on a software upgrade there? On the new world ERP?

I can tell you that I've also discussed, and I don't know how many of our commissioners are using the dashboard that we have for the individual project-based dashboards to follow and track our finances on those projects. But at this point, I know that we have not given them outside access to view those accounts and those kind of things. Even if we wanted to, our current system is so old that it won't allow us to do that. So we're not getting real-time data on what the cost of those projects are. This would help enhance that, I know, if we were able to do that. But I'll let Chris talk as well.

IF NOT, JUDGE, I'D MOVE TO INCLUDE IN THIS BUDGET THE NEW WORLD ERP CLOUD UPDATE.

Well, no, it would be covered in our current 1.26. It's just one of the three items that we have not had a vote on. You got a second?

I think Hammer seconded it. Is that correct?

I was just saying, do we have to do a formal vote on this, or are we just going to say three, move on?

I don't know if we have to have a formal vote, or we just say three, say yes, and we move on.

All right. The next one is civilian bilingual pay.

One thing I want to say about that is now that we have adopted, well, soon to officially, I know, the salary, I mean, I think the hope now moving forward is that we start moving to a structure that is merit-based, based on experience, education, certification, special skills, all those things that traditionally is how I think these performance, when the renewals or the annuals happen, is how we decide whether an employee gets a raise. And also, when they come, they get hired. If that position specifically asks for bilingual preferred, then I think that's where that would apply. I'm just not, I

Is that because you think some of these positions that are being addressed necessarily don't need required bilingual or don't need it?

I think there's lots of jobs that do require that. Yeah, but some, I mean, if they don't have that skill set to do that job, I mean, in that case, then they don't get that pay, right? I mean, it's supposed to be used as rewarding for having the skill set, right? And that's what it's needed. I'm just... thinking maybe we don't need to address that here.

And I, you know, Judge, the other thing I'll say is that, you know, our demographics, JUST PROVES THAT WE NEED MORE SPANISH SPEAKING EMPLOYEES AND I THINK THAT WE REALLY NEED TO TRY TO RECRUIT MORE INDIVIDUALS THAT SPEAK SPANISH. THIS COULD BE A TOLL.

I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. THIS $46,028, DOES THIS ADDRESS ONLY THE POSITIONS THAT ARE CONSTITUENT FACING THAT DO HAVE THE the ability to offer that as a benefit towards our constituents? Or is this everyone that just is bilingual?

I also have some questions. I've spoken to at least one of our elected officials who has translation equipment sitting on the front desk of his office. And for the cost of that translation equipment, and to this point, and this is not by any means a far-reaching research or anything else, but he said that he hasn't had a single issue. His employees, they have done phenomenal with that translation equipment just sitting on the front desk of his JP office. And so I would hope if we do look at this, I agree with Commissioner Cohen, we probably need to just hold off and look at, do a real evaluati

So let's just... I don't think that one has any teeth.

Judge, I'd like to go ahead and just address the Axon issue, if we may. Okay. You know, I spoke briefly to the sheriff this morning. I know that I received a text from Chief last night also. And I really wanted to take the time for myself to go on research, you know, and I will say that I specifically looked at the translation piece of this because Um, that was the demonstration that was given in court. That was what I thought that we were looking at is more the translation. I know now that there are, uh, and I knew then, I mean, I knew that it wasn't going to be that much money for just that

Well, it's not a fear that I have. It's a concern that I have, which I think is a little bit different. But anyway, when I looked at that, I felt that I just needed to address it and to make you all aware of my concern regarding it.

So, I mean, this court has mentioned, I know I've mentioned it a few times, how I think we need to adopt an AI policy and procedures before we try and implement any new technology into our government systems. And I think a lot of counties and other cities are dealing with the same thing is how do we responsibly incorporate AI into our work? I mean, we had an agenda item on here before it was pulled to request exactly that. And so right now I'm feeling very uncomfortable with the whole AI conversation. And I'm fearful for our county that we don't have something like that in place. So that's my

And so I know y'all are comfortable with the technology because you said you vet it, but how do we make our community and our taxpayers more comfortable? Because those are the ones that are expressing that they're not comfortable. And so how do we bridge this gap, right?

Is Axson the only company that provides this service?

I want to make it very clear because there was a lot of public comment. There's been a lot of media confusion. There's been a lot of social media confusion. We have not voted on a contract, one. We have not been presented at court with a contract. We have not paid Axon for an AI package contract that we are discussing right now. Those are three things that were said in public comment that I wanted to make sure we were able to touch on. What I would be happy doing, because, again, we don't have a contract in front of us, this basically is going into the budget as if we were able to come to term

So I don't know if you guys feel comfortable, what that looks like. Well, I don't know, but I would not. I mean, I would put it maybe in countywide or something, you know.

Well, each department has their own software budget. So if they said that they only wanted to do translation services, then they have this to tap into.

Well, the other thing I would say is this is also one of the items that we had a department come forward and pay for out of their own budgeted allocation. And so if we didn't do that, I would hope that we would give those those correction officers that would pay for that back to the sheriff's department that they were willing to give up. I would all day support giving back to corrections officers. The other thing that I would say is that, you know, and I said this before, I worked in Washington, D.C. in 98 and 99 when the ACLU and others were pushing for body-worn cameras wholesale. The early

Actually, Judge, this is a little bit different because it's already been adopted into the budget. You're going to have to do an amendment to strip it or to move it to a certain place.

You're going to have to tell us what you're going to do with it.

Motion to place the amount of funds for Axon under the Sheriff's Office's software budget. Line item.

Okay, just wanted clarification. $96,739? No.

Yes. With a friendly amendment, I would just ask that before consideration come back, THAT OUR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DO A REVIEW OF WHAT OUR CURRENT POLICY IS TO MAKE SURE IT'S UPDATED WITH CURRENT STATE LAW, AND THEN BRING BACK A SUGGESTION AS FAR AS WHAT THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS SHOULD LOOK LIKE AFTER WORKING WITH PROCUREMENT.

I WANT CLARIFICATION. You're wanting just to go ahead and set those funds aside, leave them in the sheriff's office, and then what's the rest?

The rest would be they have to look at the Texas statute of criminal procedure where the state has set forth their body-worn camera policies, ensure that ours has been updated to that standard, which I'm 99% sure it has, over time because this is a long-standing statute. But given that there is new features and those kind of things, I just want to make sure that we're adhering to that. and then have them work with procurement to come back with a process for procurement, whether it's Axon or any other technology, to meet the standards that they want in their software.

I move to place the $96,739.04 under the Sheriff's Office software line item in the budget. Second.

No. And just for clarification. Now, again, it is still in here. The motion was to move it from where it currently is. If someone wants to strip it, it's already been adopted into the budget.

Can you clarify what you are going to do with those funds? We have to move them or eliminate them from the budget?

Well, can we ask, is there an adjustment that has to be made with that? Can you tell us specifically where we're at at this point?

Given that those aren't a dollar-for-dollar exchange, we're with that $6,000 or whatever it's at, where is our overall tax rate at this point?

At this point, I think they were removed from consideration, so they're no longer part of the tax rate. Okay. Please tell me if anybody disagrees. I love that idea.

because it'll have an impact on what that $333,537.01 would be as well. So the two numbers that I'm looking up for are total overall tax rate right now and what the remainder would be to that 126.

Are we also deciding what we're doing with the civilian bilingual play and then the new world ERP club? Yeah, we just filled it in. The civilian is done, it's gone. I'm saying we're taking it out and then we're taking out the tax rate?

Hey, we can keep chopping. I know, you're right.

That can't be correct because we just took civilian bilingual payout and we took New World ERP out.

I don't think he heard the whole civilian.

COMMISSIONER TARULLO. COMMISSIONER TARULLO. COMMISSIONER TARULLO.

Okay, so the only thing left to consider is they... Do we want to use up to that 1.26 that we voted on, the remainder of that, to be put in reserves? Or do we want to just say, no, we're done, we're going to cut what our adopted rate is up to now, the 1.26, down to what it would be without any potential reserve allocations?

I think that it's very important to think about all of the new, and we should probably have this discussion on what the salary increases that y'all just approved, what that looks like in terms of next year, because that's going to increase to roughly over $2 million. And then we've got CBA. So we need to think about how are we going to sustain for next year. If we cut added reserves, what does that look like? I mean, last year we raised it by $0.04 roughly. And we still came out reserves this year. We're still coming out of reserves at 1.25 of a cent. So I think we think about that. Is there a

Okay. So for FY28, how much more money do we need for the salary increases that was just approved?

We're spending next year's budget before it's even here.

Okay. And then I know that we can't really give a foreseeable amount, but roughly how much do you think we would put away for CBA? FY28. Oof. Dude, I mean, yeah. It's going to be big. That's why we need to prepare. I'm just trying to get all the things out that we're going to be spending in 28.

No, it would be negotiated. It would be FY28. FY28. Okay.

Oh, no. I would think it would be. Yeah, it's going to be more than that. It's going to be, I think, four. I would think four. I mean, we're not going to say exactly what it's going to be because we don't know, but just forecasting, right? So that's roughly $6 million for next year. And how much do we have in increased revenue for this year?

NO, FOR PROPERTY VALUES, VALUATIONS, HOW MUCH DID WE HAVE COME IN FROM LAST YEAR FOR THIS YEAR'S BUDGET?

MY POINT WAS THAT PRETTY MUCH IF THINGS STAY STEADY, WHICH THEY ARE GOING DOWN, WE'RE SPENT.

So no new things at all is kind of what I'm saying. We're not sustainable.

I was just going to say, do we want to look at positions to see if they're in?

I mean, and I think with the new pay plan too, you know, that... gave us some flexibility there to lower that. But I'm certainly willing to look at employees if anybody's open to that. I mean, I would say, you know, when we spoke about SROs, and I know that we want to have an SRO in every single campus, we talked about two. I know this one has three. Maybe that's, we did vote on that, and I think the two was just a discussion that we have. I know that that's not a place that we really want to cut, but... Let me just go down the list of what I have and see what y'all think. So I had two SROs, a

I want to just have those. But I'm certainly willing to listen to whatever else.

Can I address some of those, Commissioner? Absolutely. Okay. What I would say on the SROs, again, those were positions that the Sheriff's Department requested three. They were willing to take two to give up things in order to get other priorities taken care of. You have a school district that has already funded it within their budget the matching funds of over 70 79 percent for each of them for all three of them and so I would want to maintain that as well as the Again, the the auto theft officer that those CEOs are paying for it And so I anything related to the Sheriff's Department. I would h

Commissioner, can I just clarify on the JPs and the constable? You're saying to do the analysis. And I had recommended that those positions start 1-1 of 27. And so that would give us enough time to do those analysis if we budgeted funds for 1-1 start of those three positions.

Well, yes. But I don't want to certify that these are the three that are getting it. Because we had other JPs and we had other... I want real data to look at to say, look, the volume of caseload, the actual cases that are being heard, a JP clerk one... IF ALL OF THE OFFICES ARE RUNNING FOR ONE OF THOSE CLERKS 800 CASES OR 600 CASES, THEN IS THIS OFFICE ASKING FOR ONE AND THEY'RE ONLY HAVING 300 CASES? I WANT THAT DATA. SO I WOULD PREFER NOT TO PUT IT INTO AN INDIVIDUAL OFFICE. JUST SAY THEY'RE THERE. Once the data comes back and shows us what we need to do, there's the availability for those p

And that's what we adopted. But does that also include the constable to deputy?

Correct. Whenever we said this, we said every year the constables come back and ask for a deputy and a car or a bailiff. Let's look at what that entails. And let's figure out a system where next year they know before they come in, here's the data that we're going to look at. Here's what will justify or not justify a position. And that was the conversation we had, if you remember.

It'll save us money, but then it'll also make next year even harder.

You'll have to come up with not as much.

What I will say, though, is that OCA records or OCA numbers are public record. I mean, you can check those out, and I do think that J.P. Smith definitely has a caseload that is justified for...

clerk so and I agree with I want to keep the jp2 one and the jp5 the constable to deputy and the associate judge position management analysts auto theft detective everything else I am okay losing which is the basically the bottom of the list

All right. So if we look at this list, let's try to knock these out real quick. So all the way from the very first line one, all the way down to... What page are you referencing, Commissioner?

Can we just vote on like the three SROs? Can we vote on that right now? Let's do it. I make a motion for the three SROs.

the salary for our portion of three SROs.

Quick question, before you do that, do we want to start with the first one, which is the associate judge? And then go down, you want to go down the list or you just want to? Let's do that. Let's go down the list.

Can we put everything into a reserve pot for right now? Yes.

So I would, to your point, ma'am, that associate judge, the one, it was 3-2 in opposition. If that's the case, again, whenever we went through this the first time, we added the new attorney three for mental health and juvenile probation or juvenile programs specifically for that court. That would be a position that would have to be eliminated or would need to be. Correct. So I would move for the removal of that position from the current budget.

Now we go down to, we're going to just go down list.

Next one. Okay. One new attorney three for the juvenile mental health programs.

But I think Scott was setting that money aside, right, Scott, for the new elected officials to come in?

So my question is, we did vote as a block on all of the changes and regrades for the DA's office, and that passed on a 3-2 vote.

Does that include the associate judge or not?

Motion to keep or to remove the one and new attorney three for mental health and juvenile programs?

She's reading it. She's reading it. I offered my budget amendment, so I'm going off of that.

All right, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to offer an amendment. Or pardon me, I'm going to offer a motion. A motion. to keep one new attorney three mental health and juvenile programs, one new regrade two legal assistant to paralegal, regrade one administrative assistant two to financial specialist one, an additional regrade attorney seven to division leaders, and additional operational funds for continued education as one motion to remain in the budget for the DA's office.

Just once again, I think we had, like you said, we had already approved those, but they were going to be kept in somewhere, Scott, right?

It would be countywide in salary adjustments. Correct, with the exception of continuing education, which they may need prior to that. That is correct, Commissioner.

Okay, sounds good. So what needs to be removed? The regrades?

No, nothing is being removed. It's just in countywide until the new elected official comes in.

The next one is overall salary increases, which we already voted on earlier today. Next.

So the DA, one new juvenile diversion coordinator? No. Yes.

The next one is the juvenile diversion coordinator?

Axon, we already talked about. Axon's done. What's next? Elections equipment.

I will say, though, from a financial sustainability perspective, I don't suggest doing that. I think that this year is going to be, I mean, next year is going to be worse than this year, I think, in property valuation. So we're just going to be relying on new construction.

If y'all are going to do it, I mean, I'm sorry, I'm a no, but if y'all are going to do it, then to adopt it at that rate, because sustainability purposes, it doesn't put us in a more of a rut.

So there were two options, though, Jennifer. I think it was the first option to pay in three years, the second to pay in four years, still with a low pay first year of $300,000.

But then there was also a year four, if that would be more, I mean, you know, if it would give us more. Yeah. Yeah. to lower that payment even lower for years two, three, and four. I mean, that was something that they were willing to do. I'm sorry, I don't have that in front of me.

Yeah, so I mean, it would make it easier, you know, and stretch that out even further. I know there's still some no's, but I'm trying to determine what's best for the court and how we move forward, if it's a three-year payment or if it's a four-year payoff.

Can you do that and take two minutes? I thought we were going to move on to the next one.

AND THEN FOR THE FIRST OPTION, JENNIFER, IT WAS 650 THE FIRST YEAR AND THEN 1.1 OR I CAN'T REMEMBER.

I WOULD SAY CAN WE RUN THE NUMBERS ON THE FOUR-YEAR OPTION AT 650 FOR YEAR ONE? I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HAMMER ON THE SUSTAINABILITY IF WE HAVE TO DO IT IN THREE YEARS, BUT IF THERE'S A FOUR-YEAR OPTION, IT MAKES SENSE AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

AND THE INCREASE OVERALL WASN'T THAT MUCH.

650 AND THE IMPACT THAT WOULD HAVE ON THE TAX RATE, AND I WOULD MOVE TO ADOPT TO I would move to keep the voting equipment in there with the four-year option at $650,000 for the first year.

Okay, so now going to the three new justice clerks, JP 1-1, 2-1, and 5.

You said, I think we're in agreement for two, but we are going to wait until January.

Because in here, it says three on this, but we had agreed to two.

All right. One new deputy constable for precinct two, constable two.

And again, the review will be done still.

The review will be in motion. Did we talk about doing a review for the constables? I did not remember that.

I think doing evaluation is important. I'm going to move to give the one new deputy constable to constable of Precinct 2.

Okay, just to clarify before we move on to anything else. I really do, whenever we go through this process, I do want that evaluation for whomever is sitting on this court next year. Because not only does it give us clarification as court members or y'all clarification as court members, but it gives a true... It gives a true goal or target for our constables and our JPs to shoot for and understand whenever they come in here what that evaluation looks like and whether or not they could or might not be successful. I mean, I don't... I think we piecemealed it for so long that it's... I'm not goin

One new parks supervisor, effective 1-127.

Okay. One new assistant auditor, payroll manager.

Pre-trial, one new judicial services officer. One.

ONE NEW MANAGEMENT ANALYST. Move to keep.

All right. One new assistant human resources director. I'm guessing it's effective for one. It just says F.

Oh, may I say before we move on, these other positions, can they be effective 1-1? Well, I don't know. The juvenile service officer, what did we determine on that? Was there a start date?

Okay. So the county administrator, though, I'd like to make a motion that it start 1-1 of 27.

One new assistant human resources director. I'm guessing that's effective either. Are we saying 1-1 or 4-1?

One new property tax application specialist for the tax office.

Development Services, one new environmental health technician.

Move to maintain in the budget. And I just want to say this is a position where they are overwhelmed at this point. And the number of applications that we're getting, I think we need this level of supervision. Do we have a second?

What about the 30-day shot clock? Do you support it?

How much did we come to after deleting everything that we did?

And how much are we coming out of our current reserves right now?

But Scott, what is the tax rate with all the changes that we made with the reserves in and with the reserves back in, reserves out?

Well, what is, with cutting everything that we did, the list that we just approved and disapproved, what is our tax rate now, if, both if we kept the reserves in and if we put them back in reserves?

I agree. I would move to maintain the tax rate for FY28, or pardon me, FY27 at 126. Including all the cuts that we had all the remainder of those funds be put into our reserves Put the cuts in the reserves so that gives us the tax rate of that would that would that would have us It stays at 126 but all those remaining funds go into reserve to give you all additional cap room for next year and

If you continue, when you think about next year, we already have $6 million accounted for that we're going to have to figure out, right?

So this not only helps with our bond rating.

I mean, I don't support an increased period, right? But if the way to do it was to, from a tax perspective, and setting us up for success next year, it would be to put this money in the reserves currently and to maintain that reserve balance.

And again, doing it in a year where If we do this increase, the average homeowner would still receive an $8 decrease in their real taxes paid is the time to do it, not whenever we have years where property taxes go up or appraisals go up. Those are the years where we have the opportunity to save.

Let's just give a little bit of clarity. So right now we're coming out of reserves for FY27 $3.8 million. all of the cuts that we just made give us an additional $1.2 million. So we can put that into reserves, and that 3.8 minus that 1.2 comes out to be 2.6 that you're taking out of reserves instead of that 3.8. That keeps the tax rate the same, though. It doesn't decrease the tax rate. But then again, for next year, we have the tax rate of you know, the one, the point, what is it, total? I'm looking at the increase. What is it total?

Per $100. Correct. Does that make, is that? Mm-hmm. Got it.

So, again, if I need to restate my motion, I don't know if I'll get a second, but I would propose leaving the tax rate for FY27, with an additional, adding an additional 1.26 cents, taking into account all of the changes that we made today and using the additional 1.2 million that were identified from the cuts that were made today and placing that into our reserves.

So then you come out for the tax rate. And that $1.2 million equates to, like, what? You said a quarter of a penny?

Okay. So then it brings the tax rate down to .996?

Okay. Given the changes that we made today, then I would propose a motion to adopt a tax rate increasing the current tax rate Could you restate again? 0.9827. 0.9827 for adoption for FY27. Can I get a second?

We could do a mix. I mean, y'all could do a mixture where you go and you put some in reserves, and that's always an option, too.

Well, with that tax rate, the $333,000 go into it? No. No. Oh, I thought it was the 1.2. No, we did it all together.

The 1.2 is everything together, including the $333,000, correct? Yes. That is what would make the 1.26 cents.

What would be the offset if we did a one cent increase? What would be available for reserves above the budget that we have now?

This is when I say we need a whiteboard. I really want a whiteboard.

So it would be the offset between the 0.9. Okay, I'm not, okay.

I thought keeping the $333,000, the tax rate would be 1.0592.

That's why I said you could do a motion.

That's what I thought. Okay. And the 0.9827 does not include those reserves, I thought. Hold on. Let's get it.

WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE JUST AGREED UPON WOULD BRING THE TAX RATE INCREASE TO 1.0592. YES, COMMISSIONER. PUTTING THAT $333,000 INTO OUR TAX RATE TO LOWER IT WOULD BRING THE TAX RATE TO .9827. EXACTLY. YES.

Yes. I move to adopt a tax rate increase of .9827 for FY 2017, including all the additional items which we voted upon today and the corrections that we did to the budget today with the clarification that was just provided.

He did. But I thought we just made that motion and then it didn't come through. Right. I think you got a motion and a second, but no.

Right. Well, because there was misunderstanding. Right. Yeah.

With the .9827, can you give me what the total overall tax rate would be? Yes, that would be helpful.

A little further from the mic, it'll sound better. Can you just give me the total tax rate?

$40.47 per $100. All right, let's try this one more time.

I move to adopt an overall tax rate of 40.47, including an increase from FY 2016 of .9827 for FY 27, including all the changes to the proposed budget which were adopted today.

OKAY. LET ME READ SOME MORE NUMBERS. I KNOW. EXACTLY. NO. CALL AND ROLL.

All right. Now we have the statutory. Don't we have the statutory? We have a couple of ones after.

Okay. Okay. Let me just clarify before we go any further. Our total general tax rate would be .4097. Yes. That is correct, Commissioner. I want reconfirmation of that before I do this a fourth time.

So that was putting back? Did you say putting back the half cent?

So it's .40977. He was including road and bridge.

But the .9827 increase is still the exact same? Yes, that's the same.

Correct. I move to adopt an overall tax rate of .4097 for FY2027. which equates to an increase of .9820 cents for that budget, including all the modifications to the proposed budget adopted today. I see nodding from budget and legal, so tell me I'm right, and the auditor. I'm going to recap as soon as we get a second.

Still no. Next. Okay, now there's the statutory motions. Yep.

Before we go, can we get a motion and a second person? Well, we're not going to have to vote on this today, though. We're going to table it and bring it back, and I'll let Stephanie explain.

Yes. Okay, y'all are going to hate this, but guys, we have to reopen the last one again. because it was not an increase of 0.9827, it's zero, it's an increase of 0.09827. Okay. That's under 12, didn't we do that under 12?

I have a motion. I move to adopt a tax rate of 0.4097 per $100 valuation, including an increase of 0.09827 cents per $100 evaluation up from the FY26 fiscal year for FY27. Second.

I move to include in the budget the amendments approved today.

I move to ratify the property tax increase reflected in the fiscal year 2027 Hayes County budget. The proposed budget will raise more revenue from property taxes than last year's budget by an amount of $450,353 or 0.25% increase from last year's budget. The property tax revenue to be raised from new property added to the tax roll this year is $6,397,548.00. Second. Please call the roll.

Judge, I'd like to make a motion to approve an order adopting the tax rate for fiscal year 2027 and levy the taxes. Oh, I was reading the item. I move to set the fiscal year 2027 property tax rate to be set by the adoption of a tax rate of .4097 cents 0.2692 cents general maintenance and operation, 0.1029 cents general debt, and 0.0376 cents road and bridge maintenance and operations. Second.

I just want to say thank you to my colleagues for making it one last lively budget conversation. And I wish you all the best next year.

The amount of times we redid that motion was insane.

This is in regards to M3. Motion authorizing the county administrator's office and the director of facilities and resource management to obtain an inspection of the property located at or near 500 FM 150 East in Kyle, Texas, not to exceed 5,000 and waive the county purchasing policy of obtaining three quotes. Second.