Sheriff Joseph Godbaker asked the Jim Wells County Commissioners Court on Sept. 5 for two additional deputy positions to serve as investigators on a violent‑crimes and fugitive task force; the court approved funding for a single investigator and did not approve a second after discussion of budget constraints and restricted grant money.

The request aimed to create a focused investigative unit to respond to murders, drive‑by shootings and gang activity, Godbaker told the court. He said the two positions would be dedicated to criminal investigations and to working with the Alice Police Department, the Texas Rangers, constables and other local agencies "to prevent these murders and these drive by shootings that we've had a lot of this year." The sheriff said roughly 800 open cases remain in county CID and argued the task force would improve response and intelligence.

The sheriff told the court he had budgeted salaries, and that vehicles and equipment for the extra investigators would be paid from the department's asset‑forfeiture fund. He also warned that several federal and state overtime grants the department receives carry strict use restrictions. "All of those monies that we get, none of them can be used to fill these positions," Godbaker said, explaining that Borderstar and Lone Star overtime grants must be spent on highway interdiction and cannot be reallocated to investigations or jail operations.

Why it matters: Commissioners said public safety and violent‑crime prevention are priorities, but they were concerned about adding recurring salary costs during a year in which the court also was balancing requests across departments and planning a 5% across‑the‑board raise for county employees. Commissioners and the sheriff also discussed jail overcrowding, recent jailer vacancies and the limits on moving grant money between categories.

Key facts and budget details
- The sheriff requested two investigator deputies; commissioners were presented with a combined cost figure of about $101,222 for two positions (salary plus fringe). The sheriff said one additional investigator would cost roughly $75,000 including benefits. The transcript shows one deputy line item at $42,006.40 and later combined figures when fringe is included.
- The court approved funding for one investigator position. A motion to approve a second investigator failed for lack of a second; a subsequent motion to fund one investigator passed and the court recorded "motion carries." The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally naming individual commissioners' votes.
- The sheriff said deputy positions (total authorized deputy positions) number 32 countywide and that the department had no vacancies among deputies but about seven vacancies among jailer positions. He described spending on overtime and training (psychological exams, physicals, 45‑day training period for TCO/TCJS certification) as a significant ongoing expense.

Discussion highlights
- Grant restrictions: Godbaker emphasized that overtime and interdiction grants (Borderstar/Lone Star) come with reporting requirements and geographic/mission restrictions that prevent reallocation to investigators or jail staffing. "I can't use that money to do investigations, or we'll lose that grant," he said.
- Jail overcrowding and costs: Commissioners and the sheriff discussed the county's jail population, bond practices, electronic monitoring delays and the county's expense for inmate housing. The sheriff said he was negotiating a new detention contract to reduce costs and improve transport logistics but that little control rests with the sheriff over bonds or which defendants are housed locally.
- Staffing and retention: The sheriff said recruitment and retention are constrained by training requirements, certification standards, and competition from better paying jobs; he argued that some portions of the sheriff's requested budget were intended to reduce turnover costs.

Decisions and next steps
- Approved: funding for one investigator (motion passed; court recorded "motion carries").
- Not approved / no action: funding for a second investigator (motion died for lack of second). The court did not adopt a formal plan to reallocate other funds to create an additional investigator at this meeting.
- Direction to sheriff: the sheriff and commissioners discussed pursuing a contract for alternative inmate housing and continuing to use asset‑forfeiture funds for vehicles/equipment rather than general fund salaries.

Attribution: Quotes and attributions in this article come from the following participants at the Sept. 5, 2025 Jim Wells County Commissioners Court meeting: Sheriff Joseph Godbaker; the County Judge (presiding); Cindy (county budget staff); Commissioner Garcia; and Commissioner Rumi (all listed in the speakers section below).