Jim Wells County sheriff asks court to fund two investigators for violent‑crimes task force; commissioners table request

Sheriff Baker asked the Jim Wells County Commissioners Court to authorize an emergency budget amendment to hire two criminal investigators to be assigned to a newly formed multi‑agency violent crimes and fugitive task force. Baker described a “recent rise of gang‑related violence” and said a coordinated task force with the Alice Police Department, Texas Rangers and the district attorney’s office is the most effective strategy to reduce violent crime.

The sheriff characterized the need as urgent and said the request was made under Government Code "111.07," which he described as allowing emergency expenditures to meet “unusual and unforeseen conditions.” He said the positions were needed on an ongoing basis and that the county’s current investigative capacity is strained: “we only have 3 investigators and we have 1,550 open cases at any given time,” the sheriff said in the record.

Chief Deputy Rob Raul told the court the department currently has four investigators available (one assigned to DEA) and that "on average, each one has 350 cases assigned to them a year of all crimes." Raul said the two additional investigators would focus on violent crimes but would assist with other cases as needed.

Members of the court repeatedly raised budget constraints. The county judge and several commissioners said mid‑year additions to the staffing base create bookkeeping and precedent concerns, and noted the county typically addresses staffing increases during the annual budget process. Commissioners asked for written substantiation of the need, including monthly case filings, distribution of cases by investigator, and a more precise cost estimate for the requested hires.

Sheriff Baker described one cost figure on the record as “a hundred and $1,222” for the two positions (including fringe); court members referenced alternative estimates during discussion and asked the sheriff to provide a detailed worksheet and supporting documents. One commissioner suggested using drug forfeiture funds as a temporary bridge if feasible; the sheriff and other commissioners said the forfeiture account balance was limited and could not fully cover the request without further review.

After discussion the court voted to table the item and requested that the sheriff provide the commission with the written worksheet used for budget requests, monthly and fiscal‑year case filing data, and other documentation to substantiate the need. The clerk recorded the court’s action as a motion to table; the court approved the motion by voice vote.

The court did not approve any new hires at the meeting. The sheriff indicated he would supply the requested documentation and meet with the judge and the auditor as requested.

Ending — The sheriff’s request remains pending. The court asked for data showing case counts and investigator workload, a clear cost estimate for the two investigator positions, and documentation of any available forfeiture or other one‑time funds that could temporarily support the task‑force staffing until the regular budget cycle.