Hunt County prosecutors urge commissioners to restore COLA as reliance on state SB22 raises retention concerns

At the July 29 Hunt County Commissioners Court meeting, County Attorney Scott (County Attorney) and District Attorney Jeff (District Attorney) asked commissioners to include cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) in the FY2025–26 budget for their prosecutorial offices, saying the working copy of the budget excludes those raises and that doing so undermines recruitment and retention.

Scott told the court his office includes seven attorneys, two investigators, three legal assistants and a victim assistance coordinator and that the office was excluded from a 5% COLA that the court approved last year. He said the omission repeated in the working budget harms morale and makes it difficult to retain staff, noting one recent hire left for higher pay in Hopkins County. "If we invest in one side and don't invest in the other side, the system is broke," Scott said.

Jeff, the district attorney, said his office calculated roughly $28,000 would cover a COLA across the DA's staff. He and Scott emphasized that the state supplement created by Senate Bill 22 was intended to make small-county prosecutor and law-enforcement pay more competitive, and warned that heavy reliance on that state money would leave offices vulnerable if the funding ends. Jeff said the DA's office lost roughly $46,000 in total salary last year when the local COLA was not applied to their staff and gave a multi-year example showing cumulative losses would grow if raises continue to be omitted.

Both prosecutors described a rise in workload: Scott said his office filed 271 cases through May 14, 2024, and 450 cases in the same period the following year — an increase he estimated at about 60 percent. He said investigators do arrests, serve warrants and support trials; he argued that losing experienced staff would impair the county's ability to prosecute serious offenses.

County staff and the judge clarified budget procedure: the court has not yet filed a proposed budget; the packet on file is a working copy. County staff said the proposed budget will be filed within about 10 days and that more complete revenue numbers will be available after month-end deposits are posted. Jeff and Scott offered to provide further documentation and salary comparisons to the court.

On legal and administrative points, Jeff noted that Senate Bill 22 includes language intended to prevent a county from reducing an employee's salary because of the award of SB22 money; he said the county should be mindful of that statutory intent. Court staff said they had asked the Texas Comptroller about certain program reporting requirements and were told applying to the program did not impose additional county reporting obligations, but the Comptroller guidance cited by staff did not resolve the county's policy choices about budgeting for future, uncertain state supplements.

The court took the remarks under advisement; no formal vote or budget amendment was made during the July 29 session. County staff said the administrator expects to file a proposed budget by the first week of August and that the statutory deadline to file the budget with the county clerk is Aug. 15.

The county and the prosecutors agreed to supply documents and calculations the court requested as it finalizes the FY2025–26 proposed budget.