Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel And Pay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court approves some sheriff staffing and SB 22-funded requests; new patrol deputy and jailer positions added after executive session
Summary
The court approved the sheriff's SB 22-funded personnel and equipment requests in part, including stipends and organizational raises funded from SB 22 or other sheriff revenue; separate votes established new patrol and jailer positions on fund schedules after executive session.
The commissioners court considered multiple special requests and personnel items from the sheriff's office and other departments during the budget-review item. The sheriff asked the court to allocate available Senate Bill 22 (SB 22) funds to a combination of salary adjustments and operational items totaling roughly $283,000. The court discussed the legality and source restrictions of SB 22 funds and the distinction between direct county taxpayer-funded positions and SB 22-funded stipends or adjustments.
Several commissioners and the auditor noted that SB 22 funding originates from state allocations tied to law-enforcement support; the court discussed whether SB 22 funds could be used for the sheriff's salary and other internal raises. The sheriff said the funding he'd raised (including jail revenue and grants) justified using SB 22 funds for some of the items. Commissioners indicated they were willing to approve SB 22-funded items that did not increase the county general-fund burden; one motion specifically to honor the sheriff's request for the SB 22-funded items (including his $32,269 pay increase and creation/adjustment of SOD supervisory steps and other items) passed following discussion.
Separately, the court approved other department special requests and position changes after discussion in open session and executive session. After executive session the court approved a new patrol deputy position (fund 10, full-time patrol deputy) and a new jailer position; the court moved and seconded those additions and recorded votes on them. The court also approved other departmental hiring recommendations and reclassifications noted in the packet, with some items to be paid from departmental funds, forfeiture funds or grant/alternative funding sources as shown in the agenda materials.
County staff clarified that SB 22 funds are state-provided but remain part of county accounting and that some departments (for example, prosecution offices or the district attorney) control specific funds and have discretion on stipends paid from those funds. The court asked staff to prepare appropriate fund transfers and position-schedule amendments where required and to publish the changes.
