Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appropriations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tom Bigby water district emphasizes crew capacity, personnel pay and reserve funds in budget briefing
Summary
Brad Stevens, president, and Drew Robertson, executive director, told the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee No. 7 that the Tom Bigby River Valley Water Management District prioritizes creek clearing, small bridges and county support and emphasized the need to retain skilled field crews.
Brad Stevens, president of the Tom Bigby River Valley Water Management District, and Drew Robertson, the district’s executive director, told the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee No. 7 that the district’s core mission is to perform drainage, creek‑clearing and small‑bridge projects across a multi‑county area and to act quickly where private property access is required.
Stevens and Robertson described the district as a 13‑county special district funded by a three‑mill ad valorem assessment based on 1983 valuations. The district employs 17 people and said it typically spends about $2.2 million on operational salaries. Robertson and board members emphasized crew expertise and the value the agency provides to counties by working on private property when necessary to abate erosion, clear blocked channels and prevent larger failures.
Committee members praised the district’s restrained budget request; one member noted the district requested about $10,000 less than the Legislative Budget Review recommendation. Robertson said the district maintains a cash reserve — roughly $5 million in a special fund and additional earmarked balances — to be available for Corps of Engineers needs or emergency events. He said the district sets aside about $9.5–10 million in project planning annually for county needs and has worked to align personnel pay with state personnel-board guidance while struggling to retain workers doing physically demanding creek and grubbing work.
Robertson said personnel costs account for more than 40% of revenue and that the district seeks authority and flexibility to create incentive and retention models. Board members described field crews as highly skilled and argued investment in people is essential to executing projects efficiently.
There were no committee motions or votes during the presentation. Committee members asked follow-up questions about specific projects and salary authorities and expressed appreciation for the district’s work.
