Atascosa County budget workshop: commissioners direct removal of PDO 5% request from proposed budget; JP software upgrade funding discussed

Atascosa County commissioners on Sept. 8 reviewed the county operating budget in a workshop session that focused on the Regional Public Defender’s Office (PDO) interlocal budget, a potential justice-of-the-peace (JP) software upgrade, and modest travel allowances for four elected officials.

The county auditor and county attorney reviewed the PDO interlocal agreement (2022), which designates Atascosa County as the administrative grantee for the regional PDO and delegates final budget approval to the county. County staff told the court the PDO requested a 5% across‑the‑board increase (framed as a 2.5% prior-year component plus a 2.5% current-year component). Commissioners discussed prior compensation changes that the state had funded and how those increases affected county contributions. After discussion, the county judge directed staff to present the proposed county budget for the Sept. 22 hearing without including the requested 5% increase for the PDO; the court confirmed it may separate and vote on items individually at the hearing if desired.

County staff clarified the interlocal arrangement: Atascosa, as administrative grantee, approves the operating budget and the four participating counties pay their percentage share based on caseload. The county attorney noted the PDO Oversight Board recommends and monitors the program but does not have final budget authority; final approval rests with Atascosa County Commissioners Court.

On JP software, the county’s JP office provided a vendor quote that would increase annual maintenance costs. The proposed pricing included an up‑front implementation fee and an annual maintenance cost with a five‑year pricing term (subsequent years capped at a 3% increase). Commissioners did not approve a multi‑year contract at the workshop; they asked staff to include a placeholder budget increase for the expected software expense and to verify whether the Justice Technology Fund could cover part of the cost. County staff said collections‑software integration might conflict with an existing collections agreement with Linebarger, and that contract details and vendor terms would be finalized later.

The auditor reported one non‑salary change: adding a monthly travel allowance for four elected officials (county clerk, district clerk, treasurer and tax collector). During the workshop staff described a $400 per month allowance as the proposed rate; discussion later referenced a total of $4,400 per month for the four positions in the draft budget, which the county auditor said she would reconcile and run in the revised publication required prior to the Sept. 22 salary hearing.

The court reviewed other budget items and agreed to present a revised budget notice online ahead of the Sept. 22 public hearing, when commissioners will adopt the budget and set the tax rate. Commissioners noted the budget hearing will include public comment, recorded roll-call votes and the opportunity to separate line items during adoption.

Key outcomes and follow-up - County judge directed staff to present the Sept. 22 proposed budget without the PDO 5% increase; the item may be separated and voted on at the public hearing. - Staff to verify Justice Technology Fund balance and, if sufficient, use it to offset JP software costs; contract language and collections-integration questions to be resolved before procurement. - Auditor to include elected-official travel allowances in the revised budget publication required 10 days before the Sept. 22 hearing.

What was not decided: No multi‑year software contract was approved at the workshop; specific settlement amounts for opioid settlements (discussed elsewhere in the meeting) were not provided. Commissioners scheduled the budget hearing, salary hearing and tax‑rate action for Sept. 22, 2025.