Commissioners approve 2% COLA for elected officials after amendment reallocates judge’s raise

Lubbock County Commissioners Court on July 28 voted to set salaries, expenses and allowances for elected county and precinct officers for fiscal year 2026, approving a 2% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) as published and adopting an amendment that reallocated the county judge’s COLA to several other elected officials.

The court’s initial published proposal called for a 2% increase for most elected officials; the county judge noted certain judicial salaries (county court-at-law positions) were being raised by the state and pointed to those mandated increases. The court discussed a separate 3% COLA option tied to county employees’ planned raises but proceeded with the 2% as the baseline for elected officers.

Judge Curtis Parrish offered Amendment No. 1 to delete the county judge’s proposed salary increase and instead increase the salaries of four elected county clerks (district clerk, county clerk, tax assessor-collector and county treasurer) so that each would receive $91,005.75. Parrish said he would not accept a COLA himself and proposed reallocating his adjustment to those clerks. The amendment was seconded and passed by a 4–1 vote.

A subsequent motion to set the 2% COLA “as amended” carried 4–1, with Commissioner Mike Dolby recorded as the lone dissenting vote. Several commissioners said they personally would decline the raise even as the court approved the adjustment in policy.

Why it matters: The court’s action formally sets the published salary adjustments that must be distributed to the elected officers and published for the budget process; the judge and multiple commissioners emphasized the decision’s political sensitivity and the statutory constraints created by state-mandated judicial salary increases.

Key details - Motion to set 2% COLA for elected officials: moved and seconded (motion as published). Final outcome: approved as amended, 4–1 (Commissioner Mike Dolby opposed). - Amendment No. 1 (Judge Parrish): delete county judge’s COLA; increase district clerk, county clerk, tax assessor-collector and county treasurer salaries to $91,005.75. Outcome: adopted 4–1. - Judge Parrish and at least two commissioners stated they will personally decline the COLA for their offices. - Court discussion noted state-mandated salary increases for county court-at-law judges tied to the Legislature’s district judge increases. The published backup showed large, legislatively driven increases for specific judicial offices (published figures in the meeting indicated increases on the order of tens of thousands of dollars for county court-at-law positions). The court described those as unfunded mandates from the state.

Discussion vs. decision - Discussion: Commissioners debated fairness between elected officials and county department heads/staff, and whether elected officials should receive the same COLA as other county employees. Several commissioners expressed reservations about increasing elected-official pay while asking departments to cut back. - Direction/assignment: None beyond adopting the published salary schedule as amended and publishing it for the budget and grievance timeline. - Formal action: The court’s vote to set salaries (2% as amended) and the separate adoption of Amendment No. 1 are formal decisions that will be reflected in fiscal-year documents.

Speakers (selected) - Judge Curtis Parrish — County Judge (government). First referenced at transcript time ~1757–1861 when offering amendment. - Commissioner Jordan Rackler — Commissioner, Precinct 4 (government). First referenced during invocation and throughout meeting. - Commissioner Mike Dolby — Commissioner, Precinct 1 (government). First referenced at multiple items, including roads and payroll discussion. - Commissioner Corley — Commissioner (government). First referenced making motions approving items throughout agenda. - Commissioner Dalby — Commissioner (government). First referenced during consent votes and road items. - Commissioner Shaw — Commissioner (government). First referenced in multiple motions and votes.

Authorities referenced in discussion - State statutory requirement to set and publish elected officers’ salaries (referenced by the county judge during discussion; specific citation not read aloud).

Clarifying details - Published COLA option presented to court: 2% (published) with a note that a 3% alternative had been considered to align with county employee raises; court approved the published 2% for elected officers and separately approved a 3% COLA for other county employees earlier in the budget process (as discussed in the meeting). - Judge Parrish said he has historically declined his COLA and reaffirmed that stance during the meeting.

Meeting context - Engagement level: high — the agenda item generated the meeting’s longest debate and several formal amendments. Multiple commissioners spoke and multiple amendments were proposed and voted upon. - Implementation risk: low (administrative action required to publish and implement the revised salary schedule). - History: The item was presented as a required statutory step in the county budget schedule and followed budget hearings held earlier in the budget cycle.

Searchable tags: salaries, COLA, budget, elected-officials, Parrish, commissioners, Lubbock County

Provenance: topicintro evidence_excerpt: "This is required by law to take this as basically the first vote of the budget." (transcript time ~1299.885–1358.635). topfinish evidence_excerpt: "All in favor? Yes. All those opposed? Motion carries 4 to 1 with Commissioner Dolby voting." (transcript time ~2435.14–2449.295).