Johnson County commissioners workshop narrows FY‑26 budget: radio rates, take‑home vehicles, accountant position and law‑enforcement pay discussed

Johnson County Commissioners met in a special budget workshop and made several budget directions and two formal votes affecting county services and administration.

The court unanimously approved new radio reimbursement rates that will take effect Oct. 1 and voted to rename the county’s Public Works function to Development Services; commissioners also discussed—but did not finalize—changes to facilities vehicle policy, a proposed project accounting position, and pay adjustments for the sheriff’s command staff and the county’s constable offices.

Why it matters: The workshop pieces affect recurring costs, how county vehicles are assigned, and how major construction and radio‑system capital needs will be budgeted and tracked. The radio‑system decision implements higher monthly fees that agencies and taxing entities will need to budget for; the vehicle and personnel discussions will affect department operations and the county payroll over coming years.

Radio reimbursement rates approved

Douglas O’Neil, who manages the county’s radio program, told the court that Motorola increased vendor pricing and that Burleson removed 174 radios from the county system this year, reducing the pool of units that share fixed costs. O’Neil said the proposed monthly rates were $30.54 per radio for agencies that use sheriff dispatch and $22.76 per month for non‑dispatch users, with the new bills to be effective Oct. 1.

Commissioners moved the change into the action portion of the agenda. A motion to approve the rates was made and seconded; the court recorded the motion as carrying unanimously. The county will notify cities and ESDs and send contract amendments with the new rates; O’Neil and staff said they will continue to pursue grant funding and to update the agencies annually on the capital plan, which includes an anticipated multi‑million‑dollar replacement of tower electronics over the next 8–10 years.

Facilities management: travel allowance and a project accountant

Commissioners resumed a discussion that began the previous day about facilities management’s vehicle policy. The issue centers on whether some department heads and appointed officials should continue to have take‑home county vehicles or instead receive a travel/vehicle allowance while using an assigned county vehicle during work hours.

Josh Green, Facilities Management director, told the court he would follow whatever direction the court adopts: “I’ll continue to drive a county vehicle home if that’s court’s decision, or, however they wanna go. I’m completely fine with whatever the court wants to do.” Green said his staff are on a home‑call basis and can adapt to either arrangement.

After extended discussion of equity, liability and administrative simplicity, a majority of the court directed staff to include a travel allowance for Facilities Management in the FY‑26 proposed budget in place of the office’s single take‑home vehicle. Commissioners discussed matching the allowance to the public‑works amount presented earlier (the figure discussed in the workshop was $12,000 annually) and asked staff to finalize implementation details and remove 1 assigned vehicle from the take‑home fleet if the allowance is adopted.

Separately, commissioners and department heads agreed there is a growing need for a dedicated accountant/project accountant to track large construction and facility projects. The court directed staff to include funding for an accountant position in the proposed budget with the expectation the position could be hired by Oct. 1. Commissioners debated where to house the position—Facilities Management, Purchasing, or the Auditor’s Office—because each placement has operational advantages: proximity to projects (facilities), procurement and bid workflows (purchasing), or centralized financial oversight and auditability (auditor). The court tentatively noted the position in facilities but left the final home and hiring authority to be decided before October, with Auditor’s Office staff expected to participate in the hiring process.

Sheriff command staff pay and county salary context

The Sheriff’s Office presented a request to preserve pay differentials between sergeants, lieutenants and command staff so supervisors do not earn less than subordinates once the county’s proposed step increases are applied. Under the court’s proposed FY‑26 step structure, a sergeant with 20 years of service would top out near $100,140 and a lieutenant near $105,902, creating a potentially compressed span between non‑exempt sergeants and exempt lieutenants (lieutenants do not receive overtime). The Sheriff’s Office proposed an across‑the‑board increase in the command ranks—about $13,000 per command position—to keep supervisory pay well ahead of the sergeant pay scale and avoid “leapfrogging” where supervisors would make less than the officers they oversee.

Commissioners signaled support for including a request for the sheriff’s command staff in the preliminary budget, noting the county has used one‑time funds and grants (including SB‑22 grant proceeds in recent years) for targeted raises and equipment. The court discussed funding options and recognized the step plan improves market competitiveness for law‑enforcement hiring, but members cautioned that the size of any increase must be balanced against other county priorities and the limits of ongoing revenue.

Constables, reserves and staffing requests

All four elected constables presented staffing requests and described the workload patterns in their precincts. Precincts vary considerably: some are geographically large with long travel times and environmental enforcement work; others are dense urban precincts with many court dockets and evictions that require multiple deputies and a courtroom bailiff.

Constables asked the court to consider new deputy positions (the four precincts’ combined request included several deputies and at least one additional court clerk), and they also proposed that elected constable pay align with an appropriate supervisory tier in the sheriff’s step plan. The court discussed the legal and operational differences between constables and sheriff deputies, the role of reserves (volunteer reserve deputies), and insurance/liability concerns associated with the reserve program. Several constables and commissioners said their precincts supported phasing out reserve programs in exchange for funded full‑time deputies; the budget committee had previously discussed that approach.

No final vote was taken on constable staffing or on elected official pay. Commissioners asked staff to work the numbers and return with options to implement one or more new positions in FY‑26 if the budget permits, and to consider phased approaches if needed.

Other action: rename Public Works to Development Services

The court voted to rename the county’s Public Works function to Development Services, effective Oct. 1, to better reflect the department’s responsibilities for permitting, planning, on‑site sewage (OSSF) oversight, complaints and related development services. The motion carried unanimously; the county will publish the name change and make administrative updates to materials and business cards as needed.

What’s next

Court staff said they will run final budget scenarios and bring updated numbers back to the commissioners in the next workshop session. Several items the court flagged for follow up include: finalized vehicle‑allowance policy language, the hiring authority and home for the project accountant, precise cost estimates for any additional constable positions, and a plan for communicating the new radio rates and the county’s multi‑year radio capital plan to partner cities and ESDs.

Quotes (attributed to speakers in the meeting)

“I’ll continue to drive a county vehicle home if that’s court’s decision, or, however they wanna go. I’m completely fine with whatever the court wants to do.” —Josh Green, Facilities Management director

“It’s a financial advantage for the county… this is the only department head that we have that’s got a take home vehicle, and that'll clean that up.” —Commissioner Bill Wooley (speaking in favor of travel allowance)

“We’re not trying to make money on this. We’re just trying to break even.” —Douglas O’Neil, radio systems manager (on the radio reimbursement rates)

Ending note: The court moved a number of policy directions and two formal items into the action docket; staff will return with line‑by‑line budget impacts for the next workshop so commissioners can adopt a FY‑26 budget and set the tax rate later in the budget calendar.