Judges flag indigent defense, interpreter coverage and step‑plan pay ceiling in FY2026 discussion

Multiple Rockwall County judges reviewed stable baseline court budgets for FY2026 and raised three recurring pressures: indigent‑defense costs, interpreter coverage and pay ceilings under the county step plan.

Judge Hall said court-appointed attorney fees — a major operations line — were roughly $395,000 in the prior fiscal year for two judges and that creating a third district court required revisiting how those fees and related investigative costs are divided. He told the court that splitting workload among three district-level courts reduces the per-court projection but advised commissioners to expect routine upward pressure on hourly indigent-defense costs.

Several judges also discussed interpreter coverage. Judge Rico (alternatively referenced as the presiding judge in some sections) noted Rockwall relies heavily on a Spanish-language interpreter who currently serves multiple courts on contract. Judges said the interpreter is contracted to appear consistently on a docket day (Thursday) and that a third district court will make scheduling and availability more complicated; one court retains a $25,000 line for interpreter services in the draft budget for the 500 and third court.

Judges also raised the county’s step-pay structure. Judge Hall asked commissioners to consider a plan for long-tenured staff who have reached the top of identified step ranges; he said the current structure can leave loyal, experienced employees without a mechanism to reflect ongoing cost-of-living adjustments. Countywide HR data cited during the meeting showed roughly 20 employees at the top of range 4.

Capital-murder trial costs were discussed as a contingent risk. Judge Reiko (alternate spellings in the record) described recent capital cases and estimated the county exposure if a capitally charged case goes to trial could range, in his experience, from about $250,000 to as high as $750,000 for a single fully litigated matter (expert witnesses, second‑chair counsel, appellate costs and prolonged jury selection add materially to costs). He and other judges said counties in the region typically self‑insure against this risk via contingency reserves rather than a pooled “insurance” product, which some counties had abandoned after evaluating coverage restrictions and charges.

Why it matters: Indigent‑defense costs and interpreter availability directly affect court calendars, timeliness of prosecutions and constitutionally required counsel; unexpected capital trials can produce very large, discretionary expenditures.

What’s next: Judges asked the court and auditor to include detailed cost models for the new district court staff and to consider whether a contingency earmark or alternative budgeting approach is appropriate for potential high-cost capital trials.