[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6099857,"mediaKeyId","2815787-63053ce30791df1b23d12d204792756f","parentId",2815787,"title","Votes at a glance: Jim Wells County Commissioners Court actions","audioSeconds",4054,"startMs",2362000,"endMs",6416000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2815787-63053ce30791df1b23d12d204792756f&start=2362&end=6416","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2815787-63053ce30791df1b23d12d204792756f/thumbnail_2362000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6099857/Jim-Wells-County/Texas/Votes-at-a-glance-Jim-Wells-County-Commissioners-Court-actions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099857-019036c0a784531b931983f1dfa13e64/orig.mp4?Expires=1770976751&Signature=VTUQb~sqBNNwkzpSkzCnfIFBmNjWkRxJSmGS7UzLsfkns7dt38oXnrmVaq6ZvTJm7Uaz2YQH1h6hvWggbMmMkim0TkriZupFdXSNaWcnPPMwItlD929--Xu6f2WnyuTI15zVpfZ7nhq493fuaeo2RXRvx1PzMjptdn3eDAeKzQ~n6QcpafJKLj2h17bg2LPgaXuefGBITkNIZgu0vzqajVSyu8t5Dyd8LEAevE56S9gTP-OCClQgG3M5Wtyxaox16yRKa21tYpVZFGvqNRiaHYdP2So-Ls5BkIjNUCBn3IXAEpNiC5rp3bebwYTuCr8x5usRJ2YblKVqELRtlWDePA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Jim Wells County Commissioners Court, Texas","date","2025-03-29T04:53:44Z","article","The following is a summary of formal actions recorded by the Jim Wells County Commissioners Court during the meeting. Where the transcript did not record individual roll‑call votes the court used voice votes; outcomes below reflect the court's recorded actions.

- Approve minutes from previous meetings (Agenda item 4): Motion carried (voice vote).

- Approve consent agenda (Agenda item 5): Motion carried (voice vote).

- Request to add two criminal investigators for the sheriff’s violent‑crimes and fugitive task force (Agenda item 7): Motion to table pending additional supporting documentation (case counts, investigator workload, and detailed cost worksheet). Motion carried (voice vote).

- Approve Commissioner Weetra Gonzales (Precinct 4) lease‑purchase agreement with Candace Equipment Finance for a tractor truck (Agenda item 8): Motion carried (voice vote).

- Declare specified county equipment and furniture surplus and authorize auction under Texas Local Government Code chapter 263, subchapter D (Agenda item 9): Motion carried (voice vote). Commissioners approved the submitted inventory list with additional serial numbers to be provided.

- Designate project expenditures and approve allocation amounts for Tax Notes, Series 2023 funds (Agenda item 10): Motion carried (voice vote). The court approved designating $1.2 million toward courthouse priorities and additional amounts toward an elevator project and sheriff communications as described in the packet.

- Approve payment of distributor repair invoices, including the chip spreader repair and related equipment invoices (Agenda item 11): After discussion the court approved a motion that Precincts 2 and 3 split specified repair invoice(s) and to proceed with payment (voice vote).

- Road‑use bond guidelines and rules (Agenda item 12): The court discussed a draft approach and directed staff to research peer county models and prepare a workshop; the item was tabled (voice vote).

- Approve lease agreement for Kalicha pit (Agenda item 13): Motion carried (voice vote). The lease term is two years beginning April 1, 2025, with a monthly minimum guarantee cited in the packet.

- Approve estimate of probable costs and authorize the county judge to proceed to contract with Phoenix 1 for courthouse renovation services (Agenda item 14): Motion carried (voice vote). Approved estimate: $1,238,227 (Option 1 prioritized scope).

- Approve county treasurer's monthly report and other monthly financial reports (Agenda item 15): Motion carried (voice vote). Treasurer reported investment income and discussed investment policy updates.

- Approve auditors' monthly reports (Agenda item 16): Motion carried (voice vote).

- Approve payroll and bills as submitted by the county auditor (Agenda item 17): Motion carried (voice vote), with exceptions noted for certain funds listed on the agenda.

Ending — Several items requiring additional documentation or administrative work were tabled for follow up (notably the sheriff’s staffing request and the road‑use bond guidelines). Other consent and routine business items were approved by the court.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JWC Commissioners Court Meeting - March 28th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A roundup of formal motions and voice votes taken by the court, including approvals for equipment leases, surplus auctions, tax‑note project designations, payments, and payroll and monthly reports. Several items were tabled for follow up.","taxTitle","Jim Wells County, Texas","taxId",69536,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6099862,"Commissioners discuss road‑use bonds for heavy‑vehicle damage; item tabled for workshop",411,4566000,4977000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2815787-63053ce30791df1b23d12d204792756f&start=4566&end=4977","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2815787-63053ce30791df1b23d12d204792756f/thumbnail_4566000.jpg","/articles/6099862/Jim-Wells-County/Texas/Commissioners-discuss-roaduse-bonds-for-heavyvehicle-damage-item-tabled-for-workshop","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099862-e8fad7a4925e8f0a09ed77924520d4e8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770976751&Signature=dhODm4~MbSRVHUCZIl7wD5t1QSVOIrAPHsvgkZsN5M1OJfM2SRieSIB9TcBwvKFQkbHHLWc0W-VmhYM6gn5V3fFgEW9HKfmZjt6rGsU8qJ4qHhZSAQkjjdwFgm3ImabwntIJDiHmKj4znhpgIYvFBpqzSGiKWD8HZLCe~7-ouX-vulk1jnUlhnbhPjv3-KKpQGMQb5-vHtyBN9WPuD6mIfBPGqyjvEMDwcRfLBLoyBMDEESirDnry70jh8wUigqhcW-nJAqdqwNQNfp~FeaidAltfxsSlyga-vE~9n~bkTs8lHfRtZehWI0wosUJGlv4jv1AhhO0IyVN32PCV~i3yQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners discussed a proposed road‑use bond and permitting framework designed to require businesses that operate heavy‑truck fleets on county roads to post a bond and obtain permits before using roads not built for high‑weight commercial traffic. The proposal arose from repeated road damage where local roads were not designed for frequent 18‑wheeler loads, and several commissioners cited recurring repair costs.

Commissioner Renee (presenting the idea) and other officials said the county needs to identify which operations would be covered, set bond amounts, and designate a permitting authority. The court discussed the operational burden of administering permits and inspections, evidentiary standards for distinguishing \"ordinary wear and tear\" from extraordinary damage, and how to document pre‑existing vs. new damage. Lance Brown, Jim Wells County Emergency Management, described local impacts on County Roads 352 and 350 and said heavy oilfield equipment and frequent loaded trucks are accelerating damage; he said the roads \"were not designed to have 80,000 pounds of equipment driven over\" and recounted vehicle damage and safety hazards.

The court discussed model language and administrative options, including referencing pipeline or sand‑pad permit processes that have existing features like inspection windows and post‑use assessments. Commissioners expressed concern about unintended effects on business attraction and tax revenue. No ordinance or bond amount was proposed at the hearing; instead the court voted to table the matter and directed staff to research models used by other counties (San Patricio County engineering was suggested as an example) and to prepare a draft set of road‑use bond guidelines and rules for Jim Wells County.

Ending — The court approved a motion to table the item and requested a workshop and additional research on administrative procedures, bond levels and enforcement mechanisms. The item will return to the court for further consideration after staff and commissioners review peer county rules and draft options.","Commissioners debated proposals for a road‑use bond and permitting process to hold heavy‑vehicle operators financially responsible for extraordinary damage to county roads. The court discussed standards, enforcement, and administrative burdens and voted to table the item pending a workshop and research on peer policies.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6099867,"Jim Wells County approves $1.238 million courthouse repairs; Phoenix 1 to proceed on design‑build contract",886,5071000,5957000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2815787-63053ce30791df1b23d12d204792756f&start=5071&end=5957","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2815787-63053ce30791df1b23d12d204792756f/thumbnail_5071000.jpg","/articles/6099867/Jim-Wells-County/Texas/Jim-Wells-County-approves-1238-million-courthouse-repairs-Phoenix-1-to-proceed-on-designbuild-contract","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099867-ccdf57362c41d3801eb0624ce839f125/orig.mp4?Expires=1770976751&Signature=lKl7cVumS1Gon4DLlGuYRVa93KgF~Wq0S98fHuL5qfH3Up74f~xBJWZpp7URuTqRk15x~RSiZDjofkb0lASCgmaQ8aed7QxR68yefW49dCx3uj4FvXk0-FlDzd8L8kepNoj1CkSEwAV-sA4wJbe-46nS9n5HCNMTjcB~cv01dJ9nvQ3NtKCx5swpsG29VeqO~Pqyu~~23JUTcPpjSi9cZFaA885TvfAZNgknw9i4jZLeeA1YAY4fmLzyHN2PhsNXtiSWddWqfagJ7z1khf3BF6dpo5qRMU~jbK7d~dnynt6mmFXWIRJfLb2qcIHcKF~2--prQ2nTbhk6ijWeXJLsmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Jim Wells County Commissioners Court approved an estimate of probable costs for prioritized courthouse repairs totaling $1,238,227 and authorized the county judge to proceed to contract with Phoenix 1 Restoration and Construction (design‑build) for the work.

The scope presented by the county architect and Phoenix 1 focuses on the most critical and time‑sensitive items: improved drainage and containment of downspouts around the courthouse, restoration of basement windows in both the historic courthouse and the wing additions, masonry repair limited to stone banding at first‑floor grade, replacement of the cornice cap where rust and holes had formed, and reinforcement and flashing at the flagpole dome. The architect emphasized that work is intentionally limited to this priority list to fit the designated funding amount.

Commission staff explained the work aligns with the county’s earlier decision to designate $1.2 million from Tax Note Series 2023 funds for courthouse priorities. The estimate includes an 8% contingency for unforeseen conditions and was presented as Option 1, trimmed to match the tax‑note funding available to the county. The architect and county staff discussed historic‑preservation constraints: the Texas Historical Commission (THC) typically prefers restoration in place of wholesale replacement, so window work is scoped as repair and restoration rather than replacing single‑pane sashes with insulated glass. The architect noted THC approval is required for changes beyond restoration; the court was told THC approvals limit the ability to install low‑e or insulated glass unless a full replacement is necessary or previously replaced windows are being modernized.

The court approved the project estimate and authorization to proceed; the judge will receive the contract from the design‑build firm for review. Commissioners and staff noted the contract will include change‑order and contingency processes; any expansion of scope beyond the approved amount must return to the court for approval.

Ending — The judge and Phoenix 1 will proceed toward a formal contract. Commissioners were assured the work will be designed, permitted and bid or procured under the contract terms and that further changes will come to the court for approval.","Commissioners approved an estimate of probable cost of $1,238,227 and authorized the county judge to proceed to contract with Phoenix 1 Restoration and Construction for prioritized courthouse repairs focused on drainage, masonry, basement windows and cornice roofing work.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6099871,"GrantWorks briefs Jim Wells County on water, drainage and mitigation grants totaling about $19.3 million; GLO flags road funding limits",1408,4255000,5663000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2815787-63053ce30791df1b23d12d204792756f&start=4255&end=5663","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2815787-63053ce30791df1b23d12d204792756f/thumbnail_4255000.jpg","/articles/6099871/Jim-Wells-County/Texas/GrantWorks-briefs-Jim-Wells-County-on-water-drainage-and-mitigation-grants-totaling-about-193-million-GLO-flags-road-funding-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099871-3360ed2e0b1e77d9ea441fa1acc09650/orig.mp4?Expires=1770976751&Signature=eTjN0I2BF~XP-jbvL3pe22OH~n~-sJwhD5MBelGJb9-AieswilpCESD1oc-waOPYseZenHXIpcEP8815fFwf~PlyK9IvXkDpDy1ngME99diwj-~hD2pnBHDPrWry1Nolgz7l2Ozt7fPIDKZifPuNzrV9LZt-ZFskF7qkaDUWm261HbpVYXkRSl7IVF6E9V~L5TyTzC~ccBiMDACGYQ1Y9HBkVMBUrvjyf9d3sBPUPqrNOii2xkkNWHuZGyqdB3l4Vi-IJqpi99mL9pX8SCGQJufy3flqApL5TMM3u3BMgvtn3~bt-AtXNbVeWTWBbJgUYrLyGu2xEwDU6Z6SQPafTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","GrantWorks gave a detailed presentation to the Jim Wells County Commissioners Court on active, newly awarded and soon‑to‑be‑contracted grant projects affecting water, sewer and drainage in multiple precincts. The presenter said the county’s currently active portfolio handled by GrantWorks totals roughly $19,300,000 and includes Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) colonia water‑system grants, multiple Texas General Land Office (GLO) mitigation projects and other state and federal funds.

On TDA projects, GrantWorks highlighted three colonia grants including work at Coyote Acres and McMasters (the presenter described a \"Colonial Construction Fund in the amount of a million, 75,000 match\") and a reworked Tecolote project where the initial water‑service provider backed out. The presenter said the county has approximately $1,200,000 in funds routed through Congresswoman Dela Cruz's office at the EPA that could be used as part of a phased approach for Tecolote.

On mitigation work, GrantWorks said the county received a Notice of Eligibility (NOE) in March for leftover Hurricane Harvey mitigation funds and a total allocation of $7,307,700 from the GLO. The county divided that allocation by precinct; GrantWorks said $976,005.72 had been committed to the city of Orange Grove for drainage. The GLO review process has been slow, GrantWorks warned, but most projects are approved and a contract will start the formal timeline of design, bidding and construction.

GrantWorks and the engineer identified a specific GLO constraint affecting one Precinct‑1 project at San Fernando Creek: the GLO will pay for drainage work in a flood zone but will not fund road reconstruction that lies in a floodway. GrantWorks estimated the county’s commitment to rebuild a low‑water crossing at that site could be between $50,000 and $75,000 if county crews perform the work; a contractor rebuild would be costlier. Several commissioners expressed concern that the contract language and project changes (for example, deleted fencing at a detention pond on South Johnson) had not been brought back to the court before ribbon cuttings or completion.

GrantWorks also summarized other precinct projects: Mesquite Forest (roadside drainage in Precinct 2), Meadow Ridge and Oak Meadow (water lines in Precinct 3), and a Green Acres multi‑street drainage plan tied to a proposed 10‑acre retention pond. GrantWorks told the court changes to program scope are possible through GLO/TDA amendment processes once designs are complete. The presenter encouraged commissioners to request workshops or meetings with project managers and the engineer so commissioners better understand maps, acquisition estimates and potential design changes.

Ending — GrantWorks will pursue a contract with the GLO once the agency approves design clarifications. Commissioners asked for clearer project updates and said project managers should notify the court when elements are cut from a scope so the county can address safety or completeness issues (for instance, missing fencing at a detention pond).","GrantWorks presented active and newly awarded grants for water, sewer, drainage and mitigation across precincts, described Federal/State timelines and a General Land Office (GLO) position that will not fund road rebuilding in floodways. Commissioners raised concerns about project manager communication and incomplete scope items.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6099877,"Jim Wells County sheriff asks court to fund two investigators for violent‑crimes task force; commissioners table request",1713,2506000,4219000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2815787-63053ce30791df1b23d12d204792756f&start=2506&end=4219","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2815787-63053ce30791df1b23d12d204792756f/thumbnail_2506000.jpg","/articles/6099877/Jim-Wells-County/Texas/Jim-Wells-County-sheriff-asks-court-to-fund-two-investigators-for-violentcrimes-task-force-commissioners-table-request","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099877-8bd054eee5ef23e88703a764861bfa0a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770976751&Signature=BR~Nfrich8Dem41OaY5-VlNEVutB7x3NOYKowDemKuL8-RHeGB67Syrf0I9r3ppgCRB2XCNPF3~xTiruypa48DMIMObz0j9hrtVc2YqpL-y7iwU4g6XcXTTAjfhRV0kl54FjLOGCFGomqp3vcOVgYFHKUK0s~k3E0ACIzTqApsjbz2dDZkYPm9LdqvTI5Ispmsa2utwrG2fsPI31Hq672IbhGri5iYAAeUZtjv2ky9vxYtQqM5z1sFV9hLMwKtx5U035Z~nH-onWd~IcQhqrkxzJ~5rOtWZygthdA~~0YsvoHXW5fMp62eDbC5168B8nSKCR5gtMFtrmhkIHRpY27g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sheriff Baker asked the Jim Wells County Commissioners Court to authorize an emergency budget amendment to hire two criminal investigators to be assigned to a newly formed multi‑agency violent crimes and fugitive task force. Baker described a “recent rise of gang‑related violence” and said a coordinated task force with the Alice Police Department, Texas Rangers and the district attorney’s office is the most effective strategy to reduce violent crime.

The sheriff characterized the need as urgent and said the request was made under Government Code \"111.07,\" which he described as allowing emergency expenditures to meet “unusual and unforeseen conditions.” He said the positions were needed on an ongoing basis and that the county’s current investigative capacity is strained: “we only have 3 investigators and we have 1,550 open cases at any given time,” the sheriff said in the record.

Chief Deputy Rob Raul told the court the department currently has four investigators available (one assigned to DEA) and that \"on average, each one has 350 cases assigned to them a year of all crimes.\" Raul said the two additional investigators would focus on violent crimes but would assist with other cases as needed.

Members of the court repeatedly raised budget constraints. The county judge and several commissioners said mid‑year additions to the staffing base create bookkeeping and precedent concerns, and noted the county typically addresses staffing increases during the annual budget process. Commissioners asked for written substantiation of the need, including monthly case filings, distribution of cases by investigator, and a more precise cost estimate for the requested hires.

Sheriff Baker described one cost figure on the record as “a hundred and $1,222” for the two positions (including fringe); court members referenced alternative estimates during discussion and asked the sheriff to provide a detailed worksheet and supporting documents. One commissioner suggested using drug forfeiture funds as a temporary bridge if feasible; the sheriff and other commissioners said the forfeiture account balance was limited and could not fully cover the request without further review.

After discussion the court voted to table the item and requested that the sheriff provide the commission with the written worksheet used for budget requests, monthly and fiscal‑year case filing data, and other documentation to substantiate the need. The clerk recorded the court’s action as a motion to table; the court approved the motion by voice vote.

The court did not approve any new hires at the meeting. The sheriff indicated he would supply the requested documentation and meet with the judge and the auditor as requested.

Ending — The sheriff’s request remains pending. The court asked for data showing case counts and investigator workload, a clear cost estimate for the two investigator positions, and documentation of any available forfeiture or other one‑time funds that could temporarily support the task‑force staffing until the regular budget cycle.","Sheriff Baker requested emergency funding to add two criminal investigators to a multi‑agency violent crimes and fugitive task force, citing rising gang‑related violence and heavy investigative caseloads. Commissioners voted to table the request pending detailed workload and cost data.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Jim Wells County Commissioners Court actions

Commissioners discuss road‑use bonds for heavy‑vehicle damage; item tabled for workshop

Jim Wells County approves $1.238 million courthouse repairs; Phoenix 1 to proceed on design‑build contract

GrantWorks briefs Jim Wells County on water, drainage and mitigation grants totaling about $19.3 million; GLO flags road funding limits

Jim Wells County sheriff asks court to fund two investigators for violent‑crimes task force; commissioners table request