Deputy Martinez of the Nueces County Precinct 5 Constable’s Office told the court that assigning code enforcement to the Precinct 5 constable would reduce response time and improve prosecution rates for illegal dumping and nuisance complaints in the county’s western, unincorporated areas. “By adding the code enforcement division attached to the precinct 5 constable’s office, we will help with the growing issues,” Martinez said, arguing that deputies assigned to enforcement would be closer to recurring dumping hot spots and reduce travel and fuel costs.

Presenters and several constables argued that placing environmental enforcement inside a law‑enforcement office provides clearer accountability and allows sworn officers to issue citations and make arrests when needed. Constable Chris Dorr, who urged moving the unit from Public Works to a constable, said housing enforcement under Public Works makes deputies “classified as civilians” and can create legal and oversight uncertainty: “Transferring ensures legal clarity, proper authority and operational integrity.” Presenters said there would be no immediate added cost for vehicles or office space under their proposal and emphasized that deputies dedicated to environmental enforcement would not be reassigned to unrelated duties such as serving civil process.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about coverage and cost. Commissioner Matas and others noted that illegal dumping is countywide — including Robstown, Driscoll and precincts on the island — and that splitting enforcement among multiple constables might be necessary to ensure even coverage. Several commissioners emphasized their priority this year is broad employee pay increases; Commissioner Pusley said he is "not in general support of adding or reclassifying this year" because the court should focus on raising pay for existing employees first.

Presenters proposed several implementation options: (1) transfer the existing environmental enforcement unit from Public Works to a constable’s office; (2) reclassify current Public Works enforcement roles as civilian code‑compliance positions (removing law‑enforcement duties); or (3) hire additional deputies and distribute them among precincts — for example adding one environmental deputy per precinct or two deputies covering higher‑need areas. Presenters stressed that many dumping complaints are concentrated on the county’s west side and that deputies based there would cut travel time and improve case outcomes for prosecution by JP courts or the district attorney when the violations reach felony thresholds. One presenter cited a recent case in which a builder was arrested after officers pursued a felony dumping warrant.

The court also discussed administrative follow‑ups: ensuring code‑enforcement officers have training and are integrated with the county’s case reporting and evidence systems; clarifying whether existing positions were ARPA‑funded and whether any positions should be made permanent; and reviewing how monthly reports on code‑enforcement activity and outstanding cases are produced and circulated to commissioners and the auditor. Several commissioners asked for written cost estimates and for the county attorney and personnel staff to review liability and payroll classification issues before any transfer or reclassification.

No formal action was taken. Court members asked staff to return with costed options, staffing models (including a hybrid model with one officer per precinct or two officers serving higher‑need areas), and legal counsel’s guidance on classification and collective‑bargaining effects. Commissioners stressed both prompt enforcement improvements in dumping hot spots and protection for existing employees’ pay and benefits.

Ending note: Presenters left the court with an agreement to provide a written plan, and commissioners said they will consider the plan against the broader FY26 budget and the court’s priority to improve current employee pay.