Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Coryell County court posts proposed FY2026 elected-official pay and allowances; rejects county supplement increase

July 22, 2025 | Coryell County, Texas


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Coryell County court posts proposed FY2026 elected-official pay and allowances; rejects county supplement increase
Coryell County Commissioners Court on Monday voted to post proposed FY2026 salaries, expenses and allowances for elected county and precinct officers as amended and declined to increase the countycontributed supplement for judges from $18,000 to $25,000.

The courtaction sets the list of proposed increases and allowances that must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 10 days before final budget action, county staff said. The motion also incorporated staffrecommended adjustments to travel and training lines for several elected offices.

The decision matters because the state this year adjusted its supplement for judicial pay, shifting part of the increase onto counties if they choose to contribute a larger local supplement. The difference the court considered was a $7,000 increase in the county-paid supplement (from $18,000 to $25,000) that would raise total local contribution for some judicial offices.

During discussion, a county judge and a county court judge urged the court to view the countysupplement as retention pay, saying higher local supplements help keep experienced judges and staff in place. One judge said the local supplement has been funding statutory county courts since 1993 and argued that without added pay the county risks losing seasoned judges and court staff.

Several commissioners opposed raising the supplement this year, saying the broader county workforce had seen little or no proposed raises in the draft budget and raising the judicial supplement now would be difficult to justify to other county employees. Commissioners expressed a preference to delay any supplement increase until the overall budget picture is clearer.

County staff also reviewed and the court approved amendments to several travel and expense allowances that will be included in the published notice. The courtrecap recorded by staff and accepted by the court included: county judge travel allowance unchanged at $3,500; commissionersallowance set at $6,250 each; county clerk travel/allowance $5,000 (no change); district clerk increased to $5,000 to match county clerk; county court-at-law travel/allowance $8,000 (no change); justices of the peace travel increased from $1,000 to $2,000 each; treasurer travel increased from $1,500 to $2,500; constables 1through 4 set at $1,250 each; sheriff travel $4,500; and tax assessor noted at $4,500 in staff remarks. Staff said these figures reflect what will be published and do not bind the court to final budget appropriations, but publication starts statutory notice and grievance timelines. Where staff numbers were inconsistent in discussion, the court approved the staff recapitulation presented at the time of the motion.

County legal/administrative staff read portions of the governing statute to the court, explaining the two publication requirements: (1) publish in a newspaper any proposed increases in salaries, expenses or allowances at least 10 days before the hearing when the court sets them; and (2) separately provide written notice to each elected county or precinct officer of their salary and personal expenses that will be included in the budget. Staff emphasized the publication requirement applies only to proposed increases funded from the county budget, not state-paid supplements.

Motion and vote: Commissioner Weddell moved to post the salaries, expenses and allowances as presented and amended and to decline increasing the county supplement from $18,000 to $25,000; Commissioner Matthews seconded. The motion carried on a voice vote. The court then adjourned the regular meeting and proceeded to the budget workshop.

The court's posting begins the statutory notice period; any final changes to salaries or to the personal expense lines after written notice to elected officials would require re-notification, staff said. The courtaction does not itself appropriate funds; final budget adoption will determine actual pay and expense appropriations for FY2026.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Texas articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI