Please note: All agenda items are considered PASSED unless indicated otherwise.

OPEN SESSION:

COURT ORDERS
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

1. Consider and take necessary action to approve a three (3) year agreement with ClearGov, Inc. at the recurring annual cost of $24,300 for budget software utilizing BuyBoard contract 692-23 and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation.

Comments: 

I voted against the purchase of new budget software, and I want to explain why.

If you will, go back with me to the December 30th Commissioners Court meeting. At that meeting, the Auditor advocated for a new, comprehensive financial software system from Tyler Technologies. This system includes multiple modules designed to integrate several financial departments, including the Treasurer’s Office, Human Resources, and Purchasing. The previously approved financial system also includes tools for building the county budget. Initial costs were funded through the Facilities Improvement Fund. While I did not agree with that funding source when we voted on the Capital Improvement Plan, the other members of the court did, so that decision has already been made. It is what it is.

Currently, the county uses an older system, ACS, which has been successfully used for years to create the county budget. Ann Wilson, our former Auditor with more than 20 years of service, used this system throughout her tenure. Creating a county budget does require a working knowledge of the software being used. Our current Auditor, Karin Smith, has been in that role since April 2025.

Mrs. Smith requested an additional budget software program, ClearGov, to be used for this year’s budget, which is scheduled to begin on April 1, 2026. The ClearGov contract is for three years, meaning the county would be paying for both budget software systems at the same time. Funding for ClearGov would come from the existing Budget Officer’s budget due to salary savings created after our former Budget Officer, Kari Perkins, resigned on September 1, 2025.

There are several concerns with this approach:

We already have functioning software to create the county budget.

We are heading towards the new financial software, with tools to create a budget, set to go live next January.

Under this proposal, the county is attempting to complete data mapping, conversion, comparisons, and employee training in approximately three months. Why are we rushing into this? This accelerated timeline is not typical for implementing budget software. It is another “warp-speed” rollout, similar to what we are experiencing with the Tyler Technologies ERP system. Fast is not usually thorough. The financial systems we rely on to operate the county are as vital as oxygen—we cannot afford to get this wrong.

I also question why we are spending this money now. In the most recent budget cycle, many departments requested funding for critical needs such as additional staff or replacement vehicles, and those requests were denied due to lack of funds. Yet we continue to find money for items like this new software that replaces existing systems we are still paying for.

This sends a message to Department Heads that their concerns are not being heard – their needs are not a priority.  

There has also been no plan presented for how the county will continue to fund at least four duplicative software systems over the next three years. To keep the old systems, it will cost over $1 Million a year. As stated in court, there is currently no intention to eliminate these duplicative systems.

I do not believe it is fiscally responsible to spend funds from the Budget Officer’s budget simply because they are available. Those salary lag funds will not be available next year, which means our operational costs continue to grow without any cost-cutting measures to offset that forced growth. This is how tax rates increase—by saying yes to new spending without identifying where to trim elsewhere. We don’t have a money printing machine. You “foot the bill” for county operations.

Finally, I want to point out that the county budget was adopted in September and went into effect on October 1. Since then, we have seen multiple items come before the Court requesting additional spending. At some point, we must ask: 

• When will we start saying no? 
• When will the Auditor begin advising the Court to limit spending outside the adopted budget?

The Court has taken no meaningful action to reduce rising costs in employee healthcare, inmate medical care, or indigent health services. As a result, we are on the same path as last year—heading toward overruns in each area without a clear plan to change the outcome. We should be concerned about every dollar we spend outside of the adopted budget and have the courage to say no.

As always, my goal is to be transparent with you about how your tax dollars are being spent and to advocate for responsible, well-planned financial decisions. I am one vote, which is why elections matter. While the other candidates may not be in your Commissioner Precinct, someone will be elected, and their votes directly affect you. Those elected must keep taxpayers at the forefront and have the discipline to say no when necessary.

Even when you cannot vote in a particular Commissioner’s race, your voice still matters. Sharing factual information, personal experiences, and your perspective on the qualities you believe matter in an elected official can help friends or family in other precincts make informed decisions.

An informed electorate strengthens accountability and ultimately leads to better governance for everyone.

EAST TEXAS AUTO THEFT TASK FORCE

2. Consider and take necessary action to approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Smith County, the East Texas Auto Theft Taskforce (ETATTF), and Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office.

Comments:

This is just an agreement between Smith County, the District Attorney’s Office, and the East Texas Auto Theft Taskforce that outlines how any funds obtained through asset forfeiture will be shared, as required by state law. 

• 63% to the Task Force
• 27% to the District Attorney’s Office
• 10% to Smith County

Approving this agreement allows the county to continue participating in the task force and remain eligible for related grant funding for the 2025–2027 grant cycle.

ELECTIONS

3. Consider and take necessary action to approve Facility Use Agreements between Smith County and the following locations for elections occurring in 2026 and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation:

a. Arp Community Center,
b. Bethel Bible Church,
c. Chapel Hill Fire Department,
d. Cornerstone Church,
e. Cross Brand Cowboy Church,
f. First Christian Church,
g. Flint Baptist Church,
h. Garden Valley Baptist Church,
i. Glass Recreation Center,
j. Greater Life Church,
k. Heritage Building,
l. Hideaway Member Svc Building,
m. Hill Creek Baptist Church,
n. Lanes Chapel Methodist Church,
o. Lindale Kenzie Community Center,
p. New Harmony Baptist Church,
q. Noonday Community Center,
r. Shiloh Road Church of Christ,
s. St. Louis Baptist Church,
t. St. Violet Baptist Church,
u. Starrville Church of the Living God,
v. Tyler ISD: Bell, Clarkston, Jones, Three Lakes,
w. Tyler Junior College – West Campus,
x. Tyler Senior Center,
y. Winona Community Center,
z. Cameron J. Jarvis Library,
aa. Old Tyler Airport, and
ab. Rose Heights Church – Lindale.

Comments:

Before any election, the Commissioners Court approves the Facility Use Agreements for the polling locations.

FIRE MARSHAL’S OFFICE

4. Consider and take necessary action to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Smith County and The Park of East Texas for point of distribution locations and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation.

Comments:

Brandon Moore, Smith County Emergency Management Coordinator, has secured a point of distribution for supplies should we need one in the event of an emergency.

RECURRING BUSINESS

COUNTY CLERK 

5. Consider and take the necessary action to approve the Commissioners Court minutes for December 2025.

6. Receive Commissioners Court recordings for December 2025.

ROAD AND BRIDGE 

7. Receive pipe and/or utility line installation request (notice only):

1. County Road 47, Oncor Electric LLC, upgrade existing lines and poles, Precinct 4, and
2. County Road 489 and 490, Conterra Ultra Broadband, LLC, road bore to install fiber optic cable, Precinct 4.

 AUDITOR’S OFFICE 

8. Consider and take necessary action to approve and/or ratify payment of accounts, bills, payroll, transfer of funds, amendments, and health claims.

Comments:

I voted in opposition of this item because it included the budget transfer for the new ClearGov software.

EXECUTIVE SESSION: 

For purposes permitted by Texas Government Code, Chapter 551, entitled Open Meetings, Sections 55 l.071, 55 l.072, 551.073, 551.074, 551.0745, 551.075, and 551.076. The Commissioners Court reserves the right to exercise its discretion and may convene in executive session as authorized by the Texas Government Code, Section 551.071, et seq., on any of the items listed on its formal or briefing agendas.

551.071. CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY
551.074 PERSONNEL MATTERS 

9. Deliberation and consultation with attorney regarding pending litigation in Case No. 2:25-cv-00585, Estate of Jonathan Layton, et al, vs. Smith County et al, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas.

10. Deliberation and consultation regarding the appointment, employment, and duties of the Smith County Budget Officer and Budget Analyst.

OPEN SESSION:

COURT ORDERS
COMMISSIONERS COURT

11. Consider and take necessary action to approve an order abolishing the office of Smith County Budget Officer, pursuant to Texas Local Government Code, Section 111.062(b), and approve reclassification of the Budget Officer position to a Budget Analysts Position.

Comments:

This item was not necessary. We passed on this item.

12. Consider and take necessary action to appoint a new Smith County Budget Officer or hire a Budget Analyst dependent upon the availability of the respective positions.

Comments:

Watch my “Question of the Day” video from 1/19/26 that I posted on my Facebook page. I offered a little background before we went to court about these Budget Officer/Analyst items.

In the end, I think we made the right call: 
We didn’t dissolve the Office of Budget Officer, and we didn’t reclassify it as a Budget Analyst. 

Pending final clearance of the background check, we have a qualified candidate lined up to officially fill the Budget Officer role at the next Commissioners Court meeting. 

ADJOURN