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

OPEN SESSION:

RESOLUTION

1. Consider and take necessary action to ratify a resolution proclaiming September 2025, as “Sickle Cell Awareness Month” in Smith County.

PRESENTATIONS

2. Presentation of employee recognition, longevity certificates, and service pins.

3. Receive presentation on Health Facilities Dashboard for Smith County employees.

Comments:

Earlier this year, we discovered that emergency room charges had risen dramatically—one key factor being our employees’ frequent use of Hospitality ER. Employees shared that a major challenge was simply not knowing where they could go for affordable care within our healthcare plan.

To help address this, Human Resources partnered with Smith County GIS to develop an interactive map. This tool empowers employees to easily view and locate all in-network ERs and urgent care facilities closest to their homes, making it simpler to access the right care without unnecessary costs.

The map is publicly accessible and available…

COURT ORDERS
COMMISSIONERS COURT

4. Consider and take necessary action to approve an Interlocal Agreement between Smith County and the University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler for inmate health care services and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation.

Comments: 

We’ve covered this ground extensively in previous reports and at countless Town Hall meetings. This agenda item is simply a renewal of our contract with UT Health for inmate medical services.

In July, I explicitly requested in open court that we put this out to bid—to gauge the market before the current contract expired. My words were clear and straightforward; there was no ambiguity.

Regrettably, Purchasing did not proceed with the bidding process for Inmate Medical.

“Cliff Notes” on the UT HEALTH Contract

• Post-2023 Provider Switch: Costs Out of Control: Juvenile medical exploded 103% ($109k to $220k), indigent inmate care surged 75% ($936k to $1.64M), and overall services climbed 23% ($3.54M to $4.35M)—we can’t keep bleeding taxpayer dollars like this.
• 2025 Projections: A Budget Buster: Total spend hits $6.21M, up 33% from 2024’s $4.68M— that’s $19.58 per inmate daily for 867 individuals. Unsustainable; time to slam on the brakes.
• PRN and Overtime: Wild West Spending: No caps on as-needed hires means endless “creep”—enforce the $105k limit and pocket $233k in savings. Why aren’t we?
• Automatic Hikes: No County Say: When patients’ health declines and they need more care, costs spike without our input or review—pure one-sided escalation that shortchanges accountability.
• Staffing Model: Locked Out of Savings: We’re ignoring the efficient plan (12 LVNs at $702k, 6 aides at $228k), letting expenses run rampant instead of enforcing fiscal discipline. Not setting caps on staff unless approved by Court is reckless.

I don’t know about you, but my hearing gets really bad when someone takes the lane of “That’s too hard” or “It can’t be done”. Today in Commissioners Court, it was evident no one wanted to explore contract modifications—they simply pushed the renewal through, citing Chief Pinkerton’s high praise for the exceptional inmate care provided by UT Health.

Let me be clear: We absolutely have a legal duty to provide adequate medical care to our inmates, and I do believe UT Health is probably the best level of care they could receive. Yet we must balance that excellence with cost. Inmate medical costs are astronomical. Due to the timing of the renewal, it was obvious the Court wanted to lock this contract in—we had just one day to renew. That should never happen. Running out of time is a continual excuse used in Commissioners Court to force these issues through. I expect better management of contract renewals to protect taxpayers. We should never be over a barrel when it comes to decisions of this magnitude; it puts you—the taxpayer—at a clear disadvantage. It’s YOUR money, and when decisions are rushed like this, you can guarantee you didn’t get the better end of the deal.

Even more troubling is the absence of any tracking for UT Health staff entering the jail. They neither badge in, log digitally, nor sign a paper record. When I questioned Chief Pinkerton on this, he claimed they simply didn’t have the time. They lack time to log visitors? That’s an unacceptable excuse. This isn’t just common sense—it’s a foundational requirement under the Texas Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS) for securing perimeters and preventing contraband, as well as federal guidelines like PREA that demand oversight of contractors. We need such logs for two critical reasons: (1) to verify employee hours against billing for accountability, and (2) to ensure jail security. Inspectors could easily cite this as non-compliance during mandatory audits, jeopardizing the jail’s standing and taxpayer-funded operations.

Chief Pinkerton, appointed by Sheriff Smith to solely manage the jail, reports to the Sheriff—not directly to taxpayers. But the Sheriff, as an elected official, does. His subordinate’s admission in open court—now part of the public record—that staff lack time to monitor doctors and nurses’ access is unacceptable. I urge Sheriff Smith to address this immediately on behalf of his constituents. This oversight reflects poor management and creates security vulnerabilities for jail staff, inmates, and UT Health personnel alike. We cannot afford another lawsuit stemming from an unauthorized visitor’s harm or contraband smuggling.

5. Consider and take necessary action to approve the 2026 Dispatch Fees Interlocal
Agreements between Smith County and the following, pursuant to Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation:

1. City of Arp,
   
2. City of Bullard,
   
3. City of Troup,
   
4. City of Whitehouse,
   
5. Emergency Services District No. 1 (ESD 1), and
   
6. Emergency Services District No. 2 (ESD 2).

Comments:

These dispatch contracts between Smith County and our local cities & ESDs deliver clear taxpayer benefits by pooling resources for centralized emergency and non-emergency law enforcement dispatching through the Sheriff’s Department, ensuring faster, more reliable 9-1-1 responses and officer safety without the need for each municipality to fund redundant systems. You avoid paying higher local costs—such as building separate dispatch centers—while the county generates modest revenue from fixed fees, which offsets operational expenses and promotes fiscal efficiency. Through smart interlocal partnerships like these, we’re building a stronger, safer Smith County together—delivering seamless public safety across our region, trimming unnecessary red tape, and making every tax dollar work harder to protect our families and neighbors without breaking the bank.

• Arp – $8,125
• Bullard – $40,529
• Troup – $17,614
• Whitehouse – $80,103
• ESD 1 – $40,000
• ESD 2 – $141,798.91

6. Consider and take necessary action to approve the following Indigent Defense Contracts in the amount of $120,000, for the 12-month term of the contract for the 7th, 241st, and 475^th Judicial District Courts, pursuant to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 26.04:

1. Clifton Roberson,
   
2. Donald Davidson,
   
3. John Jarvis,
   
4. Zachary Davis,
   
5. Rusty Drake,
   
6. James Wheeler,
   
7. James Williams,
   
8. Ryan Sorrells, and
   
9. Michael Yarbrough.

Comments:

Since these Indigent Defense Attorney Contracts were on today’s agenda, I took this opportunity to walk through the hurdles I’ve faced in securing the documentation we need to confirm these attorneys are fully upholding their commitments—it’s a bit of a deeper dive, so get a cup of coffee and settle in as we unpack it together. 

At its core, this is about shining a light on where your tax dollars flow: funding vital public defense for those who truly qualify, while holding providers accountable to deliver the high standards our community deserves. As your Smith County Commissioner, my role is to champion that transparency and fiscal wisdom on your behalf—ensuring every dollar stretches further without waste—but I’ve hit roadblocks along the way, from delayed records to resistance on verification, that make it tougher to bridge the gap between oversight and action. 

Let’s explore this step by step so you see the full picture and how we can build better safeguards moving forward.

WHAT DOES THE CONTRACT SAY
*Remember from the September 9th Commissioners Court report, these Standards of Performance:

• Do a Good Job: Lawyers need to work hard, be skilled, and represent their clients fairly and professionally, following Texas rules for lawyers and court laws.
• Contact Clients Quickly: They should try to reach their client by the end of the first workday after being assigned and meet with them as soon as possible.

From the actual Contract:

The following is a timeline of following up on an inquiry by a constituent that had a loved one incarcerated at Smith County Jail. 

1. Initial Contact and Concern: On Sunday, June 29, 2025, I received a call from a family member of an inmate in the Smith County Jail. They expressed concern that their incarcerated relative had not yet spoken with their assigned indigent defense attorney, despite an upcoming court date on Tuesday, July 1.

2. Contacted District Attorney Putman: To address this promptly, I texted our District Attorney to request that he ask the attorney to contact the client. I followed up the next day, on Monday, June 30. The DA informed me that the attorney had visited the inmate several times. When I inquired whether the jail maintains logs of attorney visits—which could provide documentation to reassure the family—the DA indicated he was unsure if such logs exist.

3. Request to Jail Administration (July 1, 2025): As part of my due diligence, I emailed Chief Pinkerton, who oversees the jail, on July 1, requesting a copy of the attorney visitation log for this case. Chief Pinkerton responded that he could not provide copies of the log and suggested that, for concerns about a court-appointed attorney, I contact Judge Jackson in the 114th District Court.

4. Engagement with Judge Jackson (July 2–17, 2025): On July 2, I forwarded the email thread to Judge Jackson, who replied that his office would look into it. Not hearin

Under Texas law, responses are due within 10 business days, so I expected replies by September 18. That did not happen.

On September 22, after I sent an email reminding him of my pending request, Mr. Wilson provided the visitation log, confirming the April 18 visit for 28 minutes by a different attorney and then the May 2 visit for 6 minutes by the assigned attorney in question.

All I have as proof that this attorney is fulfilling his contract is one documented 6-minute visit with his client.  What does this say about his preparation before court to provide “zealous legal representation” as required in the contract? Did he have more meetings with his client that were just undocumented?
Obtaining these 2 pages of a jail log NEVER should have taken this long and an elected official should NEVER have to file a Public Information Request to get information that should be readily accessible. 

I did not address this issue to assign fault, but to fulfill our shared duty to the taxpayers of Smith County: providing rigorous oversight of how public funds are allocated and ensuring our indigent defense system operates with the transparency and efficiency that our residents deserve. We are constitutionally and statutorily obligated to provide competent counsel to those who cannot afford it, as affirmed in cases like Gideon v. Wainwright.

Going back to LAST YEAR, during the August 6, 2024, Budget Workshop, Judge Jackson noted that Smith County lacks a dedicated office or officer to review indigent applications. Currently, eligibility is determined by placing defendants under oath and inquiring about their assets, relying on their statements due to limited time and resources for further checks. Based on a review of the Texas Indigent Defense Commission’s (TIDC) guidelines—particularly Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 26.04 and TIDC model forms for indigency affidavits—this process aligns with state standards, which emphasize objective criteria and sworn affidavits. Routine verification beyond the oath is not explicitly required unless a contest is filed, so we are not in violation of TIDC rules. However, in the absence of systematic documentation—like consistent visitation logs or verified eligibility reviews—defending our expenditures to the public becomes more challenging.

The button below links to the Commissioners Court Meeting for 8/6/24. Go to the 2 hour 38 minute mark to hear Judge Jackson’s explanation of eligibility determination.

In FY2023, indigent defense costs totaled $2,336,377.
In FY2024, they rose to $2,814,718.
In FY2025, the previous Court budgeted $3,261,768. 

Our contracts support 27+ attorneys on the indigent defense rotation, with total contract funding increasing from $95,000 in FY2024 to $120,000 in FY2025.

These are significant investments, and without robust records to substantiate services—such as attorney visits or client contacts—we risk undermining public trust.

ARE THERE SOLUTIONS?

To strengthen compliance with TIDC standards under Texas Government Code Chapter 79, enhance accountability, and promote transparency, I respectfully suggested that the Court consider some practical steps:

SAVING YOUR MONEY
These measures would not only keep us fully aligned with TIDC guidelines but also demonstrate to our constituents that every dollar spent on indigent defense delivers real value and justice. 

• Cost Reductions on Resources: Fewer indigent cases could slash expenses for investigators, expert witnesses, or other court-appointed resources, freeing up funds for essential priorities.

• Faster Case Resolutions: Ineligible defendants who can afford private counsel may resolve their cases more swiftly, easing the strain on our overburdened court system.

• Docket Efficiency: Fewer indigent cases could alleviate docket congestion, allowing courts to process justice more effectively without endless delays.

• Substantial Annual Savings: If eligibility verification uncovers even a modest 5–10% of ineligible defendants, the county could lighten attorney caseloads and save tens of thousands of dollars yearly—real money returned to taxpayers’ pockets.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT
As a Smith County Commissioner sworn to protect taxpayer dollars, I won’t stand idly by while your hard-earned funds are being used on unchecked indigent defense services. Three million dollars isn’t a drop in the bucket! If critics on social media label this oversight as “micromanaging,” they’re missing the point: it’s not meddling, it’s my duty to wield the power of the purse, demand accountability from every department, and propose smart fixes to deliver justice without waste—because true stewardship means safeguarding our communities, not just rubber-stamping subpar services. The law backs this up, clearly defining our roles:

• Commissioners Court (Fiscal Approval): We hold the primary oversight, approving county indigent defense plans (including contract programs) and budgets to ensure TIDC compliance and taxpayer accountability, per Texas Government Code § 79.036 and Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 26.04.

• District/County Court Judges: They have the operational role and appoint counsel from qualified lists, adopting eligibility rules and forms for implementation, as required by Gov’t Code § 79.036(b) and CCP Art. 26.04.

• District Attorney (Advisory Input Only): The DA has no approval or signing authority; provides prosecutorial stakeholder input on plans or case impacts but focuses on prosecutions, not defense contracting (He has no direct role in Gov’t Code Ch. 79 or CCP Art. 26.04).

FIRE MARSHAL’S OFFICE 

7. Consider and take necessary action to approve the Professional Services Agreement Addendum No. 1 between Smith County and H2O Partners, Inc. and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation.

Comments:

H2O Partners in our consultant for developing the county’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. When H2O Partners asked for their next payment, the Texas General Land Office flagged that we needed to add a simple update to our contract—basically a clause nodding to federal rules on fair bidding and spending grant money (Appendix II to Part 200 of 2 CFR 200.318-200.327). H2O drafted it up and sent it over, so we’re good to keep things moving smoothly and ensure every taxpayer dollar from the grant is used right. 

8. Consider and take necessary action to authorize the sale of fireworks for Diwali Day.

Comments:

In Texas, state law (Texas Occupations Code Ch. 2154) allows fireworks sales during specific periods, including Oct. 13–22. If you spot an open fireworks stand during this period, please share a photo and its location with me at (903) 571-2292. 

PURCHASING

9. Consider and take necessary action to award a contract to Casey Slone Construction in the amount of $264,777, for 31-25 Road and Bridge Site Improvements and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation.

Comments:

This bid award covers comprehensive landscape and site enhancements along the south side of the new Road & Bridge facility property, adjacent to the Smith County Appraisal District, including removal of existing light poles and installation of new ones at designated locations. It was awarded to Casey Slone Construction for $264,777.

10. Consider and take necessary action to award a contract to Texana Land and Asphalt in the amount of $1,688,488, for RB-20-25 Road Improvements to County Road 26 (Farm-to- Market Road 850 to CR 21) and CR 27 (CR 26 to end) and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation.

11. Consider and take necessary action to award a contract to Texana Land and Asphalt in the amount of $2,309,085.50 for RB-11-25 Road Improvements to County Road 313 (FM 14 to FM 2015) and CR 3147 (CR 313 to end) and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation.

Comments:

Texana Land and Asphalt was awarded the contract for road improvements to CR 313 and CR 3147 in the amount of $2,309,085.50.

12. Consider and take necessary action to award a contract to A.E. Schull in the amount of $399,118.55 for RB-33-25 Road Improvements to County Road 2193 (FM 756 to FM 2964) and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation.

Comments:

A.E. Schull was awarded the contract for road improvements to CR 2193 from Paluxy to Rhones Quarter Road in the amount of $399,118.55.

13. Consider and take necessary action to award a contract to A.E Schull in the amount of $462,256.05 for RB-34-25 Road Improvements to County Road 172 (FM 346 to 2493) and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation.

Comments:

A.E. Schull was awarded the contract for road improvements to CR 172 in the amount of $462,256.05.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

14. Consider and take necessary action to approve a purchase from DataVox, Inc. utilizing TIPS Cooperative Purchasing Program, contract # 230105 in the amount of $226,959.30 and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation.

Comments:

This item was for the cell booster cabling system in the new courthouse.  The purchase covers 10,000 feet of cable for the cell booster system in the new courthouse, excluding equipment.  As previously noted, the Court authorized $1,000,000 in the courthouse construction budget to cover omitted IT expenses. Cabling has to be done before the grid goes up for the ceiling.  This was a cost of $226,959.30.

HUMAN RESOURCES

15. Consider and take necessary action to approve submission of the 2026 Texas Association of Counties (TAC) Workers’ Compensation Renewal Questionnaire and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation.

Comments:

HUMAN RESOURCES
 
15. Consider and take necessary action to approve submission of the 2026 Texas Association of Counties (TAC) Workers’ Compensation Renewal Questionnaire and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation.

RECURRING BUSINESS
ROAD AND BRIDGE

16. Consider and take necessary action to authorize the county judge to sign the Final Plat for the Pflunigan Subdivision, Precinct 2. 

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

1. County Road 433, City of Lindale, road bore for service lines, Precinct 3,
   
2. County Road 452, Oncor Electric LLC, upgrade utility line, Precinct 3,
   
3. County Road 2159, Charter-Spectrum, install underground fiber optic cable with vaults and pedestals, Precinct 2,
   
4. County Road 2101, Jackson Water Supply Corporation, install service line, Precinct 2, and
   
5. County Road 1125, Dean Water Supply, road bore for service line, Precinct 2.

AUDITOR’S OFFICE

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

Comments:

Budget Transfers and Payment

Jail

• Transfer From: Salaries – $250,000
  
• Transfer To: Utilities – $100,000
  Medical Services –$150,000

Explanation for this request:
“Transfer to pay the shortage in utilities and to cover the overage in medical.  We will receive 2 more medical bills, August and September.  We will need to discuss another transfer for approximately $650,000 when those are received.”

Treasurer

• Transfer From: Contingency – $7000
  
• Transfer To: Accrued Leave – $2,900
  Salary and Wages – $1,990
  F.I.C.A – $1000
  Retirement – $1,110

Explanation for this request:
“Transfer to cover comp pay off from exempt status to excluded.”

321st Court

• Transfer From: Contingency – $5,000
  
• Transfer To: Mediation Fees – $5,000

Explanation for this request:
“Cover Expenses.”

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.
 
SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL MATTERS

SECTION 551.071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY

19. Deliberation and consultation regarding the qualifications, responsibilities, and salary of the Smith County Animal Control and Shelter Supervisor Position.

ADJOURN