Evans County commissioners spent significant time during the 2026 budget hearing debating a proposed step-and-grade pay plan, a 4% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and a longevity incentive designed to retain employees with long service.

The proposal and why it matters: County staff and proponents argued the step-and-grade structure provides consistent pay progressions tied to certifications, longevity and performance. Supporters said the county currently lags market averages and that longevity and structured steps help retain experienced staff, reduce turnover and preserve institutional knowledge. "When you lose that experience, you start over," one county official said, arguing the county has only eight employees with more than 10 years’ service and that losing them would harm operations.

Numbers and budget impact: Staff said the step-and-grade proposal with longevity was included in the proposed 2026 budget and cited a total longevity cost of about $28,022 spread among eight employees. The department-level step-and-grade increases and a proposed 4% COLA were described as the primary drivers of part of the $164,468 projected increase in property-tax revenue for the budget as presented. Staff also presented an alternative that would remove longevity or reduce step increases; the longevity-only component was described as much smaller than the total step-and-grade cost.

Arguments for and against: Supporters emphasized retention: several department heads cited lengthy learning curves (two to three years) for courthouse and road department positions and argued the longevity step preserves expertise. Opponents and some commissioners questioned the size and timing of salary increases given the county’s overall tax impact. One commissioner noted the longevity portion would affect relatively few employees and suggested comparing county salaries with state association averages before final adoption. "If there's an employee that is not performing ... that needs to be addressed by management," a department head said, clarifying that longevity is not an entitlement and performance standards remain applicable.

Decision and next steps: The tentative budget approved at the hearing included the step-and-grade structure and longevity as presented. County staff and commissioners agreed to continue reviewing salary comparisons with peer counties, to monitor recruitment outcomes and to report back in future meetings. Staff noted that if the board later removes longevity or modifies steps, the budgeted property tax implications could change and that statutory levy limits (the county's 3% carryover cap) complicate year-to-year adjustments.

How to follow up: Commissioners asked staff to compare the proposed pay scales to association-of-counties averages and to provide clearer cost breakdowns by department at the next budget meeting. Citizens and employees were directed to contact county administration for detailed pay schedules and implementation rules.