Bob Wilson, Dallas County HR director, presented compensation and employee-benefit recommendations to the Commissioners Court and said the county should adopt a 3% structure increase for non‑law‑enforcement employees and targeted adjustments for other pay schedules.

The change is paired with benefit updates after the county's move from UnitedHealthcare to Blue Cross Blue Shield. Consultants from Holmes Murphy told the court the plan is running below the budgeted medical and pharmacy costs year to date and that pharmacy rebates have increased since the carrier change.

The topline compensation recommendations came from Wilson. "We are recommending for non law enforcement is a 3% structure increase," Wilson told the court, adding that the approach is a pay‑structure adjustment rather than a cost‑of‑living allowance he said some employees viewed as a "tip." Wilson said the 3% structure change would help keep Dallas County competitive in the market and provide consistency for employees.

Wilson presented cost estimates the court discussed: he said a 3% structure increase for all employees would cost about $14,000,000; a separate law‑enforcement structure (intended to reach every uniformed employee rather than applying step increases) represents about $4,200,000; and an additional alignment for the Schedule E (exempt/managerial) group would cost about $2,000,000. Wilson said the county had allotted "a little over $25,000,000" for compensation last year and that the "window" for compensation this year is narrower.

Wilson also flagged an item driven by state action on judicial pay. He said the state has increased the district judge base salary and that the county's supplement cap was changed from $18,000 to $25,000; Wilson said the county had provisionally set aside up to $1,000,000 at the high end to address the judicial salary ripple effects. "The way that the judicial compensation was amended, the county supplement cap went from 18,000 to 25,000," he said.

Turnover and staffing concerns featured prominently in the court's discussion. Wilson told the court the county's overall turnover rate was "still north of 11% overall," and he identified specific high‑risk areas such as DSO, facilities and clerk positions (he said the data management unit had a roughly 12% vacancy rate). Several commissioners pressed HR for more detailed, shift‑level attrition data and for ways to address intermittent FMLA patterns that county officials said are contributing to operational strain.

On benefits, Holmes Murphy consultants Sean Fulton and Ben Clark presented plan performance and a conservative budget forecast. Fulton said that for January through June 2025 the county was performing better than budgeted on total cost and that, after the carrier transition, pharmacy rebates rose (from about $151 to $202 per enrolled employee per month, as presented). Fulton described stop‑loss (reinsurance) arrangements and said last year the county experienced elevated large‑claim activity that produced substantial stop‑loss payouts; the attachment point discussed during the meeting was $600,000 this year.

Ben Clark summarized the budget reforecast and projections. He described a current, conservative reforecast that would close the year with a net cost to the county of about $83,500,000 (down from a prior budgeted figure). Clark then showed a 2026 projection that applied national trend assumptions (medical and pharmacy trend factors) and produced a projected gross/net county cost near $91,988,000 under a scenario that includes a 5% employee premium increase; Clark described the forecast as conservative and said the majority of next‑year upward pressure comes from trend assumptions.

Consultants and HR recommended a 5% premium increase for employees to address long‑term plan funding. Wilson described the magnitude of member impact during the discussion; presenters gave examples on the record, including that a 5% change on the PPO plan would be roughly $2 per paycheck for employee‑only coverage and substantially more for family tiers. Fulton said the 5% recommendation was intended to avoid larger, abrupt premium adjustments in the future.

The consultants discussed options to reduce pharmacy spend further, including annual reconciliations and contract audits with Blue Cross and Prime, and the possibility of steering certain prescriptions to cost‑plus pharmacy solutions (examples discussed included the Mark Cuban Cost Plus model). Fulton said plan design and member education would be required to steer utilization to alternate fulfillment channels.

The PEBC cooperative participation was presented as a cost‑savings measure. Fulton said a cooperative purchase structure produced estimated savings versus a standalone purchase, and the court heard a summary of recommended 2026 plan design changes that the cooperative is considering, including required clinical management for GLP‑1 medications prescribed for weight loss (the court discussed clinical eligibility and adherence requirements for members seeking GLP‑1 therapy for non‑diabetes weight management).

The court asked HR and the consultants to return with more detailed numbers and follow‑up analyses: Wilson said staff would provide shift‑level attrition and FMLA pattern information, the Holmes Murphy team said it would continue quarterly reconciliations and a year‑end market audit for pharmacy pricing, and the county finance team agreed to fold the HR recommendations into the broader budget process. The court scheduled additional budget work sessions (the group discussed meeting Thursday at 9 a.m. for follow‑up budget review).

Ending: Commissioners did not adopt formal action on the compensation or premium proposals during the meeting; the items were presented for review and follow‑up and will be considered in the county's ongoing budget process.