County commissioners debate vacancy budgeting, pause market pay changes pending HR review

County commissioners spent the budget workshop debating how to treat long-term vacant positions and whether to pause market-driven pay increases until a new human-resources review is completed. Commissioners asked HR to separate “grade-placement” fixes for employees the county admitted were placed incorrectly when the step-and-grade system was adopted from broader market benchmarking requests tied to higher pay.

The discussion matters because the budget’s labor line and the number of filled positions affect department spending and hiring flexibility. Commissioners weighed a recommendation — drawn from government finance guidance cited by staff — to reduce the budgeted value of any position open when the county issues its call for budgets. Finance staff described the recommended timing as “3 months before the opening of the budget,” at which point the county would reduce the position’s budgeted value by 50 percent; other commissioners said they were “more comfortable with the 6 months” timing.

Commissioners and staff said the county has persistent hiring gaps in multiple departments. One participant said departments commonly show six to eight vacancies in law enforcement and jail positions “consistently 12 months out of the year” and that the sheriff’s office onboarded two deputies in the last 12 months despite receiving more than 100 applications. Commissioners said those operational staffing shortages complicate the budget decision and the reliability of simply eliminating budgeted salary for vacant posts.

On pay adjustments, HR presented a set of recommendations that mixed two types of corrections: (1) placement fixes for employees the county concluded had been assigned to the wrong step or grade when the system changed; and (2) market-based adjustments supported by external survey benchmarking. Commissioners asked HR to separate the two categories and to provide objective evidence for any “placement” fixes the board should implement in the coming fiscal year.

Several commissioners said they support preserving dollars in the budget to allow corrections once a full HR benchmarking and job-class review is completed. One commissioner proposed using the dollar value of “placement plus two” as a conservative placeholder in this year’s budget so funds are available when verified changes are approved; other commissioners said holding money as a placeholder should not be interpreted as final approval of market-driven raises. The board directed HR to provide a segregated list showing (a) employees who were mis‑placed in the step/grade structure and should be corrected, and (b) positions recommended for market-rate increases that should be paused until a comprehensive review by a new HR director.

Commissioners also discussed centralizing salaries and benefits at the fund level rather than leaving dollar amounts in duplicate departmental budgets. Finance staff recommended moving salary and benefit dollars to fund-level control so departments would manage only FTE counts and request restructuring or additional FTEs when needed; staff said it will take time to rework payroll posting but recommended the change.

In separate remarks, multiple commissioners asked HR to explain its methodology for market comparisons and to justify specific step increases. Commissioners repeated that ad hoc, department-initiated job-description changes had produced inconsistent pay outcomes and that a transparent, standardized HR review is needed to restore equity across departments.

The board agreed to ask HR for the requested lists and to hold market-based enhancements pending the new director’s review; they also agreed to leave placeholder funds in the budget to permit corrections after HR’s verification. The board did not take a final vote on a permanent vacancy-reduction rule at the workshop; discussion continued about whether to adopt the 3-month or 6-month standard.