Commissioners push staff to design a pay plan within $1.7 million; agree to use Senate Bill 22 funds and keep incentive pay in budget

McLennan County Commissioners devoted the bulk of the meeting to personnel and pay-plan choices, pressing staff for a workable budget figure and asking HR and finance to return with a specific distribution plan.

County staff presented updated figures reflecting a new cost-of-living (COLA) estimate of 1.76 percent and several pay-adjustment options, and HR summarized the costs for proposed changes to the step pay plan, incentive pay, and several new or reclassified positions. Staff repeatedly framed the decision as a matter of how much the general fund can commit versus how much can be covered using Senate Bill 22 funds.

After extended discussion about recruit-and-retain problems at the jail and in county law enforcement, the court coalesced around a financial target: staff were directed to craft an implementation option that fits an all‑in budget target of approximately $1.7 million (the court clarified that 1.7M should be inclusive of benefits). Commissioners discussed using up to $500,000 of anticipated Senate Bill 22 aid to reduce the general-fund portion, and they asked staff to return with the distribution of those funds across COLA, step adjustments and compression mitigation. Anna (HR) confirmed she would work back from the $1.7 million figure and present concrete allocation options.

The court also agreed to retain an incentive-pay placeholder in the budget: staff estimated $587,760 for incentive payouts (the number was kept in the plan for budgeting). The court accepted HR’s recommendation to include a night-shift nurse pay program in the budget (HR’s estimate was $46,800 total) and to work on training-pay adjustments for jail and deputy positions, with further refinement requested.

Staff and the sheriff’s office presented turnover data showing staffing pressure in corrections and law enforcement: since 2020, staff reported roughly 110 employees left for other law-enforcement agencies (including 34 jailers and 23 deputies who left to stay in law enforcement), with corrections showing heavier net loss than law enforcement. Commissioners used that data when discussing a strategy to improve entry-level competitiveness and to protect the internal law-enforcement promotion pipeline (jail-to-patrol).

The court approved several HR reclassifications and title changes by consensus, including moving two jail investigator positions from the corrections pay table to the law-enforcement pay table, reclassifying a county court clerk to court-administrator assistant, and adjusting an office coordinator in engineering to reflect development/permitting duties. The court also agreed not to add new headcount at this time, deferring several new-position requests for later review because of the county’s budget constraints.

On a proposed county contribution to employees’ dependent-care accounts (childcare subsidy), HR presented an estimate but the court declined to include the new benefit in this budget cycle; the court’s stated concern was the size of that new recurring commitment.

Court members asked staff to return the next day with updated budget worksheets showing the $1.7M all‑in option (with and without the $500,000 Senate Bill 22 allocation), the incentive-pay placeholder, and the agreed reclassifications so the court can see the effect on ending fund balance and the tax rate.