Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce And Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears proposal to continue COLA and merit increases, and a 7% health-insurance cost rise
Summary
County manager proposed a FY26 compensation package that includes a 2.8% cost-of-living adjustment, a 3% merit pool and an assumed 7% increase in health insurance costs; supervisors and staff discussed pay history, performance systems and the need to sustain recent gains in recruitment and retention.
County Manager Maury Thompson told the Board of Supervisors that a key priority in the FY2026 recommended budget is continued investment in employee compensation. The recommended package includes a 2.8% cost‑of‑living adjustment (COLA) and a 3% merit pool for eligible employees.
Thompson said the COLA and merit together reflect the board’s long-running priority to preserve gains from earlier compensation investments and help the county retain staff in competitive labor markets. He told supervisors, “This board and prior boards have done a tremendous job over the last many years addressing market pretty significantly.”
Thompson also flagged benefit cost pressures: in the proposed budget the county is assuming about a 7% increase in health insurance expense, which he said amounts to roughly $1,000,000 to the county’s share. Finance staff estimated the combined budgetary effect of COLA and merit (including wages, payroll taxes and retirement accruals) at roughly $4,000,000.
Supervisors pressed staff on recent pay history and the mechanics of merit. A board exchange summarized past actions and timetables: the county has used combinations of COLA, merit and periodic rebasing since 2015, and the recommended merit pool is designed to be allocated by departments using a central dollar figure so managers can direct pay increases to higher-performing staff. Human Resources staff and the county manager said they are expanding performance-management tools (NEOGov Perform) and training so merit decisions are tied to measurable objectives.
Why this matters: Thompson and department leaders said the county’s previous investments have reduced vacancy rates — especially in public safety — and that retaining staff is a cost‑effective alternative to repeated recruiting and training. Supervisors said they support continued compensation stability but noted the broader fiscal constraints and asked for details on the total dollar cost and timing of increases.
Ending: HR and budget staff said they will provide the board with more granular, department-level breakdowns of the total cost and the schedule for implementation; the FY26 personnel increases were built into the manager’s proposed budget presented during the study session.
