Davis County budget committee weighs move to COLA-focused pay strategy as health and retirement costs rise

Davis County Budget Committee members and staff on an internal budget meeting reviewed compensation, benefits and recruitment data and discussed a possible shift in strategy that would prioritize broader cost‑of‑living adjustments (COLA) over larger merit pools and spot market adjustments.

County human resources and controller staff presented analyses showing market pressures, benchmark gaps and rising benefit costs that affect the county’s 2026 budget. Committee members and HR staff discussed order‑of‑operations options — applying a COLA first, then addressing remaining below‑market benchmarks — and considered nonwage options such as two or three “personal preference” days as part of total compensation.

Why it matters: payroll is a large share of the county’s spending and changes to pay policy affect department budgets and service levels. Staff told the committee that roughly two‑thirds of the general fund is payroll and that shifting how COLA and merit are applied materially changes the number of positions needing separate market adjustments.

Most important facts

- Staff reported that Davis County implemented a 0.5% pay‑scale adjustment (COLA) in 2025 and that benchmark analysis now lists 29 benchmarked job classifications that the county considers below market, affecting about 367 employees. By contrast, the prior year had 15 benchmarks affecting about 126 employees. Marina Brito (HR) described the benchmark grouping and headcounts.

- HR and controller staff presented modeling showing the budgetary effect of different order‑of‑operations. In the presentation staff estimated that: applying a 1% COLA first would reduce benchmark adjustment costs from about $1,000,000 to roughly $279,000; a 3% COLA scenario would reduce remaining benchmark needs more and was shown as costing approximately $3,000,000 overall. Staff emphasized the trade‑offs between broad COLAs and targeted market adjustments.

- Turnover and recruitment: staff reported an annual turnover rate near 17.1% and ongoing vacancies concentrated in public safety and corrections (multiple deputy and corrections vacancies cited). Recruiting metrics showed many job postings and fewer applications compared with earlier years; Indeed and LinkedIn were the largest applicant sources.

- Benefits and retirement pressures: HR flagged health‑plan cost trends and high medical loss ratios in the county’s plans and advised an estimated 11–12% increase in medical premiums for the coming plan year. Staff also discussed changes in the Utah Retirement System (URS): tier‑2 hybrid participants face an employee contribution increase (a roughly 0.49 percentage‑point increase cited for this cohort, which staff said brings some participants to roughly 1.3% in additional employee pickup), and the county’s employer rate is expected to decline slightly; staff characterized these retirement changes as an additional payroll cost pressure for some employees.

- Other budget items and direction: staff said the county will shift about 150 election poll workers to W‑2 status in 2026 to comply with IRS rules, and noted the county has about $7 million in opioid‑settlement funds available but stressed that the money is one‑time funding that should not be used for ongoing operating costs without care.

What committee members and staff said (selected quotes)

"We'll go through this quickly. I appreciate the team putting a lot of information together to look at," said Chris Bone (Human Resources) at the start of the presentation.

On housing pressures that inform recruitment and retention, Bone observed the local market: "the median home price in Davis County has slipped up upwards of $600,000." (presentation comment attributed to Bone).

Staff recommendations and next steps

Staff recommended the committee decide whether to prioritize a COLA this budget cycle and then apply benchmarking adjustments as needed, rather than the reverse order. They described that applying COLA first reduces the number of classifications that require separate market corrections and reduces the dollar cost of benchmark adjustments. Staff asked for guidance in time to finalize budget hearings and asked the committee to provide direction before a scheduled wrap‑up meeting.

No formal action or vote was taken during the presentation; committee members asked for follow‑up details (departmental distributions of above/midpoint pay, deeper breakout of health‑plan drivers, and the breakdown of job postings that were new versus replacements). Staff committed to send the slide deck and to provide additional detail at future budget hearings. The committee set a wrap‑up meeting on Friday, October 10, 2025, from 8:00–10:00 a.m., and noted a budget meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 23 (lunch meeting) after the regular commission meeting.

Ending

Staff framed the choices as strategic trade‑offs between broad, predictable pay increases and targeted, equity‑focused market corrections. They urged the committee to decide on the broad compensation approach soon so staff can complete departmental budget work and public budget hearings on schedule.