Commissioners debate pay-scale moves, DA expansion and timing for new district court staffing

Rockwall County commissioners spent extended time reviewing pay-scale adjustments, job-grade alignment for county clerks and how to phase hiring and funding for a newly authorized district court and a proposed district attorney office expansion. The court did not finalize a pay-scale decision but set direction for staff to return corrected payroll math and cost estimates before the next meeting.

Why it matters: Decisions about pay scales and job grades affect the county’s personnel budget and employee retention. Timing for bringing new judges and support staff on payroll changes near‑term budget needs and the amount of fund balance that would be used.

What the court discussed

Pay scales and job-grade movement: Commissioners debated moving the county’s pay scales by 4% versus 5.7%, a difference that proponents said would either reduce or spread the immediate budget impact. One estimate discussed by the court placed the full budget impact of a larger adjustment near $208,550 (figure presented during discussion), and commissioners asked staff to produce two accurate scenarios—one reflecting a 4% movement of scales and one at the previously proposed 5.7%—so the court can compare impacts including how new positions affect totals.

Clerks and job-grade adjustments: County staff and commissioners cited HR data indicating certain clerk positions were outliers and underpaid by job-grade midpoints. Commissioners asked HR and the auditor to prepare precise numbers showing the effect of moving specific clerk positions to higher job grades under both the 4% and 5.7% scenarios.

District court staffing timing and DA expansion: The court approved adding the district clerk position and computers (items 7 and 8) but debated whether to fund start dates for judge and support staff for 11 months, 10 months or 9 months of the fiscal year as a way to reduce first‑year costs. Kendra Culpepper, Rockwall County District Attorney, told the court she did not foresee a problem with the DA waiting to hire until January if the court elected to stand up operations then, but she said the county judge will need some lead time to hire judicial staff.

The DA expansion item was removed from the next budget draft and marked “waiting on estimate.” Commissioners said they will meet with the architect and the DA and asked staff to return cost estimates before a future vote; a proposal to set a $250,000 fund-balance cap for initial DA expansion spending was discussed but not adopted.

What comes next: The court directed staff to clean up payroll math and produce three sets of numbers: the budget impact at 4%; at 5.7%; and the impact of moving the identified clerks into the suggested job-grade changes. The court also asked for cost estimates from the architect for the DA expansion and for phased staffing cost scenarios for the new district court (judge-only in December vs. full operations in January). Commissioners agreed to revisit these items at the next meeting.

Ending

No definitive personnel or pay-scale action was adopted at this meeting; the court required staff to return corrected figures and phased implementation costs before making final budget decisions.