Cameron County sets public notice on elected-official pay, approves judges’ supplement and 5% countywide raise

At its July meeting, the Cameron County Commissioners Court voted to publish a statutorily required notice listing maximum compensation levels the court will consider for elected officials and set a public hearing for Aug. 12, 2025. The court directed staff to publish figures that equal 75% of the average salaries for similarly sized Texas counties.

The action follows staff presentations comparing Cameron County pay to statewide peer counties and a discussion with several local judges who asked the court to increase the county supplement paid to district judges. The court later approved increasing the county supplement for district judges from $18,000 to $25,000 and directed county budget staff to implement a 5% across-the-board salary increase for county employees in the FY2025–26 budget process.

Why it matters: Commissioners and judges said Cameron County elected officials and many county employees are paid well below peer counties and that incremental increases are intended to close that gap while limiting the immediate budget impact. County leaders emphasized this is a publication of the maximum the court may consider — not a final salary setting — and that the public hearing will be the forum for comments before any final action.

Court discussion and data: Javier, a county staff member overseeing the compensation notice, told the court the notice is required by statute and “What this does, it, does 2 things. It notifies the public of the maximum compensation that, the Commissioner's Court is considering, in setting, for elected officials. And it also, notifies the public of the public hearing, and the date of when the commissioner's court will take action on that.” Staff said the figures presented were based on a Texas Association of Counties comparability report and more recent county-by-county updates compiled by staff for 2025.

Commissioners and some judges said last year’s first step in a multi-year plan narrowed the gap but that other counties are continuing to increase pay, meaning Cameron County risks falling further behind if it uses older comparison data. Commissioners noted the court had adopted a multi-year (5-year) plan aimed at reaching a target percentage of the peer average; the figures published for public notice will represent a 75% target of that peer average rather than full parity.

Judicial supplement and county courts: Representatives of the district bench addressed the court during the meeting and asked that the county increase its supplement to district judges to reflect recent state-level changes. The court approved raising the county supplement for district judges to a total of $25,000 (up from $18,000). Commissioners noted county court-at-law judges’ supplements are tied to the district judges’ adjustments and that the county will determine and publish corresponding figures for county court judges as part of the same notice process.

Budget directions: Separately, the court voted to direct county budget staff to allocate a 5% across-the-board pay increase for county employees in the FY2025–26 budget. Commissioners also asked staff to continue evaluating additional targeted adjustments for certain public-safety positions — specifically deputies and jailers — beyond the 5% increase, pending available funds and detailed budget work.

What the court approved (procedural): - Direction to publish a notice (statutory publication) showing maximum compensation amounts equal to 75% of the updated peer averages and to schedule a public hearing on Aug. 12, 2025. (Motion: Commissioner Lopez; second: Commissioner Garza; outcome: approved.) - Increase county supplement for district judges from $18,000 to $25,000 (Motion: Commissioner Lopez; second: Commissioner Gadsden; outcome: approved.) - Direction to allocate a 5% across-the-board increase for county employees in the FY2025–26 budget (Motion: Commissioner Godfrey; second: Commissioner Lopez; outcome: approved.)

Next steps and limits: The court’s vote to publish maximum compensation is procedural; final salary settings require a public hearing and later formal action. Staff will run the published notice, provide updated budget projections for the court’s next session, and present more detailed revenue/expenditure tables and requests from department heads in coming budget workshops. Commissioners emphasized the multi-year approach and said they prefer basing future steps on current, rolling peer comparisons rather than static past reports.

No precise vote counts beyond recorded motions and seconds were read into the record; each motion was accepted by voice vote with the court saying “Aye” and the presiding officer declaring the motion carried.