Colleyville staff recommends 5/10/5 pay adjustment after internal compensation study; cost ~ $744,481

Colleyville human-resources staff recommended that the city implement a set of pay-range adjustments and compression fixes to keep municipal jobs competitive, presenting an estimated one-time implementation cost of $744,481.

"As an organization, compensation studies ... evaluate all of its positions to determine whether they are still considered competitive within its market," said Jesse, the city's director of human resources, explaining the methodology and timeline the city used for an internal study begun in fall 2024.

The study compared Colleyville to nine peer municipalities and examined 78 general classifications, including 12 public-safety classifications. Staff used benchmark positions that are commonly found in comparable cities and judged competitiveness by whether Colleyville's pay fell within 5% of the identified market range. The review found that 24 general classifications were within 5% of the market, 18 general classifications were more than 5% behind the market, four public-safety positions were within 5%, and seven public-safety positions were more than 5% behind the market. Examples of classifications cited as lagging included facilities technician, public works technician levels, irrigation specialist, desktop support, police recruit/officer and certain fire ranks.

Staff proposed two implementation scenarios. The recommended option—described by staff as the "5/10/5" plan—would raise general-position ranges by 5%, increase entry-level public-safety ranges by 10% and increase senior public-safety ranges by 5%, and would include individual adjustments to address pay compression for tenured employees. Jesse said the plan is intended to prevent situations where recent hires are paid as much as or more than longer-serving employees. The recommended plan's total implementation cost is $744,481. A lower-cost alternative presented to council—a "4/8/4" scenario—was estimated at $554,657 but was not recommended by the city manager's office because staff said it would not adequately address current market gaps.

Council members sought clarity about distribution and impact. Staff said the majority of the recommended cost is attributable to police and fire: police and fire together account for roughly 70% of the projected implementation cost. Council discussion focused on recruiting and retention in public safety, with staff describing increased turnover in police and rising competitive pressure across multiple departments. Staff noted the structural effect of raising entry pay—an increase to entry pay also pushes up midlevel steps, creating additional cost beyond hiring incentives.

According to staff, the proposed implementation has been included in the draft FY 2026 budget so the cost is reflected in preliminary budget numbers. A separate city official (not named in the presentation) noted the inclusion relied on a homestead exemption design in the budget and said the adjustment as presented is not an additional add-on beyond the current draft budget.

Council members who spoke during the discussion expressed general support for addressing compression and public-safety recruitment needs while questioning how to balance competitiveness with the city's low tax rate. Staff said the internal study—conducted instead of hiring an external consultant—saved the city approximately $50,000 in consultant fees compared with the prior study (completed in fiscal 2021 and implemented in fiscal 2022).

Implementation steps outlined by staff included (1) adjusting pay ranges for affected general and public-safety plans and (2) applying individual compression adjustments to move tenured employees within the new ranges so new hires do not out-earn incumbent workers. Staff told council that only ranges that fell outside the 5% threshold would be adjusted.

The council did not take a formal vote during the work session; staff requested direction and noted the proposal was included in the FY 2026 proposed budget. Councilmembers asked for continued monitoring of turnover and market movement and for staff to return with any additional options if future market shifts require faster action.

Less critical details: staff reviewed comparator-city selection and the benchmarking approach, and they described the tradeoffs of more aggressive versus more modest adjustments. The study and slides presented to council broke out costs by department and highlighted that many lower-paid employees would feel the greatest impact of any insurance or compensation changes.