San Patricio County approves 2025 pay changes, supplements for pretrial and SB 22 funds

2068380 · January 6, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commissioners approved a 2025 salary schedule that includes a 5% cost-of-living increase for many positions, individual step and reclassification changes, and supplements paid from pretrial diversion and SB 22 funds; commissioners noted the auditors' and sheriff's figures were not yet included.

San Patricio County Commissioners Court on a series of motions approved the county's 2025 elected-official and employee salary schedule, and separately approved salary supplements funded from pretrial diversion and SB 22 funds.

County staff presented a salary report that included a 5% cost-of-living adjustment column, a new step-increase column and several grade reclassifications. The presenter said entries marked "NA" indicate positions that did not receive the standard 5% COLA because those positions were addressed separately (for example, elected officials or positions affected by earlier grievances or reclassifications). The presenter also said the auditors' office and the sheriff's department were not included in the general report because their payrolls were processed separately and will be included in a later consolidated payroll report.

The court approved salary supplements for specific county attorney staff to be paid from pretrial diversion funds for the 2025 calendar year. The county attorney's supplements from SB 22 funds were also approved after a clerk corrected one line item: a supplement for James Garner was adjusted to $24,117 (the presenter said the prior figure of $24,165 was off by a few cents). The court recorded that funds were available in the grant or fund accounts cited by staff.

Commissioners moved and seconded the items and approved them by voice votes. Questions from commissioners focused on why some lines were marked "NA" (answered as noted above) and on ensuring the auditors' office and sheriff's payroll changes would be reflected once their separate items were finalized.

The court also approved individual personnel actions on the record, including transfers and supplements listed on the personnel agenda. The motions passed on voice votes as recorded in the meeting.