Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nueces County commissioners debate 2% versus 3% pay bump as budget workshop flags tight reserves
Summary
At a budget workshop, commissioners reviewed a detailed payroll breakout and debated whether to approve a 2% baseline cost-of-living increase or a 3% raise that would cost roughly $1 million, while staff warned pension rules and reserve targets limit options.
At a budget workshop Tuesday, commissioners of Nueces County debated whether to give county employees a 2% or 3% cost-of-living increase and examined related step increases, reclassifications and pension constraints.
Speaker 6 (unidentified) urged a 3% increase — or at least 2.5% — saying lower-paid employees need the boost and offering cost estimates for alternatives. "I recommend the 3%," Speaker 6 said, citing calculations that put a 3% COLA at roughly $1,000,000 and 2.5% near $840,000. Speaker 2 (unidentified), who presented payroll breakout figures, said a 2% COLA would affect about 553 employees in one group and another 253 in a second group, with additional buckets for step increases, reclassifications and employees covered by the sheriff's contract.
The question of funding the increase focused attention on the county's reserve goal. Speaker 3 (unidentified) and Speaker 2 confirmed the court's reserve target is 25% and that current projected reserves are about 25.3%, leaving a narrow margin for additional spending. "We're looking at 25.3%. So we're right at our target," Speaker 2 said.
Pension rules further constrain choices. Speaker 5 (unidentified) told the court it has "no options available to you to change" the TCDRS interest rate, limiting flexibility on retirement costs; Speaker 2 confirmed the county's TCDRS contribution rate is 7% compared with the city's 6%.
Speaker 2 provided a granular breakdown of affected staff: 86 employees would receive a 2% COLA plus step increases; 42 employees could receive 2% plus reclassification adjustments; and 4 attorneys (two in the county attorney's office and two in the district attorney's office) were identified in a combined category. County court-at-law judges (55) were noted as excluded because their salaries are set by statute.
Commissioners also discussed precinct funds and the optics of elected officials accepting raises. Speaker 6 suggested commissioners could refuse their own raises or reallocate precinct money to help fund employee increases; Speaker 1 pushed back, noting that giving up a commissioner's precinct allocation would leave that commissioner with no discretionary funds and that any commissioner can refuse the raise by letter.
Budget staff reminded the court that revenue and expenditure estimates are tight. The current-year budget was listed at about $69,070,000, with actuals running roughly $550,000 higher than budgeted in the last year — described by staff as a close margin. Health-care cost increases totaling about $6.5 million over three years were highlighted as an expense the county has absorbed without passing costs to employees.
No formal vote was taken at the workshop. Commissioners asked staff for options and additional arithmetic to reconcile the competing goals of supporting lower-paid employees, maintaining the 25% reserve target and honoring contractual obligations that affect certain employee groups.
The court left the matter open for further consideration and directed staff to continue running scenarios to identify funding sources and the fiscal impact of alternate COLA levels.
