Brazos County court considers market-based pay overhaul, weighing $1.2 million full plan vs. phased approach

The Brazos County Commissioners Court on June 9 reviewed a nine-month countywide classification and compensation study and asked HR for directional guidance to implement the new structure in fiscal 2027.

Jennifer, an HR lead who presented the work, said the review covered 998 positions and consolidated 433 unique job titles into 305, with the goal of creating a market-based, defensible system for future pay decisions. “What it is is a market based framework that gives this court and the county a defensible foundation for compensation decisions going forward,” she said.

The study’s findings show about 17% of positions (173 of 998) fall below midpoint while a substantial share sit at or above market, producing pay compression and inconsistent internal pay relationships, Jennifer said. The presentation proposed two funding options for FY27: a full approach to move all below-midpoint positions to midpoint at an estimated $1,200,000 including benefits, or a phased plan that uses up to 10% increases and would cost about $755,000 and leave roughly 73 positions below midpoint.

Judge-elect Kyle Cassell urged the court to start implementation in FY27 rather than delay to FY28, arguing earlier action would create budgetary clarity and momentum. “Starting this in 2027 is the right thing to do,” Cassell said, and added that unfunding vacant positions could reduce the net cost.

Several county officials and department heads who spoke during the public-comment portion raised concerns about the study’s comparator data and recruiting realities. David Hilburn, a judge who said his office has four employees, asked for access to the underlying comparator data before agreeing to wholesale changes, saying small departments need granular evidence to assess impacts.

Jarvis Parsons told the court the midpoint framework may have ‘cherry-picked’ comparators and does not fully reflect SB 22 funding dynamics that benefit certain counties. “The counties … get a certain pot of money,” Parsons said, arguing that midsize counties such as Brazos must account for SB 22’s effects when setting base salaries or risk continued turnover.

Brian Baker, speaking about the district attorney’s office, supported lifting underpaid positions but warned that budgeting everyone to midpoint could prevent offices from hiring at market rates for specialized roles. “If we budget to the midpoint, we can’t get the people we need to do the job,” he said, urging a targeted approach to bring low-paid staff to midpoint without locking future hiring budgets.

Auditor Marcy Turner noted only three of her seven positions received external market comparisons and recommended HR not automatically increase a budgeted salary to midpoint unless a position had an external market analysis. Nina Payne, the county’s budget officer, responded that the study represents months of validation and that HR needs direction now to implement any changes for FY27; she warned that delaying a decision would push back implementation.

Commissioners discussed possible funding offsets, including unfunding positions vacant six months or longer and placing funds in contingency to cover early-year costs. Several court members favored the phased approach as a cautious way to begin alignment while reserving funds if urgent hiring requests arise between now and the budget process.

HR said the consultant’s comparator list and midpoint calculations are based on the selected competitor set and that the court could direct HR to prioritize local competitors or a different comparator mix moving forward. The court did not take a formal vote at the workshop; instead, members signaled preferences and asked HR to return with budget-ready recommendations for the August workshops.

The court adjourned after giving HR direction to proceed with further analysis and implementation planning, with HR noting it would need clear guidance soon to meet FY27 deadlines.