Commissioners workshop examines 5% cost‑of‑living raise, longevity changes and retirement‑match options
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
County staff proposed a 5% across‑the‑board cost‑of‑living increase for employees, changes to the longevity program (now $6 per month credit after 5 years, capped at $1,800) and scenarios for increasing the county retirement match from 110% to 150% or 200% with associated cost estimates.
Sandra, the county budget officer, presented multiple personnel scenarios for commissioners to consider as part of next year’s budget, including a proposed 5% cost‑of‑living increase, modifications to the longevity program and alternative retirement‑match levels.
Cost‑of‑living and longevity: Sandra said she budgeted a 5% cost‑of‑living increase across the board and proposed beefing up the county’s longevity program to help address pay disparities that have developed over time. The county’s current longevity policy begins after five years of service and pays $6 per month of credited service up to a 25‑year cap (maximum payment $1,800); Sandra presented scenarios to increase the monthly credit (examples discussed: $10 or $12 per month) and to remove or extend the cap so longer‑tenured employees receive larger lump‑sum payments paid in November.
Retirement match scenarios: The county currently requires a 6% employee retirement contribution with the county matching at 110%. Sandra presented modeled costs for alternative matches (all figures represent staff estimates): increasing the match to 150% (county cost increase to roughly $323,000 more than current), and to 200% (county cost increase to roughly $455,000). Applying increased matches retroactively to past deposits would raise the one‑time cost substantially (Sandra presented larger estimates if applied retroactively).
Other compensation items: Department heads also requested targeted adjustments: the county treasurer and other offices sought small top‑up pay increases funded from restricted funds for specific offices; the sheriff asked to promote one deputy to sergeant (creating a night sergeant slot) and to use remaining Senate Bill 22 funds to increase pay for deputies and dispatchers, subject to the grant’s annual availability. Sandra cautioned that pay items funded by Senate Bill 22 are contingent on the grant and would need employee acknowledgements that the pay is grant‑dependent.
Why it matters: Recurring salary and retirement commitments represent a significant ongoing obligation in the county’s payroll (Sandra estimated total payroll near $5.6 million); commissioners must weigh competitive pay and retention against long‑term fiscal sustainability.
Next steps: Sandra will produce costed scenarios for commissioners to review with final revenue numbers in August. Any changes to retirement match or longevity would require action by the commissioners and potential updates to the employee handbook.
Sources: Remarks by Sandra, county budget officer; comments from department heads and elected officials during the workshop.