compensation for County
Supervisors was discussed in Loyalton by Sierra County Supervisors on January 17th at the Board of Supervisors’ meeting.
Supervisor Lee Adams said the finance committee looked at this as well to delete the idea of longevities for supervisors. He stated looking at a current chart, two supervisors have no longevity, two supervisors have one longevity and one supervisor has three longevities. The committee came up with locking the supervisors into the longevity 3 period. With this two supervisors would get 3 longevities, two supervisors would get two longevities, one supervisor would be Y rated and get a 5% bump and go to longevity 4 until that position is vacant and then it would go back to longevity 3. Adams said just like department managers the board’s salary would be set every time the board takes action. He stated County Counsel David Prentice indicated legislature has taken action where they can’t put salaries on autopilot, they have to take public action before setting salaries. Adams stated he had more trouble with this in that he is an incumbent and doesn’t know what he is worth or what anyone else is worth adding it is only a starting point for discussion. He added some benefit more than others, but all are locked into equal pay. Supervisor Scott Schlefstein was in full agreement with equal pay, but felt the base amount was unacceptable. He would be looking at an increase of $294.61 and after taxes it would amount to $100 and change. He said 5% wouldn’t add up to much. Schlefstein felt if it was increased $500 now and $500 down the road, it amounted to almost exactly 18% of the superior court judge’s salary, which was codified as the original intent. He stated if they went with the 18% of the superior court judge’s salary and take away the longevities, he’d be ok with it.
Supervisor Peter Huebner thought they would attract more candidates if the salaries were higher. He said he was in his 5th term and knew the workload going in but felt it was time to change to 18% of the judge’s salary. Schlefstein added county employees just lost health insurance premiums which was close to $500, adding if you keep adding up the costs it’s actually a decrease. He said it was $298 difference, adding they weren’t breaking any banks here. Schlefstein made the motion but to change to the 18%, which amounts to $34,490.16 annually. Every time the judge’s salary increases the board can change, but they need to bring it back to be voted on in a public meeting.
County Counsel felt this was a substantial change to the ordinance, and recommended bringing it back to the next meeting.
Since the ordinance was going to be modified, Huebner wanted to discuss the $100/month stipend for the Board Chair. He said it had been set at $100 for the last 20 years. Schlefstein agreed and said the workload for the Board Chair is far beyond $100 extra a month. Huebner felt $200 was not too much to ask.
Adams was not opposed, but has difficulty with what anyone is worth. He told the Board not to take his vote in opposition of what was being done, but at the same time he always looks at how they are treating others, and was having difficulties doing one thing for himself and another thing for others.
Schlefstein said it was only about a $205 difference from what the finance committee had proposed. All voted in favor of changing the ordinance to be brought back to the next meeting except Adams and Supervisor Paul Roen who was absent due to being caught in an ice storm in Iowa following a bull sale.
Supervisors was discussed in Loyalton by Sierra County Supervisors on January 17th at the Board of Supervisors’ meeting.
Supervisor Lee Adams said the finance committee looked at this as well to delete the idea of longevities for supervisors. He stated looking at a current chart, two supervisors have no longevity, two supervisors have one longevity and one supervisor has three longevities. The committee came up with locking the supervisors into the longevity 3 period. With this two supervisors would get 3 longevities, two supervisors would get two longevities, one supervisor would be Y rated and get a 5% bump and go to longevity 4 until that position is vacant and then it would go back to longevity 3. Adams said just like department managers the board’s salary would be set every time the board takes action. He stated County Counsel David Prentice indicated legislature has taken action where they can’t put salaries on autopilot, they have to take public action before setting salaries. Adams stated he had more trouble with this in that he is an incumbent and doesn’t know what he is worth or what anyone else is worth adding it is only a starting point for discussion. He added some benefit more than others, but all are locked into equal pay. Supervisor Scott Schlefstein was in full agreement with equal pay, but felt the base amount was unacceptable. He would be looking at an increase of $294.61 and after taxes it would amount to $100 and change. He said 5% wouldn’t add up to much. Schlefstein felt if it was increased $500 now and $500 down the road, it amounted to almost exactly 18% of the superior court judge’s salary, which was codified as the original intent. He stated if they went with the 18% of the superior court judge’s salary and take away the longevities, he’d be ok with it.
Supervisor Peter Huebner thought they would attract more candidates if the salaries were higher. He said he was in his 5th term and knew the workload going in but felt it was time to change to 18% of the judge’s salary. Schlefstein added county employees just lost health insurance premiums which was close to $500, adding if you keep adding up the costs it’s actually a decrease. He said it was $298 difference, adding they weren’t breaking any banks here. Schlefstein made the motion but to change to the 18%, which amounts to $34,490.16 annually. Every time the judge’s salary increases the board can change, but they need to bring it back to be voted on in a public meeting.
County Counsel felt this was a substantial change to the ordinance, and recommended bringing it back to the next meeting.
Since the ordinance was going to be modified, Huebner wanted to discuss the $100/month stipend for the Board Chair. He said it had been set at $100 for the last 20 years. Schlefstein agreed and said the workload for the Board Chair is far beyond $100 extra a month. Huebner felt $200 was not too much to ask.
Adams was not opposed, but has difficulty with what anyone is worth. He told the Board not to take his vote in opposition of what was being done, but at the same time he always looks at how they are treating others, and was having difficulties doing one thing for himself and another thing for others.
Schlefstein said it was only about a $205 difference from what the finance committee had proposed. All voted in favor of changing the ordinance to be brought back to the next meeting except Adams and Supervisor Paul Roen who was absent due to being caught in an ice storm in Iowa following a bull sale.
RSS Feed
