Roosevelt County commissioners press for clearer salary schedule, step increases and incentive accounting

Roosevelt County commissioners spent much of a budget work session probing inconsistencies in the county’s draft salary schedule and asking staff for clearer information on step raises and incentive pay.

Commissioners flagged several lines where headcounts and amounts did not match other worksheets, asking specifically who was counted under a "chief admin" line that rose from 213 to 382 between the prior and current budget write‑ups. Finance staff said some positions (including a grant position held for 'Carla') remain budgeted but are displayed on different tabs of the workbook, and that several pages had been updated the previous day and would be corrected and redistributed.

The commission pressed staff to break out incentive pay from base salary so the reports do not overstate regular pay. "If you subtract that incentive amount out, you know what I mean? Because it kind of skews," one commissioner said when discussing a $2,300 annual incentive shown for an employee described in the session as "Johnny." Staff acknowledged the workbook contained inconsistent figures for that employee and committed to correcting them.

Commissioners also debated whether step increases should be automatic or tied to performance evaluations. One commissioner said raises should follow supervisor evaluations, while staff explained the budget assumptions must include potential step moves so the county can plan for worst‑case cost outcomes. The commission asked staff to produce three columns for each employee: current pay, pay if the step increase is applied, and pay if a step increase is combined with a 3% cost‑of‑living adjustment.

On average‑pay issues, a participant who identified themselves as a retired member of the sheriff’s office said the last several years have seen substantial increases within the sheriff’s office and urged the commission to ensure fairness across departments. Staff noted prior statutory changes and a salary study in 2024 that led to larger adjustments for elected officials and certain positions, and said there has not been a comprehensive county salary study since then.

Staff promised to: correct the pages in the printed book, circulate the revised salary schedule (including an incentive column), and return with a deeper salary review at a future budget session. The commission agreed that having explicit incentive and scenario columns would make it easier to compare actual recurring pay versus temporary or certification‑based incentives.

The commission did not take formal votes on salaries at the session and directed staff to bring corrected documentation back to the next meeting.