Committee hears bill to extend 1% longevity pay to county detention officers

A sponsor opened Senate Bill 236 by describing detention officers’ daily duties and arguing the employees deserve parity with sworn law-enforcement deputies. The sponsor said detention officers "face similar challenges, dangers, and stresses" and urged the committee to "go green."

Nannette Gilbertson, representing the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (MSPOA), told the committee there are 37 detention facilities in Montana, from four-bed county jails to Yellowstone County’s facility with daily populations that can approach 600. She cited Montana law — as currently written for deputies — that provides a 1% annual longevity increase and urged extension of that same benefit to detention officers. "The original intent of the 1% longevity was to encourage officers to stay in the profession," Gilbertson said.

Scott Van Dyken, undersheriff for the Cascade County Sheriff’s Office and MSPOA board member, said his jail is authorized for about 90 detention officers but currently is short roughly 25% of positions. He testified that adding longevity pay helped recruitment where his county included it in bargaining and that some smaller counties have left positions unfilled for long periods. "The average detention officer probably works approximately 2 years," Van Dyken said, and longevity payments can help reduce turnover.

An online witness, John Marshall, spoke in support; a detention officer who identified themselves as Rebecca Guerra described starting pay of about $19.01 per hour from an MSPOA salary survey and urged passage to improve retention and safety.

Committee members asked about the fiscal effect on counties. The sponsor and witnesses said the fiscal note showed no state cost but that counties that do not currently provide longevity would see a cost. Jason Riddle of the Montana Association of Counties (MAKO) described the opposition as "soft" and said the cost is concentrated in smaller counties that lack collective bargaining agreements; he said most stakeholders agreed passage was appropriate.

The sponsor closed by noting larger counties already include longevity in contracts, stakeholders discussed an amendment to narrow impact, and he asked committee members to support the bill. No formal committee vote is recorded in the transcript.