The Gallatin County Commission on June 17 approved the renewal of the county administrator’s employment agreement, Contract 2025484, setting the salary at $208,956.80.

The vote followed a half hour of public comment in which residents urged the commission to delay or reject the raise and to open the position to competition. “Please vote no on any increase,” said Eileen Guthrie, a Gallatin County resident who called for a pause, broader employee surveying and a public review of the administrator’s performance and the proposed pay adjustment.

Guthrie cited employee departures and alleged management concerns, and she asked the commission to “tap the brakes” for three to six months and advertise the job nationwide so the incumbent could reapply. “Open communication and public input are essential,” she said.

Amy Peacock, a former county justice court employee, told commissioners she left the job because daycare costs made continued employment untenable and urged them to reconsider the pay increase. “It really bothers me that this one person is getting so much more than everyone else,” Peacock said.

Commissioners offered differing views. Commissioner McFarland said, “It is my continued perspective that the organization would benefit from a change in leadership. So I won't be supporting the contract today.”

Other commissioners defended the compensation process and said the proposed salary was part of a market-based pay study applied across county leadership positions. A commissioner who spoke in support said the administration’s pay “has been moving with gradual increases” consistent with other chief positions and that the commission had negotiated the contract for roughly six months. That commissioner concluded, “I support the contract, as written.”

A motion to approve the county administrator contract was made and seconded; the motion carried and the contract was approved as presented. The meeting transcript does not record a roll-call tally; a commissioner explicitly said before the vote they would not support approval.

The contract and its salary figure were discussed in public as part of the regular agenda after the consent agenda. Public commenters asked the commission to survey employees about workplace concerns, to disclose the metrics behind the raise and to consider broader recruitment before finalizing compensation.

The commission did not state any follow-up tasks or additional review timeline during the meeting. The contract is effective per the terms shown on the agenda as Contract 2025484 for the county administrator.