Bonner County reviews pay benchmarking, asks HR to narrow comparison set and deliver cost estimates

At a Bonner County budget workshop, commissioners and HR staff reviewed a compensation benchmarking report and proposals to adjust paygrades for select positions. HR staff presented comparable wage data pulled from multiple Idaho counties, several cities and a regional survey and proposed some grade changes for positions it identified as having high turnover.

The discussion focused on whether the set of comparison jurisdictions and the methodology give an accurate picture of the county’s competitive market. Commissioners raised repeated concerns that using large southern counties such as Ada County and some southern markets inflates averages for jobs Bonner County needs to retain, while very small or structurally different districts bias comparisons downward.

Why it matters: commissioners said the benchmarking will influence next fiscal year’s personnel costs and could affect recruitment and retention in key areas including the prosecutor’s office, road and bridge, GIS, IT and law enforcement. Commissioners also asked for the county’s broader budget and insurance estimates before approving any pay changes.

HR presentation and the data

An HR staff member summarized the packet: “So what you do have in front of you is our benchmarking results and our proposed changes for certain positions. Not all positions were benchmarked this year, just the ones that have or what we identified as having a high turnover.” The HR staff member said comparable data came from Ada County, Spokane County, Nez Perce County, Latah County, Kootenai County, Blaine County, Valley County, Twin Falls County, Bannock County, Bonneville County, the cities of Post Falls, Sandpoint and Coeur d’Alene, and the Milliman Inland Northwest survey.

Commissioners pressed HR on the mechanics. One commissioner asked whether the “hourly comparison average” was an average of all listed jurisdictions; HR replied that for each comparison it used an average of the counties and municipalities in the list. Commissioners also asked how the comparator set was chosen; HR said it relied on job‑description matches and excluded jurisdictions or specific positions that did not appear comparable.

Concerns about comparator selection and methodology

Several commissioners said the current approach risks “handpicking” comparators and producing skewed averages. One commissioner said selecting counties case‑by‑case “feels like manufacturing the data,” and argued the county should use a consistent geographic rubric tied to where Bonner County actually competes for labor. Another commissioner suggested using the top five northern Idaho counties as the primary comparator set and adding Pend Oreille and Spokane counties as supplemental comparators because those jurisdictions are within the county’s labor market and are sources of staff migration.

Commissioners also said some county functions are not comparable across jurisdictions. Road and Bridge and independent highway districts, for example, have different mileage and organizational structures; commissioners asked HR to carve out road and bridge and run a like‑for‑like comparison for that program. IT, sheriff’s office roles and the prosecutor’s office were raised as distinct concerns; the sheriff’s department was not benchmarked in this packet, and the prosecutor’s office is losing attorneys to higher pay elsewhere.

Costs and timing

The Auditor/Clerk provided preliminary cost context: “A step increase is gonna be just under 700,000 across the board, and 3% would be about 900,000. Our total salary and benefit budget last year was right about 28,000,000.” The Auditor/Clerk and HR staff said the county needs an updated insurance quote before finalizing budget capacity for pay changes.

Direction from the board

Commissioners directed HR to re‑run the benchmarking using the top five northern Idaho counties as the primary comparator set, with Pend Oreille and Spokane included as supplemental comparators, and to flag any positions with no comparable match as a one‑off that will require manual review and documentation of differences. They asked HR to carve out Road and Bridge for a separate, like‑for‑like comparison (including considering Idaho Transportation Department data for the Northern Region where appropriate), and to include private‑sector comparators for roles where leakage is to contractors or private employers (for example CDL drivers and certain operators).

Commissioners asked HR and the Auditor/Clerk to email an updated spreadsheet with both the reworked comparisons and budget projections (with and without a 3% cost‑of‑living adjustment and with the single‑step scenario). HR said it would need about one week to rerun and reformat the data; commissioners proposed scheduling a short follow‑up meeting the next Thursday if needed but also said they could review emailed spreadsheets and ask questions by email to speed the process. No formal vote or ordinance was taken at the workshop.

Substantive equity concerns

Several commissioners emphasized correcting prior compression or inequities before applying a uniform cost‑of‑living adjustment. Commissioners cited GIS employees who had received smaller increases in prior cycles and the prosecutor’s office, which commissioners said is “leaking” attorneys to other jurisdictions and needs targeted adjustments. Commissioners repeatedly stressed that any final recommendation must identify which positions were adjusted, why, and the funding availability before formal approval.

Next steps

HR will rerun comparisons per the board’s direction, provide an updated spreadsheet and cost estimates (single‑step and 3% COLA scenarios) and note one‑off positions that require manual matching. The Auditor/Clerk will seek and share the updated insurance quote needed to finalize budget availability. The board did not adopt any pay changes at the meeting and left final action contingent on updated cost and insurance data.

Ending

Commissioners closed the workshop with agreement on the requested follow up: HR to rework the comparators and provide detailed spreadsheets and cost estimates, and staff to supply insurance and budget context so the board can consider targeted corrections and broader COLA options in upcoming budget deliberations.