Sierra County supervisors held a policy discussion about restoring some form of longevity pay for department managers and directed county staff to model alternative schedules and cost impacts.

County counsel briefed the board on relevant legal guidance and case law that allows longevity if it is separate from merit pay and clearly documented; counsel also warned that retirement‑system (PERS) rules and audit scrutiny could affect long‑term treatment. Roberta Vander Plu, county counsel, noted that case law out of neighboring counties provides guidance but that PERS audits and evolving rules mean there is no absolute guarantee about future treatment.

Supervisors discussed several possible approaches, including a two‑step plan (5 percent at 10 years and an additional 5 percent at 20 years) and a three‑step, front‑loaded alternative (for example 5 percent at year 7, 4 percent at year 12, and 3 percent at year 20). No change was adopted at the meeting. Instead, the board asked staff to calculate the budgetary impacts of the two approaches and return with numbers at a future meeting.

Board members emphasized concerns about precedent and equity across service areas and asked that the analysis show both immediate fiscal costs and long‑term PERS implications. The board also agreed to consider COLA (cost‑of‑living adjustment) issues on a separate timeline.