Bonner County leaders ask for detailed plan after prosecutor seeks 10% pay bump to aid recruitment

A Bonner County prosecutor’s office representative asked the Board of County Commissioners on Friday to consider a 10% across‑the‑board raise for county attorney positions to address a recruiting and retention shortfall, and proposed redirecting existing contract revenue and software funds to cover most of the cost.

The prosecutor’s office representative told commissioners the county’s attorney pay matrix “does not work well for the attorney positions in Bonner County anymore” and that the office was asking “for a 10% raise for our attorneys,” citing published salaries in nearby Kootenai County and difficulty filling vacancies.

The request followed discussion about a statewide pay increase for judges: commissioners and staff noted the Idaho Legislature approved a roughly 15% increase for some judicial salaries this year, which has shifted the local labor market and helped prosecutors apply for judgeships. Commissioners heard that Bonner County has lost deputies to neighboring counties and to judicial appointments and that some positions remain open for long periods.

As a funding proposal, the prosecutor’s office representative suggested repurposing two existing revenue lines rather than increasing the county’s overall budget: an $85,000 annual contract with the City of Sandpoint for prosecution services, and roughly $30,000 a year paid for a public‑records software subscription (about $2,500 per month). The presenter said those two streams would total about $115,000 and that the office’s attorney budget has been projected at roughly $1.09 million.

Commissioners and county staff cautioned that the full cost of a 10% wage increase would include benefit changes and could raise overall personnel expenditures by more than the base‑salary amount; one commissioner estimated benefit costs might add up to roughly 35% on top of raises as a working assumption. Commissioners asked county Human Resources and the auditor to produce an “apples‑to‑apples” comparison that would include base pay, fringe costs (FICA/PERSI and benefits), and the effect on the county’s step‑and‑grade structure.

Several commissioners emphasized fairness across county departments. “I want us to be consistent,” one commissioner said when discussing revenue currently placed in the general fund, adding that contract revenue earned by the prosecutor’s office should be treated consistently with other departmental revenue. Commissioners also asked staff to check whether moving the Sandpoint contract revenue into the prosecutor’s budget would create any gaps elsewhere; county staff said the contract revenue has historically been treated as undesignated revenue rather than funding a specific line item.

Human Resources staff warned that a simple increase to the wage base for positions in the civil pay grade could have unintended consequences across other departments that share the same grade structure, and suggested alternatives such as a pay code or specialty pay for prosecutor attorneys to avoid compressing or capping long‑tenured employees. Commissioners asked HR to assess whether additional salary grades or steps would be needed so employees would not “cap out” earlier under a new structure.

The board did not vote on any pay changes. Instead, commissioners directed the prosecutor’s office to work with the county auditor and human resources to return before the budget process with a detailed proposal that: (1) models base and total compensation (salary plus employer benefit costs) under several raise scenarios, (2) identifies recurring revenue that could be redirected without creating a shortfall, (3) assesses step‑and‑grade and compression risks, and (4) outlines options (flat percentage across positions, targeted adjustments, or a prosecutor‑specific pay code).

The prosecutor’s office and commissioners also discussed non‑salary factors affecting recruitment, including cost of living in Bonner County compared with Kootenai County, the shrinking applicant pool for prosecutor positions reported by law‑school contacts, and public perception of prosecutorial work. County staff suggested periodically reviewing city and other intergovernmental contract rates so the county does not “reshuffle burden” between taxpayers and county departments.

Staff indicated they will return with the requested analysis in time for budget deliberations. Commissioners expressed general support for exploring funding options but said they wanted full fiscal and personnel analysis before committing to a percentage increase.