Page County supervisors weigh employee pay increases, ask staff to rerun numbers at 3.75%

Page County Board of Supervisors members spent the bulk of a budget work session reviewing proposed employee pay adjustments and discussing how to fit raises into next year’s budget. Board members asked staff to rerun the payroll projections using a 3.75% increase across the board and to refine figures for the county attorney positions and retirement payroll impacts.

The discussion centered on two competing approaches staff had prepared: a dollar‑plus‑percentage model that included a $1 addition and a 4% increase for some jail positions, and a straight percentage increase that board members asked to test at 3.75%. Supervisors noted deputies’ pay comparisons used as reference in the packet range from roughly 74% to 80% relative to a baseline “downstairs” pay group; that spread drove much of the detail work and disagreement over exact dollar impacts.

Board members and staff reviewed sample calculations for several positions. Staff said deputies’ present pay in the packet ranged from about 74% to 80% of the benchmark used for comparison. For two specific county attorney positions under review, staff discussed converting hourly positions to salaried roles and reducing an originally proposed assistant salary in order to make room in the budget for broader raises for rank‑and‑file employees. Supervisors asked staff to re‑run numbers with the part‑time attorney position set at $85,000 and to recalculate employer FICA and IPERS costs.

Supervisors repeatedly cautioned they do not yet know where the final totals will come out and that adjustments might be needed after staff returns with updated spreadsheets. At one point a board member summarized the group’s direction: staff will run the payroll numbers using 3.75% for the general increase, make the county attorney part‑time assistant $85,000 for modeling purposes, and then return with revised totals that include recalculated FICA and IPERS.

Board members discussed process issues raised by the calculations: inconsistencies across different worksheets, how to display large capital or one‑time items, and the desirability of asking department heads to identify discretionary line items (for example 3%–5% cuts) that could be reduced if needed to fund raises. Members emphasized the need to keep raises defensible to taxpayers while trying to make progress on bringing deputy and jailer pay closer to area comparators.

The board took no formal vote on the pay plan during the session; instead members directed staff to rerun the budget projections with the 3.75% option and the $85,000 part‑time assistant assumption and to return with reconciled totals.

Looking ahead, supervisors noted next year’s budget will have additional pressure from a new jail the county is planning to open, and members flagged that future operating costs for a new facility are still unknown and could increase long‑term pressure on county finances.