Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Intergovernmental Relations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County and Law Enforcement Center to revisit captain pay after budget miscommunication
Summary
Commissioners and Law Enforcement Center (LEC) board members acknowledged a communication breakdown over whether the LEC captain’s salary would be split 50/50 between Ramsey County and the LEC; they agreed to revisit the joint powers agreement and the matter at upcoming meetings.
Get email alerts on the Intergovernmental Relations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners and Law Enforcement Center (LEC) representatives told the Ramsey County Commission they will revisit how the LEC captain’s salary and benefits are shared after acknowledging a communication breakdown.
The dispute arose after the LEC board voted not to include the captain’s salary in the LEC budget; county staff said the county’s preliminary budget had assumed a 50/50 cost share. Commissioners said the lack of prior coordination created confusion for the sheriff’s office and the LEC board.
Commissioners and the LEC representative discussed the fiscal and benefits implications. County representatives noted that corrections staff and LEC employees historically have different retirement benefit structures; the captain — employed through the sheriff’s office — would receive public‑safety retirement benefits that differ from other LEC staff and produce a larger county cost when split. Commissioners said the captain’s retirement benefit likely would remain tied to the county’s payroll and could not simply be reassigned to the LEC without changes to agreements.
Several commissioners said the county should update the memorandum of understanding or the joint powers agreement governing the LEC to clarify cost‑sharing and benefit responsibilities moving forward. No formal vote was taken at the commission meeting to change payroll or benefits; commissioners asked staff and the LEC board to address the issue at upcoming meetings so the arrangement is clear for the next budget cycle.
Commissioners also clarified that prior hiring and benefit decisions predate current leadership and that any structural change to retirement benefits would require formal agreement by the parties and could have long‑term cost implications.

