Valley County commissioners delay salary decisions, ask HR for detailed justification of new positions

Valley County commissioners on Tuesday reviewed recommended wage changes and a list of requested new positions from the county HR director but did not approve raises or new hires, saying they need more written justification and projected budget numbers before making decisions.

The discussion centered on a draft compensation plan from HR director Mike Savoy and a separate spreadsheet listing proposed positions. Savoy presented a plan that would give all employees either a 3% pay increase or a $1.00‑per‑hour raise, “whichever is greater,” and estimated the change would cost the county “below 4%” overall. He also said the proposal would lift the county’s lowest hourly rate from $17.50 to $18.00 and that people earning roughly $33.33 per hour or more would receive the 3% increase instead of the flat dollar bump.

Commissioners pressed for detail on how newly requested roles would change service levels and where the funding would come from. They noted some requested positions are already in process — for example, a payroll specialist that “we’ve already hired” — while others are constrained by state requirements, such as an appraiser position that “the state steps in and says you need another appraiser” when caseloads rise. Commissioners raised concerns about adding new positions when existing vacancies remain unfilled.

Savoy recommended compiling complete documentation and returning the item to the board at a follow‑up workshop on July 16. He asked departments and elected officials proposing new positions to provide “star sheets” that explain why each position is critical, what service level would improve, and the fiscal impact. The chair directed that those materials be shared with commissioners before the next meeting.

Discussion also considered overall revenue pressures that will constrain raises and hiring. Commissioners and staff referenced several revenue lines — including new construction and building‑permit receipts — that are below prior projections. One commissioner noted new construction would add roughly $230,000 in taxable value, but that, combined with a typical 3% budget increase, would still not cover the full cost of the proposed raises and new positions. The group flagged the county’s use of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to backfill the general fund and debated whether more PILT should be budgeted as projected revenue rather than reserved for future capital needs.

No formal vote or adoption occurred. Commissioners directed HR to prepare the requested justification materials, asked that elected officials and department directors who proposed positions attend the July 16 workshop, and reserved final action until after updated revenue figures and the requested position justification are available.

Ending: Commissioners emphasized timing: they do not expect to approve a final salary schedule or add new positions until they have the written “star sheets,” updated revenue projections and the July 16 follow‑up discussion. Several commissioners noted they want to avoid compressing existing pay scales and to preserve remaining cash for emergencies.