Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves labor MOUs and compensation summaries for employees, executives and elected officials
Summary
Supervisors approved three memoranda of understanding (Deputy Sheriffs Association, Sheriff's Management Association, Management Employees Association) and two non‑represented compensation summaries (senior executives, elected officials) setting multi‑year salary increases, targeted market adjustments and new incentives.
The Board of Supervisors on June 24 approved a package of labor agreements and compensation summaries that cover represented employees and non‑represented executives and elected officials.
Assistant County Executive Officer Patrick Eidman and Human Resources laid out the common structure: a three‑year compensation framework (effective July 1, 2025–June 30, 2028) with baseline general salary increases of 2% in 2025, 3% in 2026 and 2% in 2027. Specific units received additional, unit‑specific adjustments.
Key terms include:
- Deputy Sheriffs Association (DSA): baseline increases plus increased education incentives and a new longevity incentive (1.5% at 10 years in 2026 and an additional 1% in 2027) and market adjustments phased over the term. - Sheriff’s Management Association (SMA): higher educational allowance increases, expanded specialty pay for critical‑incident negotiation team members and multi‑year market adjustments. - Management Employees Association (MEA): increases in personal leave accruals to match confidential staff, a redesign of tuition assistance to a simplified forgiveness model and classification‑specific market adjustments in later years.
For unrepresented staff, the board approved targeted market equity adjustments for 10 of 27 senior‑executive positions (e.g., Chief Information Officer, Undersheriff, Director of Behavioral Health) and approved compensation summary changes for six elected‑official positions, including a higher car allowance and a new 2.5% allowance for elected officials who serve on state professional boards.
Public comment included requests to reexamine the county’s comparable‑county list and calls for fiscal restraint. One commenter urged the board to revisit the comparable counties used in market surveys; another called for a COLA freeze for elected officials to signal fiscal caution. Supporters argued that competitive pay helps retain experienced staff necessary to deliver services.
The board adopted each agreement/resolution in succession. The elected‑officials compensation resolution passed with one dissenting vote.
Why it matters: The agreements set employee pay and benefits for multiple years, shaping recruitment and retention and affecting the county’s personnel costs. Several supervisors and members of the public urged continued attention to comparative market benchmarking and long‑term fiscal impacts.
