Nevada lawmakers hear SB116 to reset county elected officers' pay, tie raises to subordinates

Senate Bill 116, which would reset and rework how Nevada sets pay for county elected officers, drew about an hour of presentation, questions and public testimony Wednesday before the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. Sponsor Senator Skip Daley (R., Senate District 13) outlined a statutory “reset” of base salaries that were last adjusted in fiscal year 2018–19, a market-linked trigger for future increases and several guardrails for counties to apply the changes.

The bill would recalculate current statutory base salaries by applying CPI-U adjustments to the 2018–19 rates to establish a new base, allow county commissions to grant a one-time 2% across‑the‑board increase, and set future increases for most elected county officers at 3% above the highest-paid person they supervise. County commissioners would be handled separately: Clark and Washoe would receive county‑specific rates and all county commissioners would receive a 3% annual increase for five years under the proposal. Section 11 directs the interim Committee on Government Affairs to review whether county commissioner positions in Clark and Washoe should be full‑time and to recommend pay policy after the five‑year period.

Why it matters: county elected officers — treasurers, assessors, recorders, sheriffs and district attorneys among them — are paid under statutory schedules established by the legislature. Daley and multiple supporters said those rates have been stagnant since 2018–19 and create recruiting and retention problems, particularly when subordinates earn more than the elected official. Opponents called the bill an unfunded mandate that could increase local costs during tight budgets and said it creates incentives that could be abused.

Daley said the bill aims to “get the legislature out of setting the elected county officer's salary” by establishing a formula and local approval process; he told the committee, “These people haven't had a raise in 7 years.” He described the reset and the 3% trigger as a way to align elected pay with the local market and said counties would retain oversight through the county commission approval required when a subordinate's pay would trigger an increase.

Supporters who testified said the change would correct pay inequities and help recruit qualified candidates. Vincent Guthreau, executive director of the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), told the committee, “We are in full support of this bill,” and said NACO worked with the sponsor and county officials during drafting. Matt Griffin, who represented a coalition including the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association and the Nevada District Attorneys Association, described the measure as a parity and recruitment tool and said it also includes provisions to permit county commissions to reduce elected salaries in a fiscal emergency so they mirror cuts to other county employees.

Opponents and public commenters urged caution because of state and local budget pressures. Joshua Skaggs, legislative affairs director for the Nevada Republican Party, told the committee SB116 would be an “unfunded mandate” and argued private employers do not base pay on formulas tied to subordinate salaries. Kimberly Fergus, speaking in opposition, said the bill “hands far too much control to the county commissioners,” warning it could create incentives to raise subordinate pay to trigger higher elected‑official salaries. Several callers and organizations, including Nevada Families for Freedom and county Republican groups, expressed concern about timing and the effect on taxpayers.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on implementation details: how the 3% trigger would interact with longevity pay, how the 2% discretionary increase would be applied, and whether county managers' pay could drive commissioner pay. Daley and witnesses said longevity pay would remain separate from the new statutory base, the discretionary 2% must be applied across the board, and the 3% subordinate trigger is not intended to be driven by county managers' salaries for commissioners (the commissioners’ schedule is treated separately in the bill).

No committee vote was taken at the hearing. The committee closed testimony on SB116 and opened a separate hearing on SB313. The bill will return to the legislature for committee work and any amendments before it can reach a floor vote.