Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gates County elections office seeks extra full-time staff and modest pay increases amid certification, payroll challenges
Summary
County elections staff requested a new full-time position, modest raises and budget adjustments to cover training, poll-worker pay and equipment; commissioners discussed payroll tax thresholds and asked staff for salary and staffing details.
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gates County elections staff told the Board of Commissioners on April 3 that they plan to request an additional full-time position, modest increases to the elections director salary and line-item adjustments in the proposed budget to cover training, equipment and poll-worker payroll changes.
The county’s elections director and staff said the office currently runs with one full-time position for the director plus part-time employees and seasonal poll workers. They described a certification process that can take up to three years for deputies and noted competition from neighboring counties for experienced staff, prompting the salary-review request. “We're trying to be competitive with these positions,” a county official said when describing neighboring counties' pay levels.
Why it matters: Commissioners and staff framed the request as workforce retention and continuity of operations, especially because election work requires certified staff with system access. The payroll treatment of seasonal poll workers also created unplanned employee tax liabilities in the last election cycle and is driving a proposal to enroll more poll workers in the county payroll system.
Details of the proposal and discussion
Elections staff reported the office spent just under $197,000 last year — about $18,002.15 under budget — and proposed adjustments for part-time worker pay, building rentals for polling sites, equipment, travel and two part-time office positions. Specific line items mentioned included building rental at $75 per election site and an estimate that 30 poll workers average $300 in pay per election for pre-election work and election day combined.
Staff said 45% of poll workers are currently entered into the payroll system and explained why more workers being put into payroll caused problems for some individuals: a federal reporting threshold (described in the meeting as $2,300 for the year) resulted in several seasonal workers unexpectedly owing taxes this year when their cumulative payments exceeded the threshold. Elections staff said about 14 workers were scheduled such that 7 went over the threshold in the last year, creating administrative and employee-relations issues.
Commissioners pressed for detail. One commissioner asked staff to email the board a breakdown showing current and proposed salaries, what the county would pay new hires, and how pay would change when employees obtain state certification. Staff agreed to provide salary figures and to bring written proposals to the board.
No final vote; follow-up items
Board members verbally supported moving to budget consideration but did not vote on staffing or salary changes at the meeting. Commissioners and staff agreed to return with precise salary numbers, proposed starting and certified pay levels, and a detailed budget line showing state reimbursements where applicable. Staff also said they would bring any immediate capital requests for the utilities fund to the board on April 16.
Ending
The elections office presentation concluded with commissioners asking staff to provide specific salary comparisons and the estimated fiscal impact, and with staff noting the recruitment and retention pressures that underlie the request.

