Humboldt County supervisors weigh converting sick leave into vacation time, call for work session

Humboldt County supervisors spent an extended portion of their meeting discussing possible changes to employee leave policy, including converting some sick days to vacation and whether to move to a paid-time-off (PTO) model. No formal policy change was adopted; supervisors directed staff to prepare detailed scenarios and scheduled a work session to draft options.

The discussion, which occupied much of the meeting’s latter half, grew out of concerns about recruitment and retention amid a tight county budget. Board member 1 said, “I think it would be a good thing to do,” when raising the idea of converting sick days into vacation days to give employees more flexible time off. Board member 6 and others pressed for options and asked human resources and legal staff to prepare written scenarios for review.

Why it matters: Supervisors said adjusting leave policy could help the county compete for employees without increasing base pay. Several members cited hiring difficulties for office staff and secondary roads employees, and compared leave packages to private-sector employers that offer multiple weeks of paid time off.

Board members discussed several concrete approaches that staff should model. Proposed elements included converting a limited number of sick days (for example, five sick days) into one week of vacation; lowering the sick-leave accrual rate from 1.5 days per month to a slower accrual while increasing vacation accrual; and grandfathering accrued sick leave for long-tenured employees so they would not lose accrued benefits. Board member 1 summarized one illustrative option: reducing annual sick days from 18 to about 13 and converting five sick days into a week of vacation.

Supervisors noted limits on what the county can change immediately. Several said union contracts for dispatchers, jailers, deputies and other represented employees are governed separately and cannot be altered by the board outside collective-bargaining. Board member 6 explicitly noted, “the union guys are under a whole totally different contract,” and county-wide policy changes would not supersede negotiated contracts.

Several supervisors urged caution about unintended consequences. One supervisor who said some employees have accumulated very large sick-leave balances noted that moving to PTO could disadvantage long-tenured employees who built large banks of sick leave. Others suggested possible mitigations: allow employees to donate sick time to colleagues in need, permit some conversion at retirement to help with post-retirement insurance, or set minimum balances before conversion is allowed.

Procedural next steps agreed at the meeting: supervisors asked staff and human resources to prepare written scenarios showing how multiple options would affect accrual, carryover, retirement buyout possibilities and departmental staffing. Board members said the policy rewrite should be handled through a work session rather than an immediate amendment in open session. Several supervisors asked that county legal counsel (Mike) and HR (Shauna) be involved; supervisors noted Mike was on vacation until the 19th and asked that staff reach him after his return.

No formal vote to change policy was taken. Board members agreed a work session will be scheduled shortly to review written scenarios and draft recommended changes to the personnel handbook. The board also noted that the change would not necessarily affect the county budget for payroll (hours paid remain the same), but could have other long-term fiscal implications that staff should analyze.

Quotes attributed in this article are taken from the meeting transcript segments where the leave-policy discussion occurred.