Committee hears bill to reset county elected‑official salaries and add automatic triggers; several counties support, public expresses opposition

Senator Skip Daly, R‑District 13, presented Senate Bill 116 to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs as an attempt to update base salaries for county elected officials that have been unchanged since fiscal 2018–19. Daly said the bill would "adjust the base rates" for elected county officers other than county commissioners and establish a 3 percent trigger that raises an official's pay to 3 percent above the highest paid subordinate when that circumstance occurs.

"Currently the salary is, for elected officers are currently set by statute and have not been adjusted since fiscal year 20 eighteen‑nineteen," Daly told the committee. He said the bill seeks to make salaries more competitive so counties can attract and retain qualified people.

Major elements described by the sponsor and the amendment discussed in committee include:

- Reset and trigger: The bill would reset base salaries for a range of elected county officials and establish an automatic adjustment: if a subordinate or supervised employee's pay exceeds the elected official's pay, the official's pay could be adjusted to be 3 percent higher than that subordinate. The sponsor described guardrails so that routine hires within preapproved pay ranges would not require separate commission action.

- County commissioner pay tiers and phased increases: County commissioners are treated separately. The amendment sets county commissioner base rates by county group, for example a $39,000 base rate for counties including Lyon, Carson City, Elko, Story, Douglas and Nye; other rural counties would be placed in lower tiers such as $36,000, $33,000 or $30,000 depending on county classification. The amendment also included a 3 percent annual increase for county commissioners for five years.

- Ability to pay and budget protections: The sponsor and witnesses said the bill does not use state funds and that county commissions retain authority over implementation. The bill includes a provision allowing counties experiencing a fiscal shortfall to reduce elected official pay across the board at least as much as other employee reductions.

Representatives of county associations and elected officers testified in support. Shawnine Garen, president of the County Fiscal Officers Association of Nevada and Douglas County recorder, told the committee the association worked with the sponsor and supports a cost‑of‑living adjustment to make salaries competitive. Vincent Guthro of NACO (Nevada Association of Counties) said counties expect an initial fiscal impact but that salaries should be more stable and predictable afterward. Washoe County Assessor Chris Sarman and representatives from Nye, Story and Lincoln counties also testified in support, saying rural counties face staffing and recruitment challenges.

Public testimony included opposition. Callers and local citizens argued the timing was wrong given broader economic pressures and questioned whether counties could afford the increases. Janine Hanson, state president of Nevada Families for Freedom, said she had not seen the amendment before the hearing and urged caution given economic uncertainty. Several callers argued the measure amounted to an unfunded mandate on counties and criticised automatic triggers that could be manipulated.

The sponsor noted the amendment limits the bill's fiscal impact on the state — "there is 0 fiscal impact to the state budget" — and that the appropriation and funding responsibility would remain at the county level. Daly said the bill's effective date is July 1, 2025, and asked the interim committee to study whether Clark and Washoe counties' commissioner positions should be considered full time.

The committee held a public hearing that included multiple county officials and association representatives supporting SB 116 and several callers in opposition; no committee vote on the bill was recorded at the hearing.

Supporters said the bill is intended to modernize pay to match market conditions and avoid pay inversions where deputies or staff earn more than their elected supervisors. Opponents said automatic adjustments could reduce local budget flexibility and expressed concern about the timing and transparency of the amendment distribution.

If enacted, the bill would require counties to implement salary resets and manage local budgets accordingly; the sponsor and county representatives said they had informed counties about the proposed changes and expected counties to account for the increases in local budgets.