Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cass County approves higher base pay for sheriff’s roster positions to help fill weekend and hospital shifts
Summary
The board approved moving non‑full‑time roster correctional and field positions from a flat $22 hourly rate to step‑1 of the county pay grades (B31/B32), increasing hourly pay and allowing roster workers to receive annual cost‑of‑living adjustments.
The Cass County Board of Commissioners voted to change the compensation structure for roster positions in the sheriff’s office, moving part‑time jail and field roster workers from a flat $22 hourly rate into step‑1 of their respective pay grades.
Sheriff Johnner said the roster positions — 12 jail roster and 10 field roster spots — provide supplemental staffing for jail shifts and field events such as university athletics and hospital watches. He said the current $22 hourly rate had made it difficult to fill certain weekend and hospital shifts. “Some of these individuals don't want to give up family time for $22 an hour,” the sheriff said, arguing that higher base pay would help recruit people willing to take those shifts.
Under the approved change, jail roster workers would move to step‑1 of the correctional officer pay grade (about $25.95 per hour under the matrix shown to commissioners), and field roster workers to step‑1 of the licensed pay grade (about $28.53 per hour). The board was told the county would keep roster employees at step‑1 (they would not automatically advance down the step column) but that they would receive any annual cost‑of‑living adjustment applied to the pay matrix.
Sheriff Johnner explained the financial impact based on prior hours worked: the jail roster change could add roughly $25,000 annually and field roster roughly $7,000, estimates he said could vary. County staff and the HR director reviewed the proposal and had no objections; staff said the pay model aligns roster compensation with the county’s overall pay matrix and that the county can absorb the estimated increase within current budgets.
Commissioners questioned policy implications about whether roster employees would automatically advance through steps; county HR confirmed roster positions are treated differently from regular FTEs and the county would keep them at step‑1 while applying annual cost‑of‑living adjustments.
Commissioner Capitan moved to approve the roster pay change; Commissioner Flacco seconded. The board approved the change by recorded affirmation.
