Riley County approves CDL training loan-forgiveness program for public-works hires

Riley County commissioners voted to approve a training loan‑forgiveness program that will pay for commercial driver license (CDL) training for public‑works employees in exchange for an employee commitment to remain with the county for at least one year.

The program, proposed by Public Works staff, authorizes the county to pay for outside CDL trainers and to sign an agreement with trainees requiring repayment or legal recovery if an employee leaves before the agreed period. Commissioners approved the motion by voice vote.

Public Works Director John Ellerman told the commission the county has struggled to recruit CDL drivers and currently spends significant staff time training candidates in‑house. “What we'd like to do is ... start using [consultants] — they'll come in for a certain price, put them in our truck, but they're doing the training with that driver,” Ellerman said, describing options ranging from a low‑cost, classroom‑only package to a comprehensive, on‑site program.

Ellerman said the county’s recommended program runs about $5,500 per trainee, which trainers said includes multiple days of hands‑on coaching and a high pass rate. He told commissioners the $5,500 option is “high, but not compared to hiring, finding, training, and taking two people off the job.” He added the program would include an agreement requiring trainees to remain employed for at least one year or reimburse the county for training costs.

Commissioners pressed staff on how repayment would work. A commissioner noted a large up‑front cost could exceed a final paycheck and asked whether a prorated payback schedule had been drafted. Ellerman said the written contract presented to the county attorney did not include proration; he said staff used the contract to request full reimbursement but had discussed prorated alternatives during the meeting.

County legal counsel Bridal Parker said enforceability would be evaluated case‑by‑case but described a standard legal remedy if an employee left shortly after training: “We would just go and file a case in the district court under ... [the small‑claims/judgment] procedure” and, if necessary, seek wage garnishment from a future employer to satisfy a judgment. Parker said the county must balance enforceability against the practical limits of payroll deductions and the likelihood of recovering the full cost from a final paycheck.

Commissioners also discussed alternative designs to limit risk, including partial payroll deductions during the probationary period or requiring the employee to repay a prorated amount if they left early. Human resources and payroll constraints, county officials said, make payroll recoupment imperfect: “We can only recoup so much on the last paycheck,” one commissioner said.

Ellerman and other staff said the program also contemplates performance and training contingencies: if a trainee fails to pass despite good‑faith effort, managers would evaluate whether recoupment applies. Administrative supervisors said job offers already include expectations that some hires must obtain a CDL within a specified timeframe.

After the discussion commissioners moved and seconded approval of the county’s use of the training loan‑forgiveness agreement; the motion carried on a voice vote. Staff said they will finalize the agreement language and return to implement the program with written hiring agreements that reflect legal guidance and payroll limits.

The county did not set a program start date at the meeting; staff said details — including the vendor selected and exact repayment language — will be finalized in forthcoming administrative materials.