Cole County commissioners continue discussion on elected-officials' salary adjustments, request more comparables and job descriptions

Cole County commissioners held an extended discussion Jan. 28 on salary adjustments sought by elected officials and their staff, but did not vote on any raises. Commissioners asked for more comparative data, job descriptions, and salary grids before taking action.

Collector Larry (first name only in transcript) presented a request that would total $8,000 for his office: $4,000 for his chief deputy, $2,000 for his collector supervisor and $2,000 for a deputy collector. He compared chief-deputy pay with Boone, Cape Girardeau and Jasper counties and said his staff are cross-trained, bonded and manage a diverse workload that does not scale down with county size. Larry cited that his office handles roughly $100 million annually and that his chief deputy served in the collector role when he was out on medical leave.

County Auditor Sheila (first name only in transcript) described the information-gathering role of her office. She said she reached out to multiple counties for comparable salary data, collected Boone County’s published grid, requested job descriptions and performance reviews, and asked each elected official to provide job descriptions where missing. Sheila recommended using sunshine requests for county salary grids or ranges when direct responses are slow. Commissioners discussed which counties should be used as comparables, with suggestions including Boone, Cape Girardeau, Camden, Jasper, Pettis and other first- and second-class counties; several commissioners also suggested excluding charter counties (St. Louis, Jackson, St. Charles) because they are not comparable.

Commissioners debated the scope and method of addressing pay concerns: whether to target specific offices where turnover or “poaching” is occurring (sheriff and specific public-works roles were raised earlier), to implement career-path/pay-grid structures (for example, clerk 1/2/3 steps), or to commission a countywide salary study. Some commissioners noted past work such as an Archer salary study that had limited implementation because of funding at the time; others pointed to recently created advancement paths in Public Works as a model. Several commissioners emphasized fiscal constraints and the need to avoid unplanned, unfunded increases that could strain county reserves, while at least one commissioner said the county has earned interest and reserves that make modest increases possible.

No formal motions to award increases were made; commissioners agreed to continue the issue and to collect more data. The clerk/auditor was asked to issue sunshine requests for salary grids and ranges for first-class counties and other comparables identified by commissioners so the commission can “fill the sheet” with data and return with proposals.

Ending: Commissioners placed the item on the agenda for the next meeting to review any returned comparables and job-description materials.