Frederick County Delegation approves increase to sheriff’s salary after lengthy debate, sets share at about 83% of state's attorney pay

The Frederick County Delegation voted Friday to raise the county sheriff’s salary to a level tied to a percentage of the county state's attorney salary, resolving weeks of discussion about method and amount.

Sen. Michael Fulton (work group chair) told the delegation a six‑member work group had evaluated comparable counties and two principal approaches: tying the sheriff’s pay to an 85% percentile of a circuit court judge or to a percentage of the county’s state's attorney salary. Fulton said the group settled on discussing the option tied to the state's attorney salary as a practical reference point.

Sen. Fulton said members of the work group examined counties with similar full‑service sheriff’s offices and reviewed local responsibilities including patrol, courthouse security, jails and civil process. He described two options that emerged from the review: indexing to the state's attorney or linking to judges’ pay.

Other delegation members offered alternative approaches. Senator Lillochon (member of the delegation’s work group) recalled a 2022 delegation bill, Senate Bill 746, which would have phased a raise and then projected that figure forward with a modest assumed annual increase; he said that methodology was familiar to some members and could be used again.

Supporters of a formula tied to the state's attorney’s pay pointed to specific calculations presented during the meeting: 80% of the state's attorney salary would be $178,566; 85% would be $189,726; and 90% would be about $200,009. Several members sought a compromise figure that could command broad support and be presented as the delegation’s unanimous recommendation.

A motion to set the sheriff’s salary at 85% of the state's attorney salary was made and seconded during the discussion. Delegates subsequently proposed a compromise in the range of 82.5–83% to build consensus and to incorporate a mechanism for future cost‑of‑living adjustments consistent with the county’s practice. The final motion recorded at the meeting set the sheriff’s salary at 82.5% (later referred to in discussion as roughly 83%) of the state's attorney salary with COLA/adjustment language to be confirmed as part of drafting; the motion passed on a roll‑call vote.

Roll-call votes recorded in the transcript show 11 yes, 2 nay and 1 absent. Names captured in the roll call where recorded were: Delegate Boucher (nay); Delegate Silberty (yes); Senator Quarterman (yes); Delegate Fair (yes); Delegate Kerr (yes); Senator Karen Lewis Young (yes); Delegate Miller (yes); Senator Reedy (absent); Delegate Rose (yes); Delegate Simpson (nay); Delegate Tomlinson (yes); Doug Valentine (yes); Doug Veil (yes); and Chair (Delegate Pippy) voted yes. The chair stated the motion passed and staff were instructed to prepare and file the bill before the Monday filing deadline.

Speakers on both sides emphasized the desire to avoid repeatedly revisiting the matter: one proposal sought to give the county council discretion to set the salary (as other counties do), while others argued for a formula in statute so the sheriff’s pay would be commensurate with the office’s countywide responsibilities.