Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Auditor seeks higher deputy pay; supervisors debate parity and budget impact
Summary
The county auditor requested raising two deputies from 80% to 85% of the elected official’s salary for some deputy roles; supervisors expressed concern about precedent, cost and parity across county departments and asked for further review rather than immediately approving the change.
Kossuth County’s auditor presented a request to raise two deputy positions from 80% to 85% of the auditor’s salary, arguing the deputies perform first‑deputy duties for payroll, real‑estate and elections and have taken on expanded responsibilities.
The auditor explained two of the deputies share first‑deputy responsibilities (one for real estate and one for payroll/elections) and requested their pay be adjusted so each is compensated at 85% of the elected official’s salary. The auditor said one deputy already receives the higher percentage and that the requested change would enlarge deputies’ paylines while keeping other staffing levels constant.
During discussion supervisors raised questions about the county’s overall payroll mix and how deputy percentages compare to other departments. One supervisor noted the proposal would put 85% deputy salaries at roughly $68,000 and cautioned the board about internal equity and the broader fiscal picture. Another supervisor said deputies elsewhere in county government routinely receive similar percentages and that deputies performing independent departmental duties reasonably receive higher compensation.
The board heard concerns about recent election‑related workload that had placed extra demands on deputy staff and that deputies received no increase in a prior year despite extra work. Other supervisors pushed back, noting deputies’ combined payroll line grew significantly compared with earlier fiscal years and arguing the county should consider consistency across departments and budgetary constraints.
No formal pay adjustment vote was taken at the meeting; supervisors said they would continue reviewing the auditor’s request and the countywide implications before making a final decision. The auditor and board agreed to revisit the matter as part of the ongoing budget workshops and personnel budgeting.
