Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Emery County commissioners deny proposed pay increase for county assessor after public hearing
Summary
After a public hearing on Jan. 21, the Emery County Commission voted unanimously to deny a request for a compensation increase for the county assessor; the hearing featured testimony from the clerk/auditor and statements from the assessor about combined duties and workload.
The Emery County Commission on Jan. 21 held a public hearing under UCA 17‑16‑14(b) to receive comment on a requested compensation increase for the county assessor. After hearing public testimony, the commission voted unanimously to deny the requested increase.
The request concerned additional compensation tied to the assessor’s oversight of functions that were combined with the assessor’s office, including responsibilities related to the local DMV. County statutes require a public hearing before altering compensation for an executive county officer.
Brenda Tuttle, who identified herself as Emery County clerk/auditor, addressed the commission and described increased responsibilities in combined elected offices over time. “When you file to become an elected official, you know what the salary is,” Tuttle told commissioners, and she traced prior adjustments and increases in election‑related duties, record processing and other responsibilities that have grown since the offices were combined. Tuttle said the county’s election workload — including printing, mailing and processing ballots and managing passport services — has increased and that comparing combined offices across counties is not an equal comparison because Emery County processes many more documents.
The assessor (name not specified in the transcript) described the technical requirements of the job, including certification and continuing education for appraisers. The assessor said that the role includes duties not required of some other elected officials and emphasized the time required for appraiser licensing and training. The assessor requested parity with other combined offices and noted the additional responsibilities and liability that come with combined duties.
Commissioners discussed historical practice and the difficulty of retroactively adjusting compensation for responsibilities that accrued long ago. After discussion, a motion to deny the compensation increase passed with votes recorded as Warwood: Aye; Leonard: Aye; Jensen: Aye.
The denial was recorded following the required public hearing. Commissioners noted the complexity of the issue and described it as a matter for future budget discussions if the assessor and staff wish to pursue other remedies.
