Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reno County commissioners debate pay, request more study and table change until Dec. 17
Summary
Reno County commissioners reviewed HR recommendations on commissioner pay and hours, debated whether low pay deters working candidates and whether to track hours; the board voted unanimously to table the matter and return with more data at the Dec. 17 meeting.
Reno County commissioners spent an extended portion of the meeting discussing commissioner pay after an HR presentation outlining pay-grade calculations and options.
Helen Foster, Reno County HR Director (Speaker 11), explained the county's wage-study placement that set commissioners at grade 40 and noted an entry hourly rate used in computations. She offered options to change pay, table the discussion for further study, or make no change, and stressed commissioners are benefits-eligible and that FLSA/minimum-wage considerations vary based on hours attributed to the position.
Multiple commissioners (Speakers 6, 2, 10, 3 and others) said low pay makes it difficult for working people to serve. One commissioner said, "I lost a job because of this" (Speaker 6), describing the personal cost of serving while also expressing concern about who can afford to run for the office. Other commissioners argued that better tracking of county-commission time — including phone calls, emails and invited appearances while wearing a "commissioner hat" — is needed before changing pay and that a raise might not substantially broaden the candidate pool.
Staff provided the current line item for commissioner salaries for 2026 as $58,968.85 and discussed hypothetical increases; commissioners compared the total with the county's overall budget (about $90 million) while acknowledging optics and voter sensitivity around raising elected officials' pay.
After discussion a motion was made to table the pay-change consideration for further study (Speaker 2) and an amendment specified the item should return to the board no later than the December 17 meeting. The board voted by roll call and unanimously approved the motion to table. Commissioners were asked to gather constituent input and, if desired, to log hours to provide staff with more precise data ahead of the next discussion.
