Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mono County board debates making out-of-state remote-work moratorium permanent; staff directed to return with implementation plan
Summary
The board reviewed options for its moratorium on full-time out-of-state remote work (keep moratorium, allow existing employees to continue until separation, Nevada-only exception, or allow nationwide remote work). Staff reported payroll, tax and compliance complexity across states; supervisors generally favored a permanent moratorium with limited exceptions and asked staff to draft a resolution with transition timelines and bargaining-unit consultation.
Assistant CAO Christine Bouchard summarized staff options for the 2023 moratorium on out-of-state remote work: make the moratorium permanent and require existing out-of-state employees to return; make it permanent but allow existing remote employees to continue until separation; permit out-of-state work only in Nevada; or allow out-of-state work across the country under new compliance systems. Bouchard noted legal, payroll and tax complications for counties with employees working in multiple states.
Board members pressed for details on how many employees are fully remote (staff identified five total remote employees, four outside Nevada and one in Nevada who comes onsite occasionally) and whether positions are At-Will or covered by memoranda of understanding. County Finance and Payroll staff warned that multi-state payroll reporting and withholding vary by state and that setting up compliance could be time-consuming and costly; Nevada was singled out as the least complex state to authorize because of simpler time-reporting needs.
Several supervisors supported maintaining the moratorium, citing local accountability, equity for county residents and the county's responsibility to ensure local emergency response availability. Some members favored giving existing out-of-state employees a finite transition window (several supervisors suggested six months) rather than allowing them to remain indefinitely; others initially proposed allowing current remote hires to remain until separation but colleagues raised fairness and cost concerns.
The board did not adopt a final resolution; instead it directed staff to consult bargaining units, identify likely implementation timelines and costs (including payroll and legal exposures), and return with a draft resolution specifying: whether the moratorium will be permanent, whether existing employees will be allowed to remain and under what time-limited conditions, and whether a limited Nevada exception will be incorporated.
At least one supervisor asked that the board also revisit the broader remote-work policy (part-time remote work and office-space accommodations) in a future session.
