Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Los Alamos council debates approach to setting elected-official salaries; forms working-group plan
Summary
Councilors discussed using a working group or independent review to set salaries for elected offices, reviewed comparative data, and asked staff for return materials; public comment urged higher pay and benefit options to attract candidates.
Los Alamos County Council held an extended discussion on Oct. 21 about whether and how to revise compensation for elected officials after a 2024 state law gave local governing bodies that authority.
County Manager summarized comparative data compiled by staff and reminded council that changes must be enacted by separate ordinances for each office. Councilors discussed several options: (1) have a council working group draft recommendations before the next meetings; (2) expand an independent body (for example, the personnel board) or create a chartered review panel to produce periodic recommendations; or (3) proceed with individual ordinances for offices with upcoming election cycles. Staff noted the ordinance process timing (introduction, public hearing and adoption) and that an adopted salary ordinance typically becomes effective 30 days after the post-adoption publication; salaries can be published earlier so potential candidates know the pay level when deciding to run.
Council members debated particulars. The assessor’s office was discussed as a near-term example; staff and the assessor (contacted) suggested an appropriate range in the low-$20,000s to low-$30,000s depending on assumed time commitment (part-time vs. full-time). The municipal court judge position had a precedent: council previously discussed aligning compensation at 90% of the New Mexico magistrate judge rate. Several councilors expressed interest in increasing councilor pay to make service affordable to people who are not retired and to broaden candidate pools; others urged independent review to avoid conflicts in a body setting its own pay.
Public comment included a sustained statement from a local probate judge who urged increased compensation and options for benefits, arguing that current pay and lack of benefit support make it difficult to attract qualified candidates given the county’s unique valuation and caseload. Councilors agreed to form a small working group to consult with absent colleagues, determine who will serve, and return recommended steps and data by the council’s November meeting schedule so staff can prepare draft ordinances if desired.
No ordinances were adopted on Oct. 21; the council directed staff to pursue next steps and to coordinate a working-group membership check-in with all council members.
