Howard County delegation rebases sheriff and state's attorney pay, approves Senate Bill 1003

The Howard County delegation voted to approve Senate Bill 1003 on March 27, 2026, a delegation measure that sets specific annual salaries for the county sheriff and the Howard County state's attorney and establishes a formula for future percentage increases.

Dara, a staff presenter, summarized the measure and the multiyear salary schedule, saying, "It sets the annual salary at $220,601 for calendar year 2027" for the sheriff and that the bill enumerates amounts for 2027 through 2030 and then for each subsequent calendar year. Dara also explained the state's attorney salary is rebased under the bill with staged increases intended to bring it into the neighborhood of $240,000 over four years and that future percentage increases would follow the same percentage change applied to district court judges.

Under existing law, Dara noted, the Howard County state's attorney salary is tied to the salary of a District Court judge, and the sheriff's first-year pay is currently aligned with a major on step 6 of the Howard County Police management schedule. Staff explained the bill would retie the sheriff's salary to the Howard County police chief's pay scale (rather than a major) and retain a constitutional caveat that midterm county increases do not alter a sitting sheriff's salary until after the next election.

Delegates asked for comparative data and the rationale for the rebasing. Delegate Hill requested details on what the positions are currently tied to, how automatic increases work now and under the bill, and comparisons with other Maryland counties; staff said they used county population as a proxy in preparing comparisons and offered to share a chart of other counties' figures. Delegates also discussed whether population is the appropriate comparator versus caseload, crime rates or other workload metrics. Several delegates referenced comments from Rich Gibson that workload and comparative pay drove the request for higher compensation.

Supporters said the change is needed to retain and attract talent and to bring Howard County's pay for these roles more in line with larger jurisdictions. Delegate Wu said he had spoken with the sheriff and others and voiced his support, citing workload concerns.

A motion to approve the bill as amended was moved by Delegate Tarasa and seconded; the delegation conducted a voice vote. The chair asked for those in favor to say "aye," saw no opposition and declared the bill passed by voice vote. The transcript records a voice vote and the chair's declaration that the bill "passes"; no roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript.

The delegation requested that staff provide comparative data (including the chart referenced by staff) showing how Howard County's proposed salaries compare with salaries in other counties and how the proposed amounts relate to the county solicitor and other county pay grades. The meeting adjourned immediately after the vote.