Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Wages topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marquette County Board approves wages resolution after extended debate over COLA vs flat pay
Summary
After hours of debate about whether future pay should be tied to a cost-of-living adjustment or replaced with a flat-dollar increase, the Marquette County Board of Supervisors approved a wages resolution for the circuit court clerk and sheriff covering 2027–2030 with amendments clarifying nonunion language.
The Marquette County Board of Supervisors voted to adopt a wages resolution for the offices of the circuit court clerk and the sheriff covering the 2027–2030 term after lengthy discussion and several failed amendments.
The vote came after supervisors argued over whether the resolution should set future increases as a cost-of-living adjustment tied to nonunion employees or replace those COLAs with a fixed dollar bump. The measure as amended finalizes pay language for the two constitutional offices and passed after roll-call voting on competing amendments.
The dispute centered on wording and fairness. Supervisor Gary (speaker 13) objected to a proposed amendment wording that used “all” — “I have a problem with the word all in this case,” he said, arguing it could create unintended results if not every nonunion employee received the same increase. Dennis (speaker 7) proposed an alternative for the sheriff and clerk, saying, “Mine was a 5% step up for the sheriff for the first year and then a 2% every year thereafter.”
Administrator Ron provided concrete cost examples of the COLA option, telling the board that “for the clerk of court position, a 2% COLA would be an additional $1,594. And for the sheriff’s position, 2% would be an additional $2,126” for the first year.
Board members debated legal risk and budget management. Several supervisors raised concerns that COLA wording could be vulnerable to legal challenge or could lock elected officials into future amounts that would not be adjustable if county finances deteriorated; the county’s counsel said challenges are always possible but indicated the county was on reasonably firm ground. Opponents of COLA said a flat dollar amount provides clarity about what elected officials will receive; supporters said COLA treats all employees uniformly and keeps pay current with inflation.
On a proposed amendment that would have replaced COLA with a flat $2,000 per year for both offices, the board voted the amendment down on a roll call, with the clerk recording 10 no votes and 6 yes votes. The board then proceeded to consider the vice chair’s amendment to specify that the COLA language would apply to nonunion employees; that amendment carried and was incorporated into the final resolution. Clerk Kylie managed the roll calls and electronic recording during the votes.
The meeting record shows the board took multiple procedural steps: the vice chair’s amendment specifying nonunion language passed in an earlier roll call and the proposed $2,000-for-four-years amendment failed, after which the board returned to the amended language and approved the resolution as amended.
Administration said the labor and wage choices will factor into broader budget planning: Ron told the board Executive Finance directed cuts of roughly $2.1 million to help balance the next fiscal year, and staff will work with department heads to make reductions and refine revenue assumptions over the coming months.
The board’s action resolves pay-setting for the named offices through 2030; further procedural steps and implementation details will be handled by county staff and recorded in the minutes. The board adjourned after completing the evening’s business.
