Nederland trustees ask staff to study trustee pay, health benefits and ballot option

Nederland’s Board of Trustees on June 13 directed staff to study options for compensating trustees in future terms, including access to group health insurance, nonmonetary benefits and a possible ballot measure, while several trustees said the town’s current budget and electoral timing make immediate increases inadvisable.

The conversation began after a participant disclosed a potential conflict, saying they were running unopposed and would "potentially directly benefit" from any change and therefore wished to recuse themselves from the discussion. Trustees and staff then clarified which members could participate in the deliberation because of that conflict.

Trustee concerns centered on timing and affordability. One trustee said the idea of paying trustees "is a great idea" but added the town is currently in the red and that approving a pay increase now would be "bad timing, bad optics." Another trustee described the issue as a "chicken and egg" problem: without pay it is harder to recruit diverse candidates, but the town lacks funds to increase pay immediately.

Trustee Chris proposed taking the issue to voters rather than having the board raise pay midterm: "we could have this on the ballot...Do you want to pay the trustees $10,000 a year or whatever the number comes out to be?" Staff cautioned that a Colorado statute prevents increasing emoluments during a current term of office, meaning legal research would be needed to determine how any change could take effect.

Trustee Nicole emphasized equity and recruitment goals, arguing that offering health insurance could help attract hourly workers, renters and caregivers who otherwise cannot afford the time commitment. Nicole said that covering a trustee’s health insurance "could be like a huge thing" for prospective board members.

Trustees discussed a phased approach: research the budgetary impact and whether trustees could access a group plan as individuals, consider modest meeting stipends for advisory boards, and, if necessary, make trustees employees to qualify for employer-sponsored benefits. They also agreed the boards-and-committees ordinance should be reviewed because advisory boards are not currently codified.

The board signaled a willingness to have staff return with detailed numbers and a draft ordinance. Staff was asked to analyze: potential compensation levels, the fiscal impact, whether trustees can access group insurance, whether the town would need to treat trustees as employees for benefits eligibility, and options for nonmonetary compensation. The board did not adopt any pay increase at the meeting.

At the end of regular business the trustees considered moving the April 7 meeting to March 31 because of election timing; there were no public comments on that change. A motion to adjourn was moved and seconded; trustees voted unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 10:24 p.m.