Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lincoln County officials approve 1.5% salary increase amid warnings investment earnings won’t fully cover costs
Summary
Lincoln County approved a 1.5% raise for elected officials (with a parallel employee calculation) funded partly by interest on a $7 million investment; staff said expected earnings of about $283,000 and rising insurance and longevity costs mean the fund will still leave a shortfall.
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lincoln County officials voted to approve a 1.5% salary increase for elected officials, a change staff said generally translates into a parallel calculation for county employees. The motion was made, seconded and carried following a discussion of investment income, insurance costs and statutory ties between sheriff pay and deputies’ salaries.
County staff explained the pay plan is partly funded by interest from a $7 million investment made from a larger local/tribal assistance package. The county’s investment manager, Raymond James, manages the account; staff showed the board a live calculator that populates dollar impacts when elected-official percentages are adjusted. After recent recalculations, staff said projected investment earnings for the year are about $283,000, down from an earlier estimate of roughly $300,000.
Why it matters: staff and members cautioned that last year’s one-time longevity adjustments and rising health insurance costs mean the $283,000 will not fully cover last year’s increases plus a new raise. Health insurance costs were reported up 6.1% and prior-year payroll levied funds were stated around $4,030,149; after deducting insurance, longevity and COLA-related amounts, staff estimated roughly $145,041 available from investment earnings to apply in the employee calculator under current parameters.
Board members and participants also raised a statutory concern: under Montana law, deputies’ pay is tied to the sheriff’s salary. One participant summarized the practical effect: “If the sheriff isn’t given a raise, the deputies don’t get a raise,” a linkage the group said compounds over time and can cause deputies to fall behind non-sworn staff in pay and retention. Speakers pointed to examples of municipal police salaries outpacing sheriff pay in surrounding jurisdictions.
During the meeting staff ran several scenarios in real time. Participants discussed options ranging from 1% to 2.5% increases, retention trade-offs and the limits of allowable investments for public funds. Several members requested the county bring Raymond James back for a formal review to explore whether a modestly higher, still-secure yield could be achieved.
Motion and outcome: one member moved to approve a 1.5% raise for elected officials; another seconded. The clerk called the vote and announced the motion carried. The transcript does not record a roll-call tally.
Next steps: staff said they will meet with investment advisors to review the portfolio and will refine the on-screen calculator to show balances and levied/non-levied impacts up front. The board adjourned after the action.

