Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel And Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington County court forwards three regrade ordinances to full court, approves retroactive pay amendment for collector role
Summary
The Washington County Quorum Court voted to send ordinances adjusting job grades in the sheriff’s office, circuit clerk’s office and collector’s office to the full court; supervisors also approved an amendment granting retroactive pay to a collector employee dating to Jan. 1, 2026, after debate over precedent.
The Washington County Quorum Court voted to send three ordinances adjusting job grades for the sheriff’s office, the circuit clerk’s office and the collector’s office to the full court, and approved an amendment to grant retroactive pay in the collector matter.
The action came during a regular session in which the court considered personnel reclassifications and their budget impact. Sheriff Cantrell told the court the sheriff’s office combined vehicle purchases and upfitting into a single bid to qualify the costs as capital expenditures and to save about $16,000; the court moved the sheriff/jail regrading ordinance to the full court with a do-pass recommendation.
Sylvester, the circuit clerk, said the office has carried the same 21-person staffing level while caseloads rose sharply: “In 2022, we had 69,968 filings… Last year in 2025, we processed 160,833 filings,” he said, describing increases in filings and new cases of roughly 40–60 percent and asking for one additional full-time position funded from the recorder’s cost fund for the remainder of 2026. The court voted to forward that ordinance to the full court with a do-pass recommendation.
Director Bennett described re-evaluations in the sheriff’s and collector’s offices and said job evaluations now look across all of Washington County to ensure internal equity. On the collector’s ordinance, the court considered an amendment to make the regrade retroactive to Jan. 1, 2026. Jay Piacki moved the amendment to retroactively recognize the employee’s extra duties; the amendment passed after members debated whether retroactive pay would set a precedent. JP Koger said he was “worried… that we're giving somebody retro pay” and whether the court was opening a precedent, while JP Burns argued compensating an employee who had taken on additional responsibilities was appropriate.
All motions to forward the ordinances to the full court carried by voice vote; the committee placed items 7–9 on the consent agenda and left item 10 off consent because the retroactive-pay amendment was not unanimous. The matters will next appear before the full court for final action.
The committee took no final budgetary action today; it moved the measures to the next stage for final consideration.
