The Johnson County West Annex is pictured in a file photo.
Granting longevity pay to Johnson County employees was voted down Monday at a special county council meeting.
The meeting was called to consider longevity pay and several other matters ahead of the 2025 budget cycle. The longevity pay was voted down 5-2 — with yes votes from council members Pam Burton and Ron Deer —the council did allow for a 5% pay raise for all county employees to be built into draft budgets.
The 5% raise guideline is 1% higher than the suggested cost of living allowance, or COLA, for the coming year. The raise won’t be final until the budget is approved this fall.
The raise guideline was not unanimous, as it passed with a 4-3 vote. Council members John Ditmars, John Mallers and Johnathan T. Myers voted no because they favored a higher or lower wage increase.
Longevity pay
There were four longevity pay options the council considered before voting it down for this year. Three options were compiled based on payscales that other counties use, while a fourth option was a hybrid based on the other three options, according to county documents.
Several options would have started after one year, while two would have started after three years of service. What year the stipend capped at and the increment at which pay increased also varied between the options.
In each case, the longevity pay would have functioned like a stipend with increases over time based on years of service.
The option the council voted on was the hybrid. It would have been calculated based on years of service each year it was offered. The pay would not have been a guarantee each year, as the plan was to make it part of the salary ordinance, which is approved annually.
Here is what county employees would have earned under it:
- Years 0-3, $0
- Years 4-6, $300
- Years 7-9, $700
- Years 10-12,$1,100
- Years 13-15, $1,500
- Years 16-18, $1,800
- Years 19-21, $2,100
- Years 22-24, $2,400
- Years 25-27, $2,700
- Years 28-30, $3,000
- Years 31-35, $3,500
- Years 36+, $4,000
The hybrid was the least expensive of those considered, costing $513,500. The other options would have cost between $629,000 and $1.1 million, according to the auditor’s office.
Burton told the council that longevity pay, at least for this year, is a good investment.
“My view is that longevity pay rewards employees for their extended service and loyalty, boosts morale and retention,” Burton said. “It acknowledges the value of experience and institutional knowledge, leading to enhanced productivity. By recognizing long-term commitment, it fosters a dedicated and motivated workforce, ultimately benefiting both employees and county government.”
Deer supported the hybrid proposal and said longevity pay was one of the top suggestions from the council’s personnel committee. Longevity pay is also offered by many counties in Indiana.
Members Melinda Griesemer and John Myers said they couldn’t support longevity pay as it was proposed because it is a stipend rather than a permanent pay increase. When the extra pay functions like this, it won’t count toward their retirement, John Myers pointed out.
“I look at it as a stipend. I would rather give them the cash that goes with their salary every year instead of this split,” John Myers said. “… If you’re getting longevity next year we don’t know. So really, they’re coming out on the short end.”
Jonathan T. Myers said he agrees that long-term employees should be rewarded, but he disagrees that a stipend is the way to do that. He suggested putting this money toward improving health care benefits instead.
With a stipend that doesn’t pay well for years and years, it might not accomplish what officials are hoping for, Mallers said.
“One of the stated reasons for longevity was … morale. And if you’re going to have something that is here one year, gone the next potentially that doesn’t help morale, in my opinion,” Mallers said. “The other thing is retention. I think waiting three years for $300 is not going to be something that I think helps retain anybody.”
With strides toward parity with comparable governments made last year, Ditmars said the main competition for retaining employees now is the private sector. The better option, to him, is to focus on merit pay increases, he said.
“I’m not sure it’s going to do it, nor do I think that [longevity pay is] meaningful enough to keep somebody — particularly when the private sector will be paying maybe higher,” Ditmars said.
Other budget guidance
Aside from setting the suggested raise, the council also approved their official budget guidance Monday.
The budget guidance being sent to county department heads is a “guideline,” but not a recommendation or a mandate, Burton said. However, the council’s guidance should be taken seriously, she said.
Any deviation from the guideline should be for a good reason and that reason will need to be explained to the council, she said.
When preparing budgets, department heads are instructed to start at $0 and have a 5% limitation adjustment over last year. Only expenses that are absolutely necessary should be budgeted.
“Ask for it if you need it. But if you don’t need it, don’t ask for it,” Burton said.
Budget first readings will take place at 8:30 a.m. Sept. 3 and Sept. 5.
The second reading will take place at 8:30 a.m. Sept. 12, with the adoption of the budget expected at 5 p.m. Oct. 14.
