MARC JACOBS
Hutch Post
Reno County commissioners agreed Wednesday to delay any decision on adjusting their own salaries, opting instead to revisit the issue in one month after further study and constituent outreach.
The discussion, which stretched more than an hour, followed a presentation by Human Resources Director Helen Foster, who outlined current commissioner pay, historical context, and the challenges the county faces in attracting a broader pool of candidates for public office.
Background: Lowest Commissioner Pay in Kansas
Foster noted that Reno County’s five commissioners each earn $11,340 per year, the lowest salary for county commissioners in the state. When the county transitioned from a three-member to a five-member commission years ago, the total compensation line item was simply divided five ways rather than increased, resulting in the current pay level.
Commissioners are classified at Grade 40 on the county pay scale—an entry rate of $46.83 per hour—a figure HR used to model what compensation would look like if pay were based on estimated workloads of five, seven, 10, or 15 hours per week.
Foster also noted that questions regularly arise from KPERS about the unusually low salary for elected officials and that commissioners need to remain compliant with FLSA minimum wage thresholds based on the hours they work.
Commissioners Share Personal Impacts
Commissioners spoke candidly about the financial sacrifices tied to serving.
Commissioner Randy Parks said publicly that he lost a job because of the time demands of office, leading to four months of unemployment before returning to the workforce. Parks also added that a former commissioner who exhausted all paid time off and even lost family health insurance while serving.
“It limits it to somebody who’s maybe not looking for an income and has extra time,” Parks said, a sentiment echoed by commissioners. “I want to see everyday working people have the chance to serve,” one added.
Another commissioner noted that younger residents or parents often can’t participate due to the financial strain, even if they have interest in public service.
Differences in Philosophy
While commissioners generally agreed the current pay is too low, not all felt comfortable voting to raise their own compensation.
“I came into office saying I wouldn’t raise my salary,” Parks said. “I understand the need, but I don’t know if I want to vote for it.”
Others argued that pay should reflect the workload and responsibility of representing nearly 60,000 people and managing a county budget of approximately $96 million.
There was also debate about whether elected officials should be compared to standard county employees, given the unique nature of the role, fluctuating schedules, and expectations to attend community functions—many outside standard business hours.
Calls for More Data
Commissioners acknowledged they have not consistently tracked their hours and felt a decision would be premature without better information.
Some weeks involve minimal commitments, while others require 15–20 hours or more between meetings, study sessions, community events, constituent calls, and reviewing hundreds of pages of contracts and agenda materials.
Commissioner Ron Hirst recommended gathering work-hour data over the next several weeks and consulting constituents before making a final determination.
Motion to Table Passes Unanimously
After extensive discussion, commissioners agreed to table the issue and bring it back to the agenda at their December 17 meeting.
The motion—originally open-ended—was amended to specify the timeline and passed on a 5–0 vote. Commissioners also agreed to gather public input and track their hours during the intervening month.
No specific pay proposals were adopted Wednesday, and commissioners emphasized that any change would need careful justification and public transparency.
The issue highlights a growing concern statewide: how to maintain accessible, sustainable public service roles that do not exclude working Kansans who wish to serve.