In a county that has an annual operating budget of $622.5 million, a $5.1 million invoice will not break the bank. But that price tag for Clark County is unnecessary and reflects poor stewardship of taxpayer money.
Following a binding arbitration agreement in July, the Clark County Council has approved 3 percent pay increases for approximately 1,100 county workers — some 70 percent of the workforce. The move follows a series of missteps by county leaders that date to 2021. Previously, those raises were scheduled to be 2 percent; in some cases, the 3 percent increase will be applied retroactively.
Before examining the details, it is important to point out that current councilors had little to do with the situation. Wil Fuentes and Matt Little were elected in 2024; Michelle Belkot, Glen Yung and Sue Marshall were elected in 2022. None of them predate the mess that has been handed to this year’s council.
That mess involves 2021 contract negotiations with employees, when county officials said they could afford only a 2 percent salary increase for workers. Negotiations resulted in a provision that if any employee received a raise greater than 2 percent, union members would receive equivalent increases.
But in 2022, the county council approved a 20 percent pay raise for County Manager Kathleen Otto, increasing her salary from $180,000 to $219,000 over three years. That led several unions representing county workers — The Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 11, Professional and Technical Employees Local 17, Laborers Local 335 and AFSCME Local 307 — to file grievances. Union officials argued that the employees they represent also should receive a 20 percent increase over three years.
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which arrived in 2020, Clark County and other municipalities were faced with budget difficulties. The uncertainty of what was to come— and an infusion of cash from the federal government — created an unprecedented situation.
Adding to that difficulty is the fact that Washington’s limitation of a 1 percent annual increase in the property tax levy — a major source of revenue for the county — does not keep up with inflation. That leaves counties and cities throughout the state with an inevitable structural deficit.
Under that complicated scenario, councilors did their best to employ fiscal responsibility in negotiating raises for county workers. But the combination of a “me too” provision regarding raises and the sharp increase in Otto’s salary ended up creating a costly problem.
The Columbian’s Shari Phiel reported last week: “According to county records, the unions and the county met in December 2024 to discuss the county’s interpretation of the ‘me too’ clause and which employees it applies to. Labor contracts now are being updated to specify the ‘me too’ clause only raises a union employee’s salary if a non-union employee gets a raise, excluding the county manager, elected officials and Superior Court and District Court judges and commissioners.”
In truth, Clark County is fortunate that it was able to negotiate 3 percent pay increases for unionized employees. The language of previous agreements suggests that union officials had a sound argument in advocating for 20 percent increases over three years.
Whether or not Otto deserved the pay increase at the time, it proved to be more costly than county councilors at the time were expecting. They should have known better.
Editor’s note: Glen Yung’s name was misspelled in an earlier version of this editorial. Yung was elected to the council in 2022. An earlier version contained incorrect information.
