Sheriff seeks hires and a six‑person traffic unit funded by photo‑enforcement revenues

Sheriff (unnamed in transcript) told the Kent County Board of Supervisors the department needs additional staffing to cover transports, court coverage and increasing crash and call volumes, and proposed hiring two part‑time positions for court and civil process and creating a six‑deputy traffic unit funded by photo speed‑enforcement revenues.

The nut graf: The sheriff described staffing and operational changes that he says have increased workload — longer transports to distant jails, handling single‑vehicle non‑injury crashes since July 1, and more traffic enforcement needs on the interstate — and proposed a staffing plan funded in part by revenues from the county’s photo speed enforcement program.

The sheriff said using Pamunkey Jail instead of Henrico had saved the county about $826,579 in the prior year but required longer transports; he said the department’s daily minimum staffing of three deputies per shift is “well below where we should be” and recommended increasing minimum staffing to five deputies per shift. For courthouse needs, he asked the board to approve two part‑time court and civil process positions at a total cost just under $106,000 for year one; equipment costs could be covered from the current budget, he said.

On traffic enforcement, the sheriff proposed a six‑deputy traffic unit with an estimated year‑one cost of about $1.3 million, to be funded using revenues from photo speed enforcement. He said the program had captured about 48,210 violations through the most recent Thursday and was averaging about 11,013 violations per week; he cautioned not all captured violations are ultimately processed due to unreadable plates or multiple vehicles in an image. “If everything is very good, you can the deputy can approve about $200 an hour,” he said, illustrating processing-time variability.

Board members raised concerns about sustainability if state police assume the program and about how much of the captured revenue the county would actually receive. Supervisor Mr. Evelyn proposed treating the photo‑enforcement revenues like a multi‑year grant—setting aside funds to cover future costs if reimbursements stop—and County staff said revenues could be carried forward into future fiscal years but that State legislation could change reporting requirements.

No formal vote was taken on new hires or the traffic unit at this meeting; the item was presented as a staffing request and work‑session discussion. Supervisors asked the sheriff and county staff to return with a funding plan, projections of expected net revenues after vendor and processing costs, and a proposed mechanism (special fund or grant fund) to restrict and track photo‑enforcement revenues.