Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Emergency Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Search-and-rescue gear and Title 3 rules prompt debate over dives, drones and reimbursable costs
Summary
Sheriff’s office personnel described plans to expand dive capability and asked commissioners about using Title 3 (federal forest) funds for gear; commissioners and staff warned Title 3 reimbursements must match the percentage of use on federal land and suggested staged purchases and alternative funding for items like dry suits and dive tanks
County officials and the sheriff’s office discussed a range of search‑and‑rescue priorities during the March 25 meeting, focusing on dive equipment, a proposed side‑by‑side vehicle, and how to comply with Title 3 rules that limit federal‑forest‑land reimbursements.
Why it matters: the sheriff’s office is moving toward in‑house certified divers and broader rapid‑response capability. Several equipment requests were discussed in the meeting — a dive gear package, dry suits, tanks, and a side‑by‑side vehicle with an estimated line-item of roughly $45,000–$50,000 for some of the equipment listed — and the board wanted to ensure purchases comply with Title 3 funding limits tied to federal forest mission percentages.
Key discussion points
Use-based reimbursement rules: County staff and commissioners explained that Title 3 funds (federal funds distributed through the state for search-and-rescue on federal forest lands) can pay only a proportionate share of equipment costs corresponding to how often a piece of equipment is used on federal forest land. Commissioners and staff gave examples: if 90% of the missions for a vehicle are on federal land, roughly 90% of the purchase could be appropriately charged to Title 3. Meeting participants stressed the need for mission logs and usage records to support reimbursements during audits.
Equipment priorities and alternatives: Sheriff’s office personnel explained they have three certified divers now and would like dry suits, tanks and other dive gear to keep rescues local rather than relying on out‑of‑area contractors. The side‑by‑side vehicle proposal was described as roughly a $45,000–$50,000 request (figures discussed in the meeting); staff pointed out that if the vehicle will be used on non‑federal land, Title 3 can cover only the federal‑use percentage and the county must budget the remainder. Commissioners suggested alternatives and staged approaches: pursue Title 3 only for the portion of cost tied to federal missions, look for other county funds for non‑federal uses, and consider buying a county‑owned drone with thermal capability as a lower‑cost, fast‑response tool that reduces time on scene for search efforts.
Compliance and audit risk: participants recalled past Title 3 audit findings in which equipment paid by Title 3 was judged to have inappropriate use breakdowns. County staff advised establishing clearer mission reporting and usage logs before committing Title 3 dollars. The board asked sheriff’s staff to assemble a prioritized equipment list with cost estimates and use‑percentage projections for each item so the county can evaluate reimbursements and potential alternatives or co‑funding arrangements.
Next steps
Sheriff’s office staff agreed to compile a specific, prioritized equipment list with estimated costs, expected mission‑use percentages on federal forest land, and options for alternate funding (county funds, grants or interagency agreements). Commissioners asked staff to return with a recommendation and, if needed, schedule a follow‑up meeting to review proposed purchases and any required controls to document Title 3 usage.
