Richland County public-safety committee recommends against cutting deputies or jail dispatchers; chair authorized to finalize referendum language

The Richland County Public Safety Committee on Wednesday recommended that the county not cut sworn road-patrol deputies or jail/dispatch positions in 2024–27 and authorized the committee chair to file the committee's referendum recommendation as amended at the meeting.

The committee’s recommendation came after a lengthy review of department-by-department proposals tied to Resolution 2296 and follow-up budget work. Committee members said several offices — including the coroner, emergency management, family court commissioner and register in probate — are operating at minimal staffing and that cutting positions in the sheriff’s department or in jail/dispatch would imperil basic public-safety functions.

Why it matters: The committee was asked to identify program cuts and revenue options to close a multi-year budget gap. Members repeatedly told staff that many public‑safety offices already run “at a bare minimum” and that cuts to sworn deputies or jail staffing would reduce the county’s ability to respond to non‑life‑threatening calls, slow criminal and child‑welfare case processing, and could trigger regulatory problems with the jail inspector.

Key decisions and context - Committee position: The committee resolved that it does not recommend eliminating road‑patrol deputy or jail/dispatch positions from 2024 through 2027. Committee members said data presented at the meeting show the sheriff’s department already operates below regional and national staffing benchmarks and that some cuts would produce service disruptions rather than savings. - Administrative assistant: Committee members debated an administrative assistant position in the sheriff’s office. Staff and department witnesses described that role as central to records management, timely evidence and report delivery to prosecutors, and public‑records responses. The committee agreed to keep the position out of an immediate staffing cut list but discuss longer-term options with the referendum committee and finance staff. - Other offices: For statutorily required offices — the coroner, family court commissioner and some judicial staff — the committee recommended against placing salary‑saving cuts on a referendum because members said the services are legally required and already at minimum funding. - Emergency management: Committee members declined to support transferring the county emergency management director fully into the sheriff’s department at this time. The emergency management director (Gretchen) and committee members said the role requires flexibility for emergency response and that any transfer would need to wait until staffing and inter‑agency contracts (for ambulance services) are resolved.

What drove the discussion Committee members cited operational data and inspector guidance in arguing that the sheriff’s department is understaffed: the county’s road‑patrol staffing was reported at roughly 1.33 officers per 1,000 residents (excluding a municipal police force), while national and regional averages are higher. The sheriff’s office also reported higher workloads: call volume up about 20% since the baseline period, OWI cases up ~47%, drug cases up ~260%, and emergency detentions up ~766% (Spillman record system figures, as reported to the committee).

Members noted that reducing jail staffing could force the county to send inmates to other counties, a step that would likely increase costs rather than save them: outside housing can carry per‑day charges (committee cited an estimate in the $55–$65/day range plus medical costs), and the jail inspector warned that cutting staff could change inspection findings and require operational changes.

Public testimony and departmental remarks Sheriff’s Department staff and the department administrative assistant (Sue) described the office’s recordkeeping, Freedom of Information Act processing and report cleanup functions. Sue told the committee she has worked for the county for decades and warned that eliminating the administrative assistant role would shift time‑sensitive work to sworn deputies and risk late or incomplete filings with courts and social‑service agencies. The emergency management director reported progress on the county hazard mitigation plan (WEM/FEMA review) and noted potential vehicle maintenance costs that could affect her small budget.

Actions taken - The committee authorized the chair to type and submit the referendum recommendation as amended at the meeting (motion moved and seconded; voice vote in favor). The recommendation will note the committee’s position that deputies and jail/dispatch positions should not be cut and explain the operational reasons. - The committee moved other routine business (agenda and minutes approvals, consent of certain department bills and vendor awards) during the meeting; those votes were recorded by voice.

What’s next The chair will produce the finalized recommendation and forward it to the finance and personnel committees as the county moves toward any referendum decisions. The committee emphasized that the referendum committee and finance personnel will have to weigh countywide tradeoffs and potential funding sources (including ARPA and state shared‑revenue shortfalls) before final action.

Committee members said they hoped additional municipal partners (for example, the villages of Lone Rock and Casanova) might share the costs of any dedicated law‑enforcement position if the county agreed to contract services, but the committee asked staff to return next month with details on municipal interest before acting on new hires or contracts.