Woodbury County delays hiring-freeze vote after officials warn of court and public-safety impacts

The Woodbury County Board of Supervisors postponed a decision on a proposed fiscal‑year 2026 hiring freeze after elected officials and law‑enforcement leaders said the move could undermine court work and public safety.

County Treasurer Tina Bertrand, County Attorney James Loomis and multiple law‑enforcement officials pressed the board to delay or limit any freeze on positions that have job offers or that sustain critical services. Loomis told the board he recently made three offers that were accepted and said blocking those hires now would damage the office’s ability to prosecute cases and would undermine future recruitment.

Why it matters: County attorney staffing affects the entire criminal‑justice process, prosecutors and police said. Sioux City Police Department leaders described heavy caseloads and the risk that evidence review, trials and plea decisions will slow further without additional attorneys. Sheriff Chad Sheehan said corrections staffing also ties directly to revenue from housing federal inmates and to the county’s ability to operate safely.

Discussion and specifics: Treasurer Tina Bertrand said departments are already operating lean and urged the board to balance service continuity against budget constraints. Loomis said his office returned roughly $500,000 in unspent funds in prior years but nevertheless needs the new hires to handle current caseloads; he urged supervisors not to rescind offers. Sioux City Police Captain Ryan Bertrand, Sergeant John Sanders and other department heads described rising workloads, burnout and the operational consequences of empty positions. Secondary‑roads and buildings directors warned that some vacancies are operationally essential while others are new or added services that could be deferred.

Numbers and timeline: Supervisors noted roughly 16–17 current open positions across departments. County staff also presented reserve scenarios for FY26 showing a range of possible reserve percentages (example scenarios moved general supplemental deficits into general basic reserves to hold the levy steady). Staff said the board has until April 30 to finalize the budget and that some one‑time carryforward balances (from unfilled positions or other items) may raise reserves modestly once verified.

Board action and next steps: Rather than vote on a hiring freeze at this meeting, the board moved the item to next week’s agenda for a formal decision and asked department heads to provide more detail about which vacancies are essential, which are new services, and where temporary overtime or alternative savings could be used. Supervisors directed staff to return with additional budget clarifications and with statements tying individual vacancies to service impacts.

Ending: The board’s deferral gives departments a week to deliver more granular cost/benefit details. Supervisors said they intend to weigh service continuity in courts, jail operations and public safety alongside the larger reserve gap before taking a binding vote.