Sheriff’s budget requests draw debate over taser funding, modular detention space and school‑bus camera position

St. Mary’s County commissioners spent a lengthy portion of the May 13 budget work session reviewing the sheriff’s non‑grant budget requests and debating how to fund equipment and personnel priorities such as taser replacement, a proposed automated‑enforcement specialist (for school‑bus camera enforcement), K‑9 and medical expenses, and a modular building to provide detention/office space.

Discussion highlights - Taser funding: Commissioners and the sheriff discussed whether taser replacement dollars should come from local asset forfeiture funds or from the general fund. The sheriff argued that equipping deputies is the county’s responsibility; some commissioners preferred keeping the equipment purchase within asset forfeiture (drug forfeiture) so general revenues would not be diverted. No final formal appropriation was recorded in the work session minutes; commissioners asked finance staff and the county attorney to return with options.

- School‑bus camera enforcement position: The sheriff’s office requested funding for a civilian automated‑enforcement specialist (referred to in materials as a “station clerk”) to administer school‑bus camera enforcement. The board heard that contractors and procurement steps remain, and staff estimated the position would be needed to implement enforcement; several commissioners voiced support for funding the position, with a view that eventual vendor revenue should offset program costs into year 2–3.

- Modular building and corrections space: Commissioners noted an operating‑budget request for a $30,000 modular building and asked the sheriff’s office, the county’s CIP staff (Mr. Erickson) and county legal/finance staff to produce a capital project sheet that includes both capital and operating implications. Staff confirmed the modular unit was not yet listed in the CIP and that site‑prep and other costs would increase total cost beyond the $30,000 module price. Commissioners directed follow‑up to assemble comprehensive cost and operating impacts.

- Overtime, cadet program and other corrections requests: The sheriff’s office sought restoration of certain overtime and program funding (corrections overtime, GPS/home‑detention monitoring positions, adjustments to cadet staffing). Commissioners approved many of the restore/add items in discussion (no formal roll‑call recorded in the transcript for each line item), while directing staff to reflect the changes in the next budget iteration.

What the board asked staff to do - Provide written options for taser funding (asset forfeiture vs. general fund) and examples from other Maryland jurisdictions about sheriff’s outside counsel arrangements and funding practice. - Prepare a capital project detail sheet for the modular building showing site prep and operating implications and return it to the board within days. - Show the proposed school‑bus camera enforcement specialist and expected timeline for installation in the fall if contracts proceed; commissioners indicated support for funding the civilian position subject to vendor and program updates.

What was not decided There was no single binding motion in the transcript that reallocated general fund dollars to the taser program; commissioners asked the county attorney and finance staff to research comparable jurisdictions and legal considerations before making a formal appropriation. The modular building was not added to the CIP during the session; staff were asked to prepare the required project sheet for a future vote.