Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff asks for staff conversions and new deputies; commissioners debate unfunded billets and detention operating costs
Summary
The sheriff’s office requested multiple conversions (temporary to full‑time staff), four additional deputies, vehicle and equipment replacements (including tasers) and operating increases tied to the detention center renovation; commissioners discussed vacancies, attrition and the implications of approving unfunded positions.
The sheriff’s office presented a detailed FY 2016 request that included personnel conversions, four new patrol deputies (first-year costs and full-year salary/fringe estimates were supplied), vehicle replacements and equipment items including 40 tasers and associated training and uniform costs.
Staff and sheriff’s representatives provided per-position breakout estimates: first-year costs for a new patrol deputy (salary, pension, health and equipment) as well as comparable figures for corrections officers. Staff said much of the incremental cost of converting temporary positions to FTEs is pension and health insurance.
The sheriff asked the board to consider making additional positions available (one commissioner proposed adding four more billets with zero funding, so the positions would be authorized but not funded until the sheriff justified and the board approved funding). Finance staff and at least one commissioner cautioned against adding unfunded billets because doing so can create administrative and fiscal complications; the practical effect is that funding must still be identified before positions can be used.
Commissioners and the sheriff discussed high attrition and recruiting challenges; the sheriff noted recent resignations even as new academy classes were onboarded, and said turnover makes it expensive to recruit and train deputies. The sheriff also described a resource-analysis need that would inform longer-term staffing targets and deployment models.
Detention-center operating costs were raised: staff noted an added $434,000 in operating impacts tied to the ADC renovation (temporary inmate relocation and kitchen operations) and a projected $55,000 increase in food-service costs tied to a May 2015 contract award. Several corrections items (medical services for inmates, replacement equipment, breathing apparatus and live-scan replacement) were presented as nonrecurring items eligible for fund-balance funding.
On equipment, the sheriff said the department opted for straight purchases of tasers rather than an assurance program after weighing lifecycle and payment alternatives. The board discussed vehicle replacement timing, mileage thresholds and the overall cost of vehicles across the sheriff’s fleet; staff noted some timing differences between schedules in the department submission and the county vehicle replacement plan.
No formal votes were taken; commissioners agreed to continue reviewing the sheriff’s requests and to follow up on documentation for forfeiture funds and vehicle/equipment replacement plans.
