Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners back jail staffing plan but ask sheriff to pare nonrecurring costs
Summary
St. Mary’s County commissioners agreed the county must hire dozens of correctional officers to staff an expanded detention facility, asked the sheriff to return with a prioritized list that trims one-time costs, and discussed funding trade-offs including Lexipol and body‑camera contracts.
St. Mary’s County commissioners agreed March 5 that the county needs to hire correctional officers to staff an anticipated jail expansion, but asked the sheriff to pare one‑time costs and return with a prioritized list to fit the county’s budget constraints.
County Administrator Jeanette Cudmore presented the sheriff’s budget follow‑up, noting the budget includes funding to add six correctional officers to reflect the operating impact of the ADC project. The sheriff’s office and commissioners discussed phasing and hiring timetables, training time and academy schedules, and whether full‑year costs should be included in the fiscal‑year budget.
Commissioners repeatedly pressed the sheriff’s office on timing: construction site work is slated to begin in summer with construction to start November 2019 and finish in 2020, meaning many new hires would be needed months in advance for background checks, academy attendance and field training. The sheriff described a plan to phase roughly 26 FTEs and said deputies need extensive training so new officers be fully effective only after a year or more.
Commissioner discussion focused on how much of the sheriff’s roughly $2.29 million request the board should approve now. Several commissioners said the operational need for new correctional officers is urgent and unavoidable; others urged using one‑time salary savings and reclassifications elsewhere to reduce the budget hit. Commissioners discussed a compromise range: the sheriff was asked to return with a prioritized package that could fit a $1.6 million to $1.8 million net allocation while keeping the most critical hires (including the correctional positions) and identifying which nonrecurring costs could be delayed or covered from fund balance.
The commission also reviewed recurring subscription services and equipment requests from the sheriff’s office, including Lexipol policy subscription, body‑worn camera hardware and software contracts, uniforms and equipment for restored deputy positions, and vehicle replacements. Commissioners and the sheriff’s office agreed that some items are recurring (subscriptions) and some are one‑time (uniform sets, initial camera hardware); they asked staff to split reoccurring from nonrecurring items and to identify salary‑savings that could temporarily cover some up‑front costs.
Commissioners directed the sheriff to return next week with a prioritized list up to a recommended target (discussed ranges: $1.6M; one commissioner suggested $1.8M as a more realistic target) so the board could retool the budget without losing the corrections hires the department called essential.
Ending: The sheriff will bring back a prioritized package showing which positions and nonrecurring items can be funded at the board’s target. Commissioners asked staff to explore using expected salary savings and fund balance to cover some one‑time costs this year, while reserving recurring funds for next year’s budget decisions.
