Commissioners approve private staffing contract for sheriff’s detention officers after contentious debate

Tarrant County’s commissioners on Oct. 14 approved an annual contract to procure temporary staffing for the sheriff’s detention operation, voting 3–2 after extended questioning about cost, oversight and precedent.

The contract awards ReKana Solutions LLC (contract ID on the agenda) the ability to recruit and supply detention officers, sergeants and lieutenants to supplement the sheriff’s workforce. County staff and the sheriff’s command said the vendor’s national recruiting reach and capacity to assist with licensing and relocation could bring personnel the department has struggled to hire locally. The sheriff’s office said the vendor would staff positions under the sheriff’s policies; outstanding hires may be offered permanent county jobs after a probationary period.

Sheriff’s Office leaders told commissioners the county currently has significant vacancies in detention ranks and that a staffing vendor could help fill immediate gaps. Chief Herklutz (sheriff’s office) said the agency would train and supervise vendor‑supplied staff according to county procedures and that the sheriff would enforce county policies. Budget and department staff presented a cost comparison that treated the vendor service as an alternative to fully burdened county employees; those total burdened comparisons included retirement contributions, insurance and estimated workers’ compensation savings.

However several commissioners and members of the public raised objections. Commissioner Alisa Simmons repeatedly asked for clarity on rates and the procurement record and said the contract made the county a “guinea pig” because other Texas counties have not used the vendor in the same way. Public commenter Nan Terry asked whether the county’s own employees were being given clear promotion paths before outside hiring. Joe Palmer urged the court to allow more time for review and suggested the agenda packets are too dense to assess complex contracts at a single meeting.

During the hearing officials and speakers cited several hourly figures during debate: a quoted base hourly pay figure for an individual detention officer was discussed as $30 per hour; a total all‑in county burdened cost figure of about $50 per hour was referenced for a county‑employed detention officer; and a vendor bill rate — combining pay plus administrative fee — was described in testimony as roughly $67.50 per hour. County staff said the vendor would handle workers’ compensation for vendor employees and that the county could offer permanent positions to vendor employees after a transition period.

After a divided discussion, the court approved the staffing agreement 3–2. Commissioners asked the sheriff’s office and purchasing staff to monitor contractor performance and to provide follow‑up reporting about recruitment results and any liability or incident issues. The sheriff’s office said vendor staff would work under the sheriff’s license, follow county policies, and be subject to the same inspections and oversight the county applies to sponsored staff.

The contract is intended as a temporary recruiting and staffing tool to address persistent vacancies in detention staffing. The court’s approval requires ongoing oversight from the sheriff’s office and county purchasing to assure compliance, training and public safety protections.