Russell County delays fee-pooling ordinance after sheriff and staff raise operational, audit concerns

Russell County Fiscal Court held the first reading of Ordinance 2508 on Sept. 8, 2025, a proposed ordinance to require the Russell County Sheriff's Office to pay all net fees monthly into the county treasury and shift routine bill payments to a county purchase-order system. The ordinance text, read at the meeting, cites attorney general guidance and KRS authorities and would require monthly remittances of fee income and multi-level approvals for purchases above defined thresholds.

The proposed ordinance drew an extended response from Sheriff Derek, who called the measure "an overreach of authority" and urged the court to consider its operational impacts. "Under this new system, things like brake work on a vehicle, which could run close to $600 for brakes and pads and calipers, would either have to have preapproval by this court to get it done," Derek said, describing routine maintenance that can occur on weekends or require immediate attention. He also said he had turned over almost $43,000 to the court this year and said he had done so believing it would be used to help provide hazardous-duty retirement for deputies.

Lisa Whittle, who identified herself as a long-time sheriffoffice employee and bookkeeper, told the court she has worked in the office for 35 years and defended the office's bookkeeping practices and audits. Whittle said audits referred to at the meeting included an automated-reporting formula error that produced zeros on a quarterly form and a pandemic-era budget amendment that produced a write-up; she said the state auditor had not taken enforcement action and that she had discussed the issues with the auditor's office.

Magistrates and the judge executive raised parallel concerns about accountability and county budgeting. Several magistrates said they support stronger fiscal controls and described purchase orders as a standard county accountability measure; others said they were worried about slowing emergency repairs or hiring decisions for the sheriff's office. The county judge executive and other members repeatedly suggested a work group to iron out operational details before a final vote.

County Attorney Kevin Scheer was referenced as the attorney the court instructed to draft the ordinance; the text read at the meeting incorporated procedures for monthly remittance, purchase-order requisitions and multi-step approvals, and provisions to withhold payment of salaries or ordinary bills if fee accounts are delinquent.

After more than an hour of discussion from the sheriff, deputy staff and multiple magistrates, the fiscal court did not take a final vote on Ordinance 2508. Instead members agreed to delay the second reading and to meet with the sheriff and staff to address practical concerns raised about emergency repairs, recurring bills (fuel, credit card charges), payroll timing, and grants compliance. One magistrate summarized the outcome: "Let's get together and work out the budget so we can work it both ways and just look, you know?" The court indicated the ordinance would be held until further meetings and until an amended budget or implementation plan could be presented.

Why it matters: The ordinance would change how sheriff's office revenues and expenditures are managed, shifting fee collections into the county treasury and routing payments through a county purchase-order system. That affects day-to-day law enforcement operations (vehicle maintenance, fuel, medications, uniform and equipment replacement), grant compliance and the sheriff's ability to set and pay staffing, and it would affect future sheriffs as well as the current administration.

Next steps: Court members asked to meet with the sheriff and staff and to prepare an implementation plan and, if needed, a budget amendment. The second-reading vote that would finalize the ordinance was postponed pending those meetings.