Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hardee County limits take‑home county vehicles to two building inspectors and one on‑call service truck
Summary
After extended debate about costs, liability and employee recruitment, the board voted 3–2 to ban most county take‑home vehicles while exempting two building inspectors and one on‑call service vehicle; the county manager’s vehicle remains governed by his employment agreement.
The Hardee County Board of County Commissioners voted 3–2 to end most county take‑home vehicles but exempted two building inspectors and a designated on‑call, outfitted service vehicle.
The board spent more than an hour debating the policy’s tradeoffs — cost, employee recruitment and retention, liability for after‑hours responses, and the county manager’s contract. Commissioner Wells made the motion to eliminate take‑home vehicles except for two building department inspectors and one on‑call maintenance/service vehicle; Commissioner Chancy seconded. After discussion and amendments the board carried the motion by a 3–2 vote.
Supporters of the restriction argued take‑home vehicles impose ongoing costs (fuel, maintenance, depreciation) and raise liability exposure when used outside county business; some commissioners said limiting take‑home privileges would improve public perception of stewardship of tax dollars. Opponents urged that a small number of take‑home vehicles is an important recruitment and retention tool, that certain positions (on‑call utilities, fire/EMS leadership and road crews) require immediate response capability, and that altering take‑home rules can undermine morale if not managed carefully.
The county attorney noted the county manager has a separate employment agreement that currently authorizes a take‑home vehicle; commissioners discussed that the manager’s contract would have to be amended separately if they wanted to remove that benefit. Commissioners also discussed a variety of implementation approaches, including payroll withholding for personal use, limiting vehicles to service/outfitted trucks for on‑call employees, and exceptions for true 24/7 emergency response roles.
The board did not provide a written implementation schedule at the meeting; staff was asked to follow up with a scrubbed list of current take‑home vehicles, and to return with a clarified policy and implementation plan for board review. The county attorney advised that removing take‑home privileges for employees who are officially on-call can have liability and insurance implications; staff was directed to consider those issues in the implementation plan.
The motion carried 3–2. The record shows both the substance of commissioners’ concerns (cost, liability, morale) and that the county manager’s employment agreement remains a separate contractual matter unaffected by this vote unless the board directs contract amendment in a subsequent action.
