Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission ratifies action to add one school resource officer amid statewide mandate, cites budget shortfall
Summary
Garfield County commissioners authorized pursuing an additional full-time equivalent in the sheriff—s office to serve as a school resource officer after state law changes that could otherwise require multiple officers and add roughly $1 million in local costs.
Garfield County commissioners on the record ratified a decision to pursue hiring one school resource officer after the sheriff described changes in Utah law that he said now mandate school resource officers and expand SRO duties.
The sheriff told the commission the new Utah law requires school safety provisions that could, because of Garfield County—s dispersed schools, have required seven to nine officers and cost "a million plus dollars," a sum he said the county cannot absorb given that roughly 87% of local property taxes go to the school district. Commissioners moved and seconded a motion to pursue hiring an extra FTE in the sheriff—s public-safety division; the motion passed with the board voting "aye."
County leaders said the sheriff requested only one SRO be funded by the county for now and that the officer would have authority to train potential guardians at schools under the new law rather than placing an SRO in every school. The commission also said it plans to invite Garfield County School District officials to the next commission meeting to record on the public record why the district declined to participate in funding SROs.
The action taken was described as a ratification of a decision discussed in executive session and as contingent on budget realities. Commissioners and the sheriff characterized the discussion as a direction to pursue the hire and related budget adjustments rather than a final multi-year appropriation. No specific dollar amount for the one position—s salary, benefits, or implementation timeline was specified at the meeting.
The commission did not adopt a new tax or reallocate a particular line item at the meeting; commissioners said the cost would come from the general fund if the school district does not share expenses. The board recorded the motion and vote during open session after holding the personnel discussions in executive session.
Looking ahead, county staff said they will place the school-district invitation on the next agenda and that further budget work and potential requests for school-district cost sharing will follow as staff and commissioners refine the estimate for the new position.
