Russell County fiscal court shifts sheriff's funding approach, approves fiscal advance option

Russell County fiscal court members on Thursday reviewed the proposed 2026 budget for the sheriff's office and voted to let the fiscal court advance funds directly to the sheriff's operations instead of relying on the state's "advancement" process.

The decision follows a lengthy discussion of the sheriff's revenue streams and reimbursements. Fiscal staff reported total projected sheriff's receipts of $1,490,700 and total disbursements of $1,442,000, leaving expected excess fees of $48,700. Key revenue lines listed included commission on taxes ($600,000), an "add-on fee" expected to yield about $50,000, auto-inspection fees (noted to have increased under a recent state change), and a $65,000 share tied to school resource officer (SRO) arrangements with the Board of Education. Speaker 5 summarized those figures during the presentation.

The court also examined payroll and reimbursements: a maximum salary line of $800,000 was shown in the draft budget, while Speaker 6 said current salaries for roughly 11 office and deputy positions total about $550,000. Sheriff's office representatives (Speaker 7) explained that some hours — notably court security and prisoner transports — are reimbursed by the state ("state claims"), and those reimbursements reduce the county's net payroll burden. "For every citation that our deputies write, we get so much back from the state," Speaker 7 said, and described a monthly "state fee claim" process that varies with transport activity.

Court members discussed timing and cash-flow risks in January, a historically tight month before tax receipts arrive. To avoid delays or reliance on the state advancement procedure, fiscal staff proposed the court could legally pay the sheriff's monthly bills directly if the sheriff submits invoices; Speaker 5 said he verified the approach with state guidance (DLG). He emphasized invoices and actual bills would be required rather than a single lump-sum payment: "You'd have to just pay the bills," Speaker 3 said during the exchange. Speaker 5 also cautioned that "fee pooling" (consolidating receipts across offices) is allowed only by ordinance under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS): "Fee pooling is only allowed by ordinance," he said.

After discussion, Speaker 1 moved to implement the change so the county could advance funds for the sheriff in the manner described. The motion was approved by voice vote with no recorded opposition.

The court recorded several more operational clarifications: the sheriff's office will continue to pay bills from its accounts and submit expense reports and invoices to the fiscal court for reimbursement; state advances can be suspended in months the sheriff's office does not need them; and training, auto expenses, fuel, insurance, and equipment lines were reviewed in the budget lines presented.

Members also raised the county's vehicle inventory and the potential to retire underused vehicles to save on taxes and insurance. Speaker 1 asked whether some older cars could be taken out of service; Speaker 2 and sheriff's representatives said they could likely remove several vehicles but noted transport and court-security needs limit how many can be retired.

The court left the detailed budget numbers and operational invoices as the next procedural step: the sheriff will continue submitting reports and invoices for reimbursement, and the fiscal court staff will record the change by replacing the state advancement line with fiscal-court-level disbursements in the budget so the county can advance funds as needed. The motion's vote and the budget figures will be reflected in the final budget documents.