Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sheriff Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis County staff propose records unit for sheriff’s office to address expungement backlog
Summary
County staff proposed converting a vacant Office Specialist II to a records supervisor and repurposing other vacancies to form a small records unit, citing growing expungement volume and complex record‑handling duties; staff will return with cost and peer comparisons.
County budget staff told the Davis County Budget Committee on April 14 that the sheriff’s office needs a dedicated records function to manage a growing volume of public‑records and expungement requests.
Chris Bone of human resources and sheriff’s office staff described a plan to convert an existing vacant Office Specialist II to a records supervisor and repurpose another forthcoming vacancy to create a small records unit. "We're thinking about converting that to a records specialist of some kind," the presenter said, adding the unit would centralize intake, inmate files, court instructions and expungement handling.
The sheriff’s office supplied specific workload figures to explain the proposal. "Last year, we had over 724 requests come through the next request system in the county," a department representative said, and for 2025 the office had already recorded 48 walk‑in expungement requests and 99 automated expungement records generated under recent legislation. Staff described a backlog and a largely manual process that requires searching multiple legacy records systems.
Committee members asked for a written price estimate and a short narrative that compares Davis County’s proposed staffing to peer counties. One commissioner asked staff to "put a brief little narrative or analysis" in the follow‑up materials, including a comparison to Weber County staffing levels.
County staff said the plan would use existing headcount rather than add net FTEs; preliminary grade estimates for a records supervisor were described as in the mid‑teens to high teens (grade 13–18) with an annual mid‑point cost difference noted in committee discussion.
Next steps: staff will finalize the cost estimate, provide a short narrative and peer comparison, and return to the committee with pricing and implementation details before any final personnel action.
