Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve $310,000 law-enforcement contract; manager warns fee-schedule could create subsidy risk
Summary
The Pitt County Board approved a roughly $310,000 contract for law-enforcement services but heard caution from the county manager that the board’s $47-per-hour fee schedule could leave the county subsidizing private contracts if higher-ranking officers are assigned more often than lower-paid deputies.
The Pitt County Board of Commissioners voted to approve a contract worth about $310,000 for law-enforcement services for a private entity after a discussion over whether the county’s $47-per-hour fee covers overtime costs for senior officers.
County Manager (speaker 1) told the board the sheriff’s office charges $47 per hour for contracted services and that “some officers at time and a half will make more than $47 an hour, and some officers at time and a half will make less than $47 an hour.” She walked through step pay rates, noting that entry-level deputies’ overtime would generally fall below $47 an hour while sergeants and higher ranks can exceed that rate.
Several commissioners raised concerns about fiscal responsibility and oversight if contract assignments skew toward higher-paid officers. One commissioner asked whether the county could end up subsidizing private events if revenue from the contract did not match overtime expenditures; the manager said the sheriff — who is separately elected and not present — recommends the fee schedule but the board can seek contract provisions or fee-schedule flexibility.
The manager also compared the sheriff’s in-house contracting model to the city’s approach of using private security vendors, noting recent private bids ranged above and below the $47 rate. She said the board could require a contractual trigger or surcharge if the average cost exceeds the fee schedule, or revisit the fee schedule during the sheriff’s budget presentation.
A commissioner moved to approve the contract and the motion was seconded and carried. The manager said the board could attach conditions or ask the sheriff to return with recommended contract language if the board wants explicit protections against revenue shortfalls.
The board handled the vote as part of the consent discussion; the sheriff’s office was not present to answer detailed questions about staffing assignments or who would be deployed to the contract.
The board’s motion approved the contract as presented; any future amendments to the fee schedule or contract terms would require board action.
