Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Requests topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff, commissioners ask council for additional appropriations for laptops, background checks and MFA
Summary
Sheriff Nick Smith requested $25,119.92 from riverboat funds for eight patrol laptops and two appropriation requests from the commissioners sought $25,000 for background checks/drug testing and $9,394.31 for multifactor authentication; the council did not vote on those requests at the meeting and the sheriff said he will return with a refined figure.
Sheriff Nick Smith told the Harrison County Council on June 23 that he seeks an additional appropriation of $25,119.92 from the county share of the riverboat fund to purchase eight in‑vehicle laptops for patrol units, saying several existing devices are broken or incompatible with Windows 10. Smith said the advertised figure included both three‑ and five‑year warranty options and that the final cost will likely be lower once a single warranty choice is selected; he said he would provide a more precise number at the council’s next meeting when the council will vote on the request.
Commissioner President Nelson Stepro presented two additional appropriation requests from the commissioners’ budget (county general fund). The first request, $25,000, is to cover the cost of third‑party background checks and periodic drug testing for employees; Stepro explained that vendors charge per use and that a larger up‑front expense would cover checks for existing employees, while a smaller ongoing line would address new hires and required periodic testing per the county’s insurance carrier. The second request, $9,394.31, is to extend multifactor authentication (MFA) across county machines beyond the county’s existing MFA for email to cover other applications used by county employees; Stepro said this is an insurance‑driven requirement.
Neither the sheriff’s laptop request nor the commissioners’ two appropriations were recorded as approved in the meeting minutes; the council reviewed other budget ordinance language and handled a separate intra‑fund transfer and minutes approval during the session. No vote tally for the presented appropriations was recorded in the transcript.
