Sheriff asks council to approve $93,293 in retention bonuses and defends credit-card use and vehicle sales

Sheriff Anthony Russell asked the Hampton County Council on May 4 to approve transferring $93,293 from sheriff’s-office salary line items to fund retention bonuses aimed at keeping deputies in Hampton County.

Russell told the council the total request would be funded from salary savings and specified transfers including $13,513 from court-security and $5,690 from code-enforcement/animal-control line items. He said the transfers would not eliminate existing positions and that three deputies have left since his prior request, which he said the bonuses would help prevent.

“I'm just trying to maintain safety in this county where we all live,” Russell said, adding, “This is not the money that's going into my pocket personally.” The chair ruled the item a presentation and said no action would be taken that night; councilmembers were given time to digest the request and the item may be placed on a future agenda or a special-called meeting.

Council members pressed the sheriff for details. Councilman Johnson Thompson asked whether paying bonuses would remove positions; Russell replied the money came from vacancies earlier in the budget year and would not reduce staffing. Councilman Love asked whether the request could be voted on that evening; the chair answered no.

The meeting also featured an extended exchange about the sheriff’s office credit card after a council review raised a $13,000 invoice labeled in the accounts-payable record as a “comprehensive” charge. Russell said the $13,000 figure reflected an overall vendor bill, not a single charge to the sheriff’s card, and defended the card’s uses as lawful and operationally necessary. He listed required pre-employment items that are billed directly (comprehensive background checks, polygraphs and credit checks tied to the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy), monthly camera-system maintenance (which he estimated at $4,000–$5,000 per month), transport-related meal costs for inmates and community-engagement promotional items. He also said some venues require a $1,000,000 event-insurance policy and that, after failing to be added to the county umbrella, he obtained separate coverage for sheriff-led events.

“There’s no way in this world a comprehensive center would charge the sheriff’s office $13,000,” Russell told the council, saying the invoice the council saw was the overall billing for multiple agencies and itemized charges had been submitted to the county. He said his office has a credit-card policy and that invoices are compared back to sheriff-office budget lines before payment.

Councilmembers also questioned the sheriff’s sale of inoperable county vehicles. Russell said he sold older, broken vehicles and used the proceeds to buy replacement patrol cars after losing three vehicles in one incident; he said those replacement vehicles were purchased by check from sheriff’s-office funds and titled in the sheriff’s-office name. Councilman Thompson and others raised concerns about whether disposal followed county procedures and said some buyers reported not receiving titles, creating delays and insurance complications. Russell said titles had been scattered across the county and his staff were working to assemble proper documentation.

The chair closed the operational exchanges without a vote and moved the retention-bonus request and other items forward for later consideration; the council later recessed to handle appointments and an ordinance reading and scheduled an executive session on legal and personnel matters.