Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sheriff Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate use of drug fund for sheriff purchases; sheriff resists vehicle transfer
Summary
County commissioners debated whether the sheriff's $138,977 drug fund may be used for a $75,000 vehicle or a $60,000 generator. Finance staff said the comptroller and CTAS indicated the fund can cover nonrecurring law-enforcement expenses, but Sheriff Russell said he would not consent to using the fund for that vehicle.
County commissioners and the sheriff discussed whether the county drug fund (fund 01/22) could be used to pay for law-enforcement one-time purchases, including a planned $75,000 patrol vehicle and a $60,000 generator that appears as a separate budget amendment.
Mister Gulley asked finance staff to confirm the fund's allowable uses and proposed moving the vehicle purchase into fund 01/22 to avoid raising taxes. "If we can find a way, let's lower them," Gulley said as he described the need to find dollars without increasing the tax rate.
Finance staff and the chair reported they had consulted CTAS and the comptroller about fund restrictions. "He did indicate that he believed that that could be used... for nonrecurring law enforcement related expenses," the chair said, summarizing CTAS guidance. Miss Amy provided packet figures and projected fund balances: the county drug fund had a projected fund balance the committee discussed as about $138,977.
Sheriff Russell, who addressed the committee, opposed using that fund to pay for the $75,000 vehicle. He explained the fund's origins and typical uses: "What we use this money for, we get it through seizures and fines and stuff like that. ... In the past, we bought a box trailer... SWAT team gear... drug dogs." He said the fund has been preserved so the sheriff can purchase needed equipment without repeatedly requesting smaller appropriations, and that spending from the account requires sheriff consent.
Outcome: The committee ultimately struck the remaining vehicle line item from fund 101 by voice vote rather than shifting the vehicle to fund 01/22. Commissioners discussed a possible split of costs across funds as an alternative, and Gulley asked that if future contract negotiations with the prison board produce revenue the county would consider purchasing vehicles at that time.
What it means: The exchange clarified two points for commissioners: (1) staff and outside counsel (CTAS/comptroller) believe fund 01/22 may be used for nonrecurring law-enforcement expenses, and (2) the sheriff retains de facto control over spending from that fund because the sheriff must consent to such expenditures. The committee left open the possibility of future purchases if additional revenue materializes.
The committee recorded the motion to remove the vehicle line as approved by voice vote; the transcript does not include a roll-call tally.
