Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HB333 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners warned House Bill 333 could shift policing costs to the city; officials weigh options
Summary
Officials discussed House Bill 333 and its likely effect on city obligations for policing and 9‑1‑1 services, noting the original one‑third sharing agreement has not been met historically and exploring options from negotiated MOUs to the city forming its own police force.
Commissioners and staff discussed how House Bill 333 would change cost allocations between the county and the city, potentially increasing the city’s share of law‑enforcement expenses. The sheriff said the bill "puts the city has to pay" and described it as "ugly," noting that the original one‑third contribution the city was expected to make historically has not been collected.
Members discussed alternatives including asking the city to honor a one‑third share, negotiating a quarter share, moving to an hourly rate or memorandum of understanding, or the city creating its own police force if it chooses. Commissioners flagged the significant cost of starting a police department: initial recruitment, equipment and recurring annual expenses would be markedly higher than contributing a larger share to the county contract.
Why it matters: state law changes that increase local cost‑sharing can ripple through county budgets and require either increased city contributions, reallocation of county resources, or service reductions. Commissioners noted the county’s limited options if the city does not increase funding and suggested staff continue conversations with city officials and stakeholders.
Next steps: the sheriff said he would meet individually with the city council (including an upcoming one‑on‑one with a council member he named) before returning to commissioners with potential approaches. No formal policy change or vote occurred.
