Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 207k Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners split over 207(k) overtime threshold; sheriff warns operational harm if standard changed
Summary
The court discussed whether to adopt the 207(k) law-enforcement exemption under a 168-hour threshold or revert to 171 hours; the sheriff said reverting to 171 hours would be detrimental and the court requested further legal review and did not adopt a change.
The commissioners engaged in a lengthy discussion about adopting the 207(k) exemption for law-enforcement employees and whether the county should continue paying overtime based on a 168-hour threshold in a 28-day work period or revert to the 171-hour calculation. The policy has been contentious: the court previously adopted the 168-hour approach as a benefit to employees, but some legal advisers urged caution.
The sheriff told the court that reverting to a 171-hour threshold "is gonna be detrimental to the long haul," saying current staffing and call volume make that change problematic for patrol operations. County legal counsel and the TAC legal representative gave differing perspectives; counsel said the issue merits review by general counsel. The court had no final vote: one motion to table failed for lack of a second, and the court ultimately recorded no action on the item, asking staff to coordinate further legal review before a decision.
