Sheriff’s concerns over staffing, pay dominate council meeting

Local News X The Brown County Council covered a wide range of issues during its April 20 meeting, with a major focus on staffing, equipment, and funding concerns within the sheriff’s department. Sheriff Brad Stogsdill addressed the council with several requests and updates. He asked for approval to use commissary funds to purchase refurbished tasers, explaining that the department’s current equipment is outdated. The total cost is expected to be between $12,000 and $14,000, including accessories such as cartridges and batteries. Council members approved the purchase up to $15,000. The sheriff also discussed ongoing vehicle needs within the department. He said the department is currently short on vehicles and is working to rotate older units while purchasing replacements. A new vehicle is expected to cost around $55,000, while a fully outfitted patrol vehicle can cost about $62,000 once equipment is installed. He explained that one plan involves purchasing a new vehicle for the sheriff’s department and then reassigning an existing vehicle to the coroner’s office, rather than purchasing a separate new vehicle for the coroner. The sheriff also spoke candidly about ongoing staffing challenges, telling the council the department is struggling to keep employees as neighboring counties offer higher pay. “We’re losing people to other counties, and they are making money because they are taking our trained officers,” he said, adding, “I’m upset. I’m tired of this game, and this is something that I want to fix.” He explained that while other counties are also dealing with turnover, the impact is much greater in a smaller department. “When you have a total of a 16-man department and you go down four in one year – that percentage hurts a lot,” he said, noting that larger departments can absorb those losses more easily. The sheriff said the issue is affecting public safety and experience levels within the department, pointing out that many officers now have only a few years on the job. As a possible solution, he floated the idea of increasing pay, suggesting a $5,000 raise across the board along with three years of 5 percent increases to help “stop this bleed.” He asked the council to think it over. Council member Patrick Nielander said that’s not realistic. Sheriff Stogsdill said it is, because it will save money over time. Nielander replied that the county doesn’t have the money and the sheriff responded that the county is losing money with the way things are going currently. Council member Scott Rudd noted that the issue is not new and has been building for some time. Rudd indicated the sheriff has been raising concerns about staffing, pay, and retention for years, underscoring that the current situation did not happen overnight. Council member Jim Kemp made a direct case for prioritizing the sheriff’s department as budget discussions move forward. Kemp said the county is facing a serious need and suggested that as much as $500,000 may be required to properly address staffing and retention issues. He pointed to the growing problem of younger, less-experienced officers filling the ranks as more seasoned deputies leave for higher-paying positions in other counties, stressing that this trend has real implications for public safety. Kemp also referenced the county’s innkeepers’ tax revenue as a potential source that should be considered when determining funding priorities, indicating that those dollars could play a role in supporting law enforcement needs. A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to a presentation from consultant Kristy McCann, who has been working with the Brown County Commissioners for approximately three months on reviewing and rewriting the county’s employee policy manual and handbook. McCann told the council that while her primary focus is updating policies, her review of county operations revealed broader concerns about how employee information, timekeeping, and payroll are currently handled. She explained that most of the county’s processes are still paper-based or managed through spreadsheets, which she said leads to inefficiencies, inconsistent recordkeeping, and a lack of real-time information for supervisors and administrators. McCann described how a Human Resource Management System, or HRMS, could centralize those functions into one digital system. Under that setup, employees would clock in electronically, request time off or submit forms through the system, and supervisors would approve those requests digitally. The information would then automatically flow to HR and payroll, creating a single, trackable record. She emphasized that such a system would not eliminate the need for oversight, but would make it easier to document actions, run reports, and ensure compliance with federal and state requirements. She also said it would improve day-to-day operations by allowing employees to access their own information, reducing the need to track down paperwork or ask supervisors for basic details like leave balances. McCann estimated that the current system results in roughly 1,100 hours per year of additional work for HR and payroll staff, along with about 780 hours of extra work for supervisors dealing with manual processes. When factoring in printing, storage, and administrative time, she estimated the inefficiencies could equate to roughly $85,000 annually, though she noted that figure represents time value rather than direct spending. Council members questioned how those estimates would translate into actual savings, pointing out that while a new system may improve efficiency, it would not eliminate the need for staff or completely remove the time required to review payroll. Council member Nielander asked where the financial benefit would come from if staffing levels remain the same. McCann acknowledged that the figures were preliminary and said the purpose of her presentation was not to request funding, but to seek permission to continue researching options. The discussion also turned to McCann’s role with the county. She confirmed she was hired by the commissioners and is not affiliated with any HR software companies. Her contract includes a project-based fee of about $8,400 to rewrite the county’s policy manual and handbook, with additional advisory work billed at $180 per hour. She clarified that while she has reviewed some job descriptions for accuracy, her primary focus is on the handbook and policy updates. After the discussion, council members agreed the presentation was informational and that no action was required at this time. The council approved the appointment of Aaron Parris to the Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals. Parris owns Sweetwater Realty and told the council he has owned property in Brown County for decades and wants to give back to the community. The meeting then shifted into an extended discussion about the upcoming 2027 budget process. Auditor Julia Reeves provided a draft timeline for budget submissions and review sessions, but council members raised concerns about whether the proposed schedule was realistic. By law, department heads are expected to submit their budget requests, known as Form 1s, by July 1. However, several council members noted that deadlines have often been missed in the past, making it difficult to stay on schedule. After discussion, the council agreed to hold budget hearings on July 28, 29, and 30, with sessions running from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day. Members emphasized that departments must meet the July 1 deadline, and Council member Kemp stated that if budgets are not submitted on time, the council may default to prior-year figures. The council also discussed the importance of requiring supporting documentation for any new or increased expenses, to avoid delays later in the process. Members said having detailed information upfront would help prevent last-minute questions and keep the budget on track. Another concern raised during the budget discussion was a reference to a 3 percent cost-of-living adjustment included in early guidance documents. Council members said no decision has been made on employee raises and warned that including a specific percentage could create false expectations among department heads and staff. Officials agreed that future guidance should instead state that any cost-of-living adjustments are still to be determined. A larger and more complex issue discussed was the county’s ongoing effort to implement a factor evaluation system (FES) for employee pay. Council members said they still do not have a clear understanding of how much it would cost to fully implement the system or how those costs would be funded. Council member Kemp noted that while the council has been given an overall dollar estimate for wage adjustments, they do not yet have a breakdown showing how much each position or department would be affected. Without that information, he said it is difficult to make informed decisions about future budgets. The council acknowledged that implementing the system will likely need to be done in phases over several years, rather than all at once, due to financial constraints. The meeting concluded with discussion of upcoming meeting dates, including a morning session scheduled for May 7, at 9 a.m. Featured Local Savings