Jamestown council debates sheriff contract as county's price rises; council settles on $475,000 budget figure

Jamestown councilors spent much of a budget work session debating how much to budget for contracted policing services after the Guilford County Sheriff's Office provided updated cost figures.

Staff warned the council that keeping the town's sheriff contract at $500,000 or below would likely reduce coverage because that sum would not fund the five full-time equivalents (FTEs) the sheriff said are needed for continuous 24/7 coverage. Staff also noted the town already pays county taxes that support sheriff services and sought clarity on how any credit is applied; a staff estimate discussed during the session put a notional credit at roughly $57,000 but staff said the sheriff's office uses its own reimbursement formula that the town has questioned.

Early in the meeting a councilor moved to budget $517,000 for the sheriff contract; the motion was seconded and a roll call recorded: Council Member West Morland voted no; Council Member Glennville voted no; Council Member Gibson voted yes; Council Member Burgess voted yes; Mayor Dickson voted yes. The motion passed.

Shortly after that vote, the county manager communicated a revised full-cost direction from the Guilford County Board of Commissioners and a new full-cost figure of about $592,102 for five FTEs and guaranteed 24/7 coverage. Council reaction to that number was uniformly negative: no councilors supported budgeting the $592,000 figure at this meeting, and members expressed frustration that the county's number came while Jamestown was finalizing its budget.

Faced with the higher county figure and a desire by several councilors to hold town spending closer to prior guidance, a second motion was made later in the meeting to set $475,000 as the budgeted amount for the sheriff contract. Councilors described $475,000 as funding roughly four FTEs "to provide as much 24/7 coverage as possible," but staff and the sheriff's office will determine how that translates into on-the-street coverage. The transcript records that councilors moved, seconded and then placed $475,000 in the budget by voice vote; the meeting did not capture a formal roll-call vote for the $475,000 direction.

Councilors underscored that budgeting $475,000 is not the same as signing a contract: the sheriff's office and county must still propose and approve contract language and final pricing. Several councilors asked staff to continue negotiating, to ask the sheriff's office for a four-FTE quote if the town prefers to remain under $500,000, and to report back once the county's internal budget work is complete.

The council recorded disappointment with the timing and transparency of the county's updated figures and asked staff to communicate the town's decisions to the county manager and the sheriff's office and to seek written clarifications about the formula and coverage assumptions. The council left a budget placeholder of $475,000 in its proposed FY 2026 7 budget pending additional information and any final contract action.

What happens next: staff will notify the county and sheriff's office, request detail on the coverage levels tied to each dollar figure, and return with more information in a future session. The council also noted that final contract approval lies with both parties and that any signed contract could still be rejected if subsequent clarifications alter the council's view of value or coverage.