What expenses are Virginia localities legally required to pay for their sheriff's offices, and can they net those obligations against revenue from prisoner processing fees and courthouse security fees?

Plain-English summary

Funding a Virginia sheriff's office is a tangle of state allocations (through the Compensation Board), local supplements, statutory categorical funding (food for prisoners, uniforms, equipment), and dedicated fees (prisoner processing, courthouse security). Sheriff Ken Stolle of Virginia Beach asked Attorney General Herring two related questions: which of those local-funding statutes are mandatory and which are discretionary, and can a locality use revenue from prisoner processing fees or courthouse security fees to offset what it owes the sheriff under other statutes?

Herring walked through each statute one by one. The "may" vs. "shall" test was the doctrinal anchor: "may" generally signals permission, "shall" generally signals command. Here's the breakdown:

• § 15.2-1517 (group insurance for officers/employees): Discretionary at first ("may provide"). But if the locality chooses to provide insurance, it MUST provide it to sheriffs and their employees on the same basis as other officers and employees, unless a state program already does.

• § 15.2-1605.1 (supplemental compensation for sheriff/deputies): Fully discretionary. "May" supplement, in "such amounts as it may deem expedient."

• § 15.2-1615.1 (office equipment, supplies, postage, etc.): Mandatory. The locality "shall" pay invoices within the sheriff's budget. The Commonwealth then reimburses the locality monthly.

• § 15.2-1613 (uniforms and personal equipment): Mandatory. "Shall provide" reasonable items needed for official duties.

• § 53.1-126 (prisoner food, clothing, medicine): Mandatory. The locality "shall" pay vendors directly when the sheriff submits invoices.

• § 15.2-1613.1 (prisoner processing fees, up to $25 per prisoner): Discretionary to adopt. If adopted, the proceeds MUST be used by the sheriff's office for processing costs.

• § 53.1-120(D) (courthouse security fees, up to $10 per criminal/traffic case): Discretionary to adopt. If adopted, the proceeds MUST be appropriated to the sheriff for courthouse security personnel and related equipment.

On the offset question, the answer was no. Neither § 15.2-1613.1 nor § 53.1-120(D) lets a locality redirect those dedicated revenues to offset funds it owes the sheriff for food, uniforms, or other mandatory items. Each fee is statutorily dedicated to a specific function. Under the Dillon Rule, a locality has no implied power to net dedicated funds against other obligations. Herring relied on Arlington Cnty. v. White (2000) for the foundational Dillon Rule principle.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. The funding statutes have been amended in various ways since (including fee caps and additions). Verify current statutes before relying on any specific obligation or amount mentioned here.

Common questions

Which sheriff expenses must the locality pay?

Under the statutes Sheriff Stolle asked about: office equipment and supplies within budget (§ 15.2-1615.1), reasonable uniforms and personal equipment (§ 15.2-1613), and prisoner food, clothing, and medicine (§ 53.1-126).

Which are optional?

Group insurance (§ 15.2-1517, optional unless the locality already provides it to other employees, then mandatory at parity), supplemental compensation for sheriffs and deputies (§ 15.2-1605.1, fully optional), adoption of prisoner processing fees (§ 15.2-1613.1), and adoption of courthouse security fees (§ 53.1-120(D)).

What happens to fees collected under § 15.2-1613.1 or § 53.1-120?

They go into the locality treasury and must be appropriated to the sheriff's office. They are restricted to the purpose specified in the statute: processing arrested persons (for § 15.2-1613.1) or funding courthouse security personnel and equipment (for § 53.1-120). They cannot be used as a general substitute for other mandatory locality payments.

So if a locality adopts a $25 prisoner processing fee, can it then deduct $25 from the next uniform invoice?

No. The fee revenue is dedicated. It supplements, it does not substitute. The locality's obligation under § 15.2-1613 (uniforms) is independent of any dedicated-fee revenue.

Did the AG comment on every Virginia sheriff-funding statute?

No, only the ones Sheriff Stolle asked about. Other Virginia statutes also impose obligations on localities to fund sheriffs' offices. Each must be analyzed on its own.

Background and statutory framework

A Virginia sheriff is a constitutional officer (Va. Const. art. VII, § 4), independent of the locality's management and control. Funding flows from three main sources: state appropriations (through the Compensation Board), local supplements, and dedicated fees.

Statutory construction principles drove Herring's analysis. The opinion applied the ordinary-meaning rule: unless the manifest purpose of the legislature requires otherwise, "may" denotes permission, not compulsion, while "shall" generally denotes an imperative or mandatory action. Each funding statute then turned on which word it used.

The Dillon Rule restricts localities to express powers, fairly implied powers, and essential and indispensable powers. Arlington Cnty. v. White, 259 Va. 708 (2000), is the Virginia Supreme Court's leading statement. Because no Virginia statute expressly or implicitly authorizes a locality to use dedicated fee revenue to offset other obligations to the sheriff, no such authority exists.

The two dedicated-fee statutes deserve special note. Section 15.2-1613.1 authorizes a $25 prisoner processing fee, ordered as part of court costs, deposited with the locality, and "used by the local sheriff's office to defray the costs of processing arrested persons into local or regional jails." Section 53.1-120(D) authorizes a $10 fee in each criminal or traffic case for courthouse security, with proceeds "appropriated by the governing body to the sheriff's office" for "funding of courthouse security personnel" and related equipment. Both statutes channel revenue to specific functions, which is incompatible with treating that revenue as general-fund money the locality can offset against other obligations.

Citations

• Va. Const. art. VII, § 4 (sheriff as constitutional officer)
• Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-505 (AG advisory opinions)
• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1517 (locality insurance for employees)
• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1605.1 (supplemental compensation)
• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1613 (uniforms and personal equipment)
• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1613.1 (prisoner processing fees)
• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1615.1 (office equipment and supplies)
• Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-120 (courthouse security fees)
• Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-126 (prisoner food, clothing, medicine)
• City of Va. Beach v. Bd. of Supvrs., 246 Va. 233 (1993)
• Bd. of Supvrs. v. Weems, 194 Va. 10 (1952)
• Schmidt v. City of Richmond, 206 Va. 211 (1965)
• Arlington Cnty. v. White, 259 Va. 708 (2000)
• City of Va. Beach v. Hay, 258 Va. 217 (1999)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2015/15-010_Stolle.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Mark R. Herring
Attorney General

900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071

July 24, 2015

The Honorable Ken Stolle
Sheriff, City of Virginia Beach
Post Office Box 6098
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456

Dear Sheriff Stolle:

I am responding to your request for an official advisory Opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.

Issues Presented

You ask two questions regarding local funding of sheriffs' offices: whether several statutes require localities to pay certain expenses of sheriffs, and whether a locality may use funds collected pursuant to § 15.2-1613.1 (prisoner processing fees) or § 53.1-120 (courthouse security fees) to offset other amounts it is required to pay a sheriff pursuant to other statutes.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Each county and city in the Commonwealth elects a sheriff unless otherwise provided by law. The sheriff is generally responsible for providing law enforcement services, overseeing the local jail, securing the courthouse, serving civil papers, and otherwise assisting in the judicial process. Consistent with the wide range of duties that sheriffs perform, funding for sheriffs' offices is derived from a variety of state and local sources of revenue.

Several statutes address local funding for particular expenses of sheriffs. Each statute must be analyzed separately to determine whether the funding it identifies is mandatory or discretionary on the part of a locality. When interpreting statutes, the Supreme Court of Virginia has held that "words in a statute are to be construed according to their ordinary meaning, given the context in which they are used." Unless necessary to accomplish the manifest purpose of the legislature, the ordinary meaning of "may" denotes permission, not compulsion. The word "shall" generally denotes an imperative or mandatory action. Given this understanding, I will discuss each of the statutes about which you inquire.

Local Insurance Programs

Section 15.2-1517 provides that:

Any locality may provide group life, accident, and health insurance programs for its officers and employees . . . . In the event a county or city elects to provide one or more of such programs for its officers and employees, it shall provide such programs to the constitutional officers and their employees on the same basis as provided to other officers and employees, unless the constitutional officers and employees are covered under a state program, and the cost of such local program shall be borne entirely by the locality or shared with the employee.

The phrase "[a]ny locality may . . ." clearly gives localities the choice to provide insurance programs for its employees. If a locality does choose to provide insurance programs to its employees, it must also provide coverage on the same basis to sheriffs and their employees unless a state program does so.

Additional Compensation for Sheriff and/or Sheriff's Deputies and Employees

Section 15.2-1605.1 states that any county or city "in its discretion, may supplement the compensation of the sheriff" or his deputies or employees "in such amounts as it may deem expedient." "Such additional compensation shall be wholly payable from the funds of any such county or city." This statute clearly provides a locality with discretion to determine whether to provide additional compensation to supplement the compensation fixed by the Compensation Board. Any additional compensation provided by the locality must come from the locality's own funds.

Office Equipment and Supplies

In relevant part, § 15.2-1615.1 provides that:

Whenever a sheriff purchases office furniture, office equipment, stationery, office supplies, telephone or telegraph service, postage, or repairs to office furniture and equipment in conformity and within the limits of allowances duly made and contained in the then current budget of any such sheriff under the provisions of this chapter, the invoices therefor, after examination as to their correctness, shall be paid by the county or city directly to the vendors, and the Commonwealth shall monthly reimburse the county or city the cost of such items . . . .

Under this statute, invoices for office equipment, supplies, telephone service, and certain repairs purchased by a sheriff within the limits of his budget are to be paid by the locality, with the locality then being reimbursed by the state. This statute is not discretionary. It requires that the locality pay those expenses, provided they are within budgetary limits.

Uniforms and Personal Equipment

Section 15.2-1613 provides that:

[C]ounties and cities shall provide at their expense . . . a reasonable number of uniforms and items of personal equipment required by the sheriff to carry out his official duties.

This statute requires localities to appropriate funds reasonably needed by sheriffs for uniforms and other personal equipment to perform official duties. It is not discretionary, so long as the funds are reasonably needed for the covered items for official duties.

Foodstuffs and Other Provisions for Prisoners

Section 53.1-126 provides that:

The sheriff . . . shall purchase at prices as low as reasonably possible all foodstuffs and other provisions used in the feeding of jail prisoners and such clothing and medicine as may be necessary. . . . Invoices or itemized statements of account from each vendor of such foodstuffs, provisions, clothing and medicines [for jail prisoners] shall be obtained by the sheriff . . . and presented for payment to the governing body of the city or county . . . which shall be responsible for the payment thereof.

This statute requires the city or county to directly pay vendors of foodstuffs and other provisions purchased by the sheriff and used by jail prisoners. It is mandatory and not discretionary.

Prisoner Processing Fee

Section 15.2-1613.1 provides, in relevant part, that:

Any county or city may by ordinance authorize a processing fee not to exceed $25 on any individual admitted to a county, city, or regional jail following conviction. The fee shall be ordered as a part of court costs collected by the clerk, deposited into the account of the treasurer of the county or city and shall be used by the local sheriff's office to defray the costs of processing arrested persons into local or regional jails.

This statute allows, but does not require, a county or city to assess a prisoner processing fee. If the locality assesses this fee, the proceeds must be used by the sheriff's office to support the costs of prisoner processing. The statute does not authorize a locality to take funds collected as prisoner processing fees and credit them against any amounts it is required to pay the sheriff for other purposes.

Courthouse Security Fees

Section 53.1-120(D) provides that:

Any county or city . . . may assess a sum not in excess of $10 as part of the costs in each criminal or traffic case in its district or circuit court . . . . The assessment shall be collected by the clerk of the court in which the case is heard, remitted to the treasurer of the appropriate county or city and held by such treasurer to be appropriated by the governing body to the sheriff's office. The assessment shall be used solely for the funding of courthouse security personnel, and, if requested by the sheriff, equipment and other personal property used in connection with courthouse security.

Like the prisoner processing fee in § 15.2-1613.1, this statute allows, but does not require, a county or city to assess a fee for funding courthouse security. If a locality assesses this fee, the proceeds must be appropriated to the sheriff for use in supporting courthouse security. As with the processing fee statute, this statute does not authorize revenue from the fee to be used to "credit" or offset funds a locality is required to pay a sheriff for other purposes.

Your second question, which is partially addressed above, is whether a locality may use funds collected as prisoner processing fees (§ 15.2-1613.1) or courthouse security fees (§ 53.1-120) to offset other amounts it is required to pay a sheriff. As noted above, neither statute authorizes an offset, and funds raised under each statute may be expended only for the purposes identified in that statute.

The Dillon rule of construction dictates that "[local governing bodies] have only those powers which are expressly granted by the state legislature, those powers fairly or necessarily implied from expressly granted powers, and those powers which are essential and indispensable." I find no statutory authority under which a locality may make an offset against funds otherwise due to a sheriff's office, such as funds related to food and provisions pursuant to § 53.1-126, or uniforms and personal equipment pursuant to § 15.2-1613. Thus, in conformance with the Dillon Rule, I must conclude that a city or county may not use funds collected as prisoner processing fees or courthouse security fees to offset amounts otherwise payable to a sheriff's office under some other statute.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, it is my opinion that each statute regarding funding for a sheriff's office must be individually examined in order to determine whether the statute establishes a mandatory financial obligation on the part of a locality. No Virginia statute authorizes a locality to use funds dedicated under § 15.2-1613.1 (prisoner processing fees) or § 53.1-120 (courthouse security fees) to offset amounts it is required to pay a sheriff under other statutes. Accordingly, a locality may not offset a sheriff's funds in this manner.

With kindest regards, I am

Very truly yours,

Mark R. Herring
Attorney General