Commissioners direct DA to draft agreement to sponsor CDL training for county employees

5899214 · October 7, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The court authorized departments to fund CDL training for county employees and asked the district attorney—s office to draft a contract tying the training subsidy to a multi-year service commitment or reimbursement if employees leave early.

Walk er County commissioners on Monday gave departments authority to fund commercial driver—s license (CDL) training for prospective county employees and directed the district attorney—s office to draft a contract that would govern the program.

Commissioners said hiring and retaining CDL-qualified staff for Road & Bridge and other departments is a pressing problem. Several commissioners proposed paying training costs up front, with a contract that would require employees who leave before a set period to reimburse the county or otherwise satisfy repayment terms.

"If they don't complete it, then we kinda expect them to maybe reimburse the county for the school," one commissioner said. Another suggested a two-year service requirement after training; if the employee remains two years, repayment would be waived. Commissioners compared the proposal to an existing EMS training agreement used by the county.

The court authorized precincts to fund CDL training from departmental budgets, contingent on an agreement drafted by the district attorney. The DA—s office was asked to prepare a simple contract or "honor system" agreement that would require repayment if the trainee did not meet the service commitment. Commissioners asked that the draft return to the court for approval at a future meeting.

County staff noted some training providers already offer programs with financial aid or student loans, and suggested the county could provide a stipend toward loan payments. Commissioners emphasized the program should be flexible and could be funded at the department level; they did not commit a single countywide funding source or a specific dollar amount.

The court did not set a final repayment period in the motion; commissioners discussed two years as a standard but left the exact terms for the DA—s office to draft and the court to approve.