[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6176950,"mediaKeyId","5342502-fca4dc45b4eb583edb74ce16752321cd","parentId",5342502,"title","Center for Supportive Communities and Children’s Advocacy Center request supplemental funds for youth services","audioSeconds",2399,"startMs",7355000,"endMs",9754000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5342502-fca4dc45b4eb583edb74ce16752321cd&start=7355&end=9754","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5342502-fca4dc45b4eb583edb74ce16752321cd/thumbnail_7355000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6176950/Kansas/Center-for-Supportive-Communities-and-Childrens-Advocacy-Center-request-supplemental-funds-for-youth-services","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6176950-c0ddeef7e1f8cd043f2c123bf857722a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770532279&Signature=axV3cN4-Cw-dLxHqyOGjPr0qDIBFT8P8YX7zJVo33mEX62XJz2Dl5BHU~R4SSVTfIerD37e7XkZUPJNm5thjV4GNcwJMDtJ0fZAytNPHZATn1n~pG11XKju9FLBehRGHzQg1jS9WtqNJG1idfk3wc~~oZCeh2kBAHToiVfGSx9~CI6K7~CpJnFqJ34aC95DApJs7nhXD4hIttPkdyUUPeqHHsNHmmZrmCe4dbVbbvE8sHU2VGA6Ey0~eipMt7YRelp-HbkyenBb1sxI7LgIDlDy7~HrFaCHj4XKTx-0V47tKMyagEQ6eo75J5GJ1IZemwyG5vzUeB0X22OypovE98g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Douglas County, KS","date","2025-07-09T17:31:18Z","article","Two community organizations that provide services to children and youth told the Douglas County Commission on July 9 they need supplemental support after recent grant changes and to sustain trauma‑informed mental‑health services.

The Center for Supportive Communities (CSC) said a recent federal reduction to AmeriCorps funding left a gap in 2025 operations that the organization had funded with AmeriCorps stipends and staff support. CSC requested supplemental funding to recover that lost AmeriCorps support, to add a board‑certified behavior analyst position and to provide salary adjustments for staff. CSC leaders said the program has trained volunteers and field interns and that their model has reduced unexcused absences and improved school attendance for many participants in the program. CSC submitted internal outcome graphs and reported recent reductions and progress metrics in its supplemental packet.

The Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) requested supplemental funds to continue specialized trauma‑focused therapy for children and caregivers after a three‑year National Children’s Alliance funding cycle ended last year. CAC said it trained local clinicians in trauma‑focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF‑CBT) under that prior grant but that therapy access still requires funding when families lack insurance or other coverage. CAC said it has used a combination of Douglas County Community Foundation support and unrestricted funds to continue services and asked the county for additional help to cover therapy slots and avoid interrupting ongoing treatment: “We want to keep kids with the same therapist… sometimes we have kids and families who are really they want a male therapist… we wanna be sure we have that flexibility,” a CAC representative said.

Commissioners observed that both organizations currently receive county funding under community partner agreements (below the county’s higher “service agreement” reporting threshold), meaning the county provides two disbursements per year and requests financials and 990s but typically does not require monthly invoicing or detailed service‑level invoicing. County staff noted the supplemental requests are more service‑specific and recommended careful review of ongoing reporting needs if the commission considers expanding funding.

Ending: No funding decisions were made during the hearing. Commissioners asked for additional documentation and urged staff to consider whether larger, ongoing requests should be moved into service agreements that require regular performance reporting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Douglas County, KS, Commissioners Budget Hearings on July 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Two community partners asked the County Commission for supplemental funds to cover lost grants and to expand trauma‑focused therapy for children; staff noted reporting thresholds differ for smaller community partner agreements.","taxTitle","County Commission, Douglas County, Kansas","taxId",69828,"location","Kansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6176954,"Economic development partners present budgets and programs to Douglas County Commission",303,5066000,5369000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5342502-fca4dc45b4eb583edb74ce16752321cd&start=5066&end=5369","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5342502-fca4dc45b4eb583edb74ce16752321cd/thumbnail_5066000.jpg","/articles/6176954/Kansas/Economic-development-partners-present-budgets-and-programs-to-Douglas-County-Commission","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6176954-77d917a7191d73be278bc883314e03ab/orig.mp4?Expires=1770532279&Signature=keTvwzMXhk6tIbovhk3AmJIeyUg2X2EEm748IG0Akt6oICB5lF~Gm2p7Hc9mgmfKVEhR0LMWPIvKwrybd-hftfEX1WIxZi-zUqtmTTFVjZgBFcfzEF1RHxZ3-5M2H2USQaM~-xOqhQqyVBeTuAp7WyWFAFqh6m3XM7Z4BJunK6K-UZSWvzVvG04NwgO-BVsn8chJFts4dxmfhPB3OSD-gKWAJ6GXmACybkUS3gv6~NAQUv-dFLpHXGeiKdMbeH-SXKqYqb9JtNW8xjtS4mmuAhojldIolQLjKzTt38dBmhKNTZqjc-TN8EFJ1kWmZAAbQvk3zNKQYyibpIFJBumH8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representatives of multiple economic development organizations briefed the Douglas County Commission on July 9, presenting budget requests, program descriptions and metrics for tourism, business recruitment, workforce training and entrepreneur support.

Speakers included leaders from the Baldwin City Chamber, Douglas County Corps, the Lawrence Chamber/EDC, KU Small Business Development Center, Peaslee Tech, KU Innovation Park and the EDC. County staff prefaced the session noting commissioners may ask how public funding is leveraged and what outcomes—jobs, business formation or tax base expansion—result from the county’s investments.

Baldwin City Chamber director Dana Mullis said the Chamber seeks local support to expand tourism marketing and visitor tracking; the Chamber has a $10,000 state grant to produce a visitors guide and is working with the local recreation commission’s Placer.ai data to measure visitation. Mullis described efforts to rebuild membership and local programming after an 18‑month staffing gap.

Bonnie Lowe and Steve Kelly explained that the EDC’s arrangement with the Chamber uses a $15,000 management agreement; the EDC does not directly employ staff but attributes portions of chamber staff time to EDC work under the management agreement. Commissioners asked about fund balance presentation and accounting shifts in the EDC materials; EDC and Chamber staff said timing and accounting alignment across fiscal years and entities explained the reported negative unrestricted fund balance in one line item.

Kevin Kelly of Peaslee Tech said his organization has finished paying off its mortgage and described a bricks‑and‑trades program that produced four houses and trained roughly 140 students; Peaslee expects to build five to six houses annually going forward and contracts with many local organizations for training.

Adam Courtney of KU Innovation Park (KUIP) summarized the park’s role as a lab‑ and office‑space developer and as a provider of business services. KUIP leaders said some tenant companies have remained in the park for a decade or more and that lab space is costly and highly specialized; commissioners asked about the extent to which KUIP tenants live in Douglas County and whether successful tenants eventually move into taxable commercial space elsewhere in the county. KUIP said it is gathering more address data when it issues or renews keycards and noted the park aims to leverage public support to secure additional grant funding and private development that could return new property to the tax rolls over time.

Commissioners asked each partner how they would report outcomes to the county and how county dollars would be used to leverage additional funding. Partners described a mix of performance tracking, third‑party tools (Placer.ai) and grant-match strategies; some organizations receive county support primarily as flexible operational funding that helps them meet match commitments for other state or federal grants.

Ending: No funding decisions were made at the hearing. Commissioners requested additional written details and follow-up materials, including clearer financials for the EDC/Chamber arrangement and KUIP data on tenant county residency and multi‑year outcomes.","Representatives from local chambers, the economic development corporation, Peaslee Tech, KU Innovation Park and others presented 2026 funding requests and summarized programs for business attraction, workforce training and small-business support.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6176959,"Commissioners briefed on Lawrence-Douglas County Fire Medical budget options, Station 6 operating cost concern",3864,269000,4133000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5342502-fca4dc45b4eb583edb74ce16752321cd&start=269&end=4133","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5342502-fca4dc45b4eb583edb74ce16752321cd/thumbnail_269000.jpg","/articles/6176959/Kansas/Commissioners-briefed-on-Lawrence-Douglas-County-Fire-Medical-budget-options-Station-6-operating-cost-concern","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6176959-b8491c87287f5cef301be9b9edde9b1a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770532279&Signature=HQujMT43sJ4Mvlct8SBYjn9veiTPp-KDXRIA-Q0ikYiwecPVo0T5CGexS5g867Uu3pAeROUbPpYGc2PJSNg6wLQ~Hy3~guRwbrAOQSf0CuuYB6vTWgpXJY8xCKnIkX8f4wcgNplktJtWYH~j0hxUSZNy-gm3q8efchSpcwcFCrXdOhyJ8jb7l7jMGJ5FIV6g99Fsr~TUWW1pufUJFXK9ZFAANX4T7DCg9Eip2Uf6LeP62gOxEJfupm6Y4zFknFlsU-FM3MUrHFDlgjEddGUclUhX6BC71v60gmzhMBVwza8V2E3OUFBNwSof-itWCZF1FlvgfFVdf3DAFFL~2Q93Yg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County and Lawrence-Douglas County Fire Medical (LDCFM) officials told the Douglas County Commission on July 9 that proposed budget scenarios aim to preserve core EMS operations but that a planned Station 6 expansion could add significant operating costs for the county beginning in 2027.

County staff said the proposed 2026 budget incorporates a governance-year shift that would move the county’s share of LDCFM shared costs from 36% to 38.25% for 2026 only. Staff said EMS revenue for 2026 is estimated at $3,500,000 in the proposed budget materials.

LDCFM staff summarized the so‑called “gray option,” which staff described as minimizing EMS reductions by retaining six battalion chiefs, the training lieutenant and seven 24‑hour staffed ambulances while reducing funded FTEs. The overview said the city of Lawrence’s proposed reductions would cut LDCFM FTE funded at the city from 18 to 10; staff said most of the positions potentially affected in the county share are currently vacant. “We have 10 FTEs… that relates to shutting down engine 5 and up staffing ladder 5 to 4… All 9 of those positions are currently vacant,” an LDCFM presenter said.

Commissioners pressed for clarity about Station 6, which city materials list on the capital improvement plan and that city staff have proposed be funded as part of the city CIP with an anticipated open date in 2029. County budget staff estimated the initial county cost to operate Station 6 in 2027 could be about $2,000,000 annually. “That’s about 1 mil for us,” the county presenter said when describing the county’s portion under the existing split; elsewhere staff said the full county share could be about $2,000,000 depending on staffing and governance outcomes.

Staff also discussed ambulance capital planning: the proposed budget includes a transfer to the ambulance capital reserve (fund 604) to support two ambulances anticipated for 2026; county staff said ambulance order lead times complicate budgeting because delivery can lag by two to three years. LDCFM said the system has 12 deployable ambulances in the fleet and operates seven standard 24‑hour ambulances in normal rotation, plus reserve units.

Commissioners discussed alternative staffing models. LDCFM presented two examples: a 40‑hour/week ambulance (staffed with the equivalent of three FTE positions accounting for relief factors) and a full 24/7 medic (three shifts). Staff provided rough cost figures: under the gray option a $183,000 funding shift was identified, a separate 40‑hour ambulance scenario would add about $346,000 in total county cost (county would pick up entire $346,000), and a full-time medic 6 to staff 24/7 was discussed as materially larger (presenters referenced a roughly $943,000 operating cost in the fuller staffing scenario). Commissioners asked staff to provide those figures in writing for inclusion in the packet.

Public‑safety leaders warned of service impacts if deeper cuts occur. LDCFM drew attention to standards of cover and to periods when the system has been at “status 0” — no ambulances immediately available — and said cutting apparatus or personnel would increase the frequency of those events and reduce coverage for fire suppression, technical rescue and hazardous‑materials response countywide.

Ending: Commissioners did not take action at the hearing. Staff said governance conversations with the City of Lawrence and LDCFM will continue and that county and city leaders will return to their respective bodies for direction once budget outcomes and governance decisions are clearer.","County staff and LDCFM leaders presented budget scenarios that shift near-term cost shares, preserve core ambulance staffing in one option, and flagged an estimated $2 million annual county cost for operating a potential Station 6 expansion in 2027.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6176964,"Douglas County staff brief commissioners on emergency communications, IT needs ahead of move to public safety building",78,130000,208000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5342502-fca4dc45b4eb583edb74ce16752321cd&start=130&end=208","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5342502-fca4dc45b4eb583edb74ce16752321cd/thumbnail_130000.jpg","/articles/6176964/Kansas/Douglas-County-staff-brief-commissioners-on-emergency-communications-IT-needs-ahead-of-move-to-public-safety-building","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6176964-cbc3f180ec689ee6cf9a67848f279bde/orig.mp4?Expires=1770532279&Signature=c6gRUFRESJkqo1iZbYyHTJQJKOBudzybXGhw1ffLKzWzAFoHl2zZrl3L4FtNCCRkn8g0iWG93JbIj937ROBiBJzmbRYN~~lYoGjtv1VakafanRPR~onD3h~YB~arw1cqjB1CCTcxKPbNENkcHHDUJIfF7a3wxG3Yh0c~meFs2NFFJmv9qzCyihdqnwel7-ScRyyxmJPDH~oJsjI8IWPvi0unRsqF4RVAFp~-qTc-rOpVuPoGG4fGgb9GMHH0A98YMF-JHmLZ8q4-KdFAXuXnMpLwsAtfh9E0lCwTPi2Q79YwmDJCWag1X1~6eoRUAm1ZLP1JMYdPGFQjIkj6ggVYhA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Douglas County budget staff told the County Commission on July 9 that Emergency Communications (ECC) and Emergency Management are requesting mainly personnel-related increases, plus one-time spending tied to vendor contracts and World Cup planning.

The overview said Emergency Management “has 1.5 FTE funded by the EMPG grant” and that its budget is substantially unchanged from the prior year except for personnel increases. Emergency Communications’ 2026 request includes overtime for two additional call taker shifts and $169,000 for “additional Motorola contract expenses,” the presenter said.

County staff emphasized that overtime for two call-takers is budgeted as overtime for existing staff rather than new hires. “These aren't new call takers. So this would be additional overtime dollars that would be allocated to existing staff to serve in that function during World Cup,” the presenter said.

Commissioners pressed staff on how ECC’s IT support relates to the sheriff’s office IT. ECC staff said their operations use a mix of the sheriff’s network support and vendor/contracted IT and radio technicians maintained separately. “We kind of use a mix of both our own IT that we do between administration with the ECC and then the sheriff's office IT,” ECC staff said. They added the county hopes to move more administration-side IT work to the sheriff’s IT in the future but noted the sheriff’s office currently lacks capacity.

Commissioners also asked about the timeline for moving ECC into the Public Safety Building. County staff said the move remains uncertain; they reported receiving a May/June timeframe from the construction manager but said an exact date will depend on whether the county becomes a World Cup base camp and on continuity-of-operations priorities.

Staff outlined complexity for the relocation: ECC uses multiple, overlapping networks (the sheriff’s network plus three contractual vendor networks) and several vendors including Motorola, AT&T (for 911 service) and Aviat (microwave). ECC staff said the startup and cutover work will be substantial: “Startup and transition is gonna be significant on the IT side. We have a very, very complex network,” they said.

Commissioners asked whether adding IT positions requested elsewhere in the budget would duplicate services. County budget staff noted that the sheriff is an independently elected office with its own IT responsibilities and that some specialist capabilities — for example, radio programming and radio technicians — logically sit with ECC rather than a centralized IT team. “I do not believe it's a duplication of service. I think it's about trying to balance centralized services with a decentralized specialist that's working closer to the people it serves,” the presenter said.

The ECC overview also noted operational agreements with nearby cities: an agreement updated in February 2024 allocates ECC costs among Douglas County and the cities of Lawrence, Baldwin City and Eudora based on a formula that transitions Baldwin City and Eudora to their full population-based shares in 2026.

Commissioners asked for clearer, regular updates on technical back‑bone projects and cybersecurity, and ECC staff said they would provide more regular briefings. ECC staff warned that cybersecurity needs have grown quickly: “Three years ago we didn't talk a whole lot about cybersecurity. Three years now, I have four different cybersecurity packages on four different networks,” ECC staff said.

Ending: Commissioners did not make decisions at the hearing; budget staff said they would return with any timeline updates for the move to the Public Safety Building and will include ECC staffing and contract details when preparing final budget materials.","County staff told the County Commission that Emergency Communications and Emergency Management budgets hold modest increases tied to personnel and contracts, and warned of significant IT work required to relocate operations to a new Public Safety Building ahead of the World Cup.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Center for Supportive Communities and Children’s Advocacy Center request supplemental funds for youth services

Economic development partners present budgets and programs to Douglas County Commission

Commissioners briefed on Lawrence-Douglas County Fire Medical budget options, Station 6 operating cost concern

Douglas County staff brief commissioners on emergency communications, IT needs ahead of move to public safety building