[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6174712,"mediaKeyId","5366657-cda4cfd6037c85aed4ebc3a65c3e9591","parentId",5366657,"title","Commissioners review behavioral-health sales-tax requests; staff says $1.6M ongoing gap remains","audioSeconds",3138,"startMs",4143000,"endMs",7281000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5366657-cda4cfd6037c85aed4ebc3a65c3e9591&start=4143&end=7281","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5366657-cda4cfd6037c85aed4ebc3a65c3e9591/thumbnail_4143000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6174712/Kansas/Commissioners-review-behavioral-health-sales-tax-requests-staff-says-16M-ongoing-gap-remains","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174712-c104dc241a943569ac73e581529f870e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770884054&Signature=W-jyJkqYxqK-q0pkPZPK33XrvcEO6nuKUftjGGxDII7Ozps1I79px7nboszeUtDdFAUz0bCTZz8A4alnyv3ND~03nBK0rk5F-pnZnmbvln1Pj65ny6lxS5im0UxB-kOfV6ACMkMCG8QLJ8GOmqy3vBscfP6GMX4rFlspRuvdiA38m~WQt~GwOPMW92P7MXrGKwkp2hPhJwCm9apmyZt9dlMB9gmiHiruheeG575yGQsplzUT0whNXyIs8E6sCBpa6gZVffCs62RQSTpGcu9hkO~izMtJwssEC9I22TYaGkMHEBUuMrWmdNFDqL9tY8nMAmAPtHghHsArAMpAC9LvIA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Douglas County, KS","date","2025-07-11T19:43:58.583Z","article","Douglas County commissioners reviewed behavioral-health sales-tax requests during July 11 budget deliberations and heard staff explain fund capacity, eligible projects, and several retroactive or gap-funding requests. No funding decisions were made; staff committed to clarifying the eligible amounts, splitting one-time vs. ongoing requests and reporting back to the commission.

What staff presented
Jake and Sarah presented a condensed worksheet showing items eligible for the behavioral-health sales tax. Sarah summarized: the ongoing amount eligible on the worksheet totaled roughly $2,900,000, while the 1‑time eligible requests totaled roughly $3.3 million. She said the county’s undedicated ongoing capacity in the behavioral-health fund is about $1,600,000 (funding already committed to ongoing programs reduces the available ongoing capacity); she contrasted that with a capital capacity number the staff cited near $12,000,000.

Why it matters
Commissioners said clarity is needed because partners and the public have sometimes misread the behavioral-health fund balance as fully available for recurring operations. Staff warned that capital-restricted funds cannot be used for ongoing personnel costs and that moving operating obligations into a capital fund would create statutory and policy limitations. Sarah said an exemption from the county’s fund-balance policy would be required to treat those dollars differently.

Retroactive requests and contractual questions
Commissioners asked about several retroactive requests, including invoices or previously allocated 2023/2024 funds now being sought for payment. County staff (Bob and Sarah) told the commission there is an outstanding 2023 invoice from Headquarters that staff estimate at roughly $84,000 and that the county previously entered a 2023 contract related to some crisis-line work; staff paused payment while questions about contract performance and audit findings were investigated. Sarah said: “they invoiced us on time. We just had questions and it, was very fair, I think, to wait for answers on those.”

Staff also distinguished between two categories of retroactive requests:
- Funds that were previously contracted but unspent (staff said Mirror Inc and similar items fall into that bucket and can be treated as contractual commitments).
- Requests that represent retrospective gap funding for services not covered by an existing contract (staff said those should be treated differently and raised governance concerns).

Other specifics discussed
- Headquarters and the local crisis phone line: staff said the local number used historically by Headquarters is not county-owned and that 988 will route callers; staff recommended a fresh, start‑from‑scratch agreement if commissioners want to fund crisis-line operations going forward.
- Permanent supportive housing: staff identified an ongoing funding need of about $390,292 (itemized in the worksheet) and a one-time gap amount for 2025 (staff said they would split that line into two, color-code it and provide updated worksheets).
- Bert Nash: staff told commissioners they expect additional, specific requests tied to Bert Nash’s transition and recommended that any ongoing support be based on a new agreement and clearer financials; staff said outside consultants (SS&C) have been engaged for Bert Nash’s financial work and that additional one-time transition requests may arrive.

Next steps
Commissioners asked staff to: split worksheet lines where necessary and color-code one‑time vs. ongoing amounts; provide precise totals and fund-balance calculations; and identify which past amounts are contractual obligations versus discretionary supplemental requests. Staff also suggested the county consider an exemption from the fund‑balance policy if the commission chooses a different treatment for behavioral-health funds.

Ending
No commitment was made to specific supplemental funding on July 11. Commissioners asked staff to return updated worksheets and supporting documentation in advance of Monday’s deliberations and to flag items that at least two commissioners want to prioritize for discussion.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Douglas County, KS, Budget Deliberations on July 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Douglas County staff presented a consolidated list of projects eligible for the county behavioral-health sales tax on July 11. Commissioners were told ongoing eligible requests total roughly $2.9 million while undedicated ongoing capacity is about $1.6 million; commissioners asked staff for clarifications and for handling of retroactive requests.","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},6174716,"Commissioners weigh adding ambulance, city cost-share as Lawrence-Douglas County Fire & Medical budget shrinks",2168,1952000,4120000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5366657-cda4cfd6037c85aed4ebc3a65c3e9591&start=1952&end=4120","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5366657-cda4cfd6037c85aed4ebc3a65c3e9591/thumbnail_1952000.jpg","/articles/6174716/Kansas/Commissioners-weigh-adding-ambulance-city-cost-share-as-Lawrence-Douglas-County-Fire-Medical-budget-shrinks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174716-27067033bdc384759d074003af818260/orig.mp4?Expires=1770884054&Signature=ikhGnGZQQ92DFyfzka54s5msYq2-iY0zT~G2nkyDJ3BTmmFXsPmcT1Wvi0k8OJ1s00~-l3Qyxn~NlQBiptMnbqPFm8DGic7cGzto--zNq2m9~6YEGGEncpJe9pp88QRMZR~ptaHGZWaPic1Gh3LGNmfxm~KGf13Ti-1vHPdec6mJqfqyUYS23t0T7QfbQZyqAOPqlRo0CyjqVKthe-WbDK-G9V5YqZn7uh8XeaXMtsTiQRFR3e9k1zjzznvLzDcK~MQFnJQtnF4OeYabak7-QXXyKgxzJiaE~HeFVl0iavV463kCSYSlPmJXEHzlgTZLIITalP~la4lNKbd-O6GA3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Douglas County commissioners reviewed alternatives for Lawrence-Douglas County Fire & Medical (LDCFM) funding during July 11 budget deliberations, focusing on whether the county should add ambulance capacity now while the City of Lawrence pursues a substantial budget reduction. The commission did not take a vote; staff were asked to provide numerical deltas and analyses for commissioners’ worksheets.

The options shown to the commission were described as: the gray option (the base proposed budget), a blue-gray option that adds a 40‑hour-per-week ambulance, and a blue option that funds a 24/7 ambulance associated with a future Station 6 expansion. Staff placed a “gray” option in the proposed county budget to preserve existing service levels but said it would shift a greater share of shared LDCFM expense onto the county.

Staff numbers and city context
Sarah and Jake, county staff who presented the options, told the commission the three alternatives change the county’s operating cost roughly as follows: the gray option is built into the proposed budget, the blue‑gray option adds about $528,000 to the county’s base (a $346,000 delta above the gray option was cited during the meeting), and the blue option adds roughly $1,160,000 (the meeting record shows a county delta of about $1.16 million relative to the base). Sarah also noted the city is facing an estimated $1.5 million reduction in its own fire budget and that restoring cuts or committing to Station 6 will shift large operating and capital obligations between the partners. Sarah summarized the legal timing constraints for levy-setting: “By before the twentieth, we have to notify the county clerk what the maximum mill levy we want to consider for the 2026 budget.”

Why it matters
Commissioners framed the discussion as both a public-safety and a partnership issue. Several commissioners said the additional ambulance capacity is needed now; others cautioned against unilaterally changing the county’s share of an agreed governance percentage and warned about setting a precedent that could reduce future cooperation with the City of Lawrence.

Positions, concerns and evidence cited
- Some commissioners favored the blue option tied to Station 6, saying longer-run planning and data support additional ambulance capacity. One commissioner said planning now could avoid a larger mill-levy increase later.
- Other commissioners urged caution: they cited the existing governance agreement’s percentage splits, the county’s one-year extension of the agreement, and uncertainty about the city’s eventual capital and operating decisions.
- Staff noted the city’s capital plan included a Station 6 capital estimate near $3,000,000 and an estimated operating impact of about $4,700,000 for Station 6 over time; those capital commitments would likely be funded by debt on the city side, while operating costs would be an ongoing obligation.

Directions and follow-up
Commissioners asked staff to: provide precise deltas for each LDCFM option in commissioners’ worksheets (county incremental costs above the proposed base); model how the county’s cost would change if the City of Lawrence restores part or all of its proposed cut; and clarify operational assumptions tied to Station 6 and accreditation timelines. Staff said they will add the blue/gray/blue‑gray deltas to the comment section of each commissioner’s worksheet and return updated numbers prior to the next deliberation.

No final decision
Commissioners did not approve any of the three alternatives during the July 11 session. They discussed the possibility of setting aside one‑time funds, placing conditional commitments in the budget, or using carryover capacity for a temporary ambulance, but expressed concern about committing county funds without clear city commitments. The commission indicated it will continue to consider LDCFM funding as the city finalizes its maximum mill levy and capital plan.","Douglas County commissioners discussed three LDCFM funding options—gray (included in proposed budget), blue-gray (40‑hour ambulance) and blue (24/7 ambulance linked to Station 6 expansion). Staff and commissioners differed on risk, precedent and timing; staff will provide financial deltas and impacts tied to possible City of Lawrence actions.",{"_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},6174720,"Douglas County commissioners debate market-based pay increases and elected-official raises",171,64000,235000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5366657-cda4cfd6037c85aed4ebc3a65c3e9591&start=64&end=235","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5366657-cda4cfd6037c85aed4ebc3a65c3e9591/thumbnail_64000.jpg","/articles/6174720/Kansas/Douglas-County-commissioners-debate-market-based-pay-increases-and-elected-official-raises","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174720-9ceab62bf80557eeb5aab43aee6ba831/orig.mp4?Expires=1770884054&Signature=X7hDljHHgp2nRta0TotwqtmMn0E81dMeZo8~EEgEP3S8tXSpo~QRAcp3xYPw3A1b2rboTaMBRKSVDldkj~kXGJGDGnfGFbDTNIs4hKNz6oC~QtTpFtu9hZZRATiAnCQZ6I8~Tj9Zlnjmx2ONg9ZchdTaYUDnZPGhjx6JbvAzyhrHGX5JMzQ1VjrL5WsOn-M8RRrI1XZ6t4qAdsqhtdo2M1ZnPDAxNa1wRqSS-M410lI2yNysOfSLGtQr1SkWsrvrAa7ylj4b4mzQfCRWiuEppBXFC3Sf-uTSArdbiI2FU2dHaxVGuH7NGGpgvXVyaBxGCvDWkVUHuQCajVFVt09fgA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Douglas County commissioners spent substantial time July 11 discussing proposed market-based pay adjustments for county staff and whether elected officials’ salaries should be treated differently. The conversation took place during a budget deliberation session; commissioners did not take votes and staff were asked to supply additional comparative data before the next meeting.

The county’s budget proposal includes market-based pay adjustments and a separate merit pool. Sarah, a county staff member who led the budget presentation, described the county’s approach: “we do not have a cost of living adjustment. That's not what our pay plan puts forward. We do market based pay, which is based off of what the cost of the job is in the marketplace.” Sarah said her analysis shows a proposed market adjustment in the 6.4–6.7% range and a 3% merit pool in the budget as presented.

Why it matters: commissioners said the choices affect the county’s ability to retain staff and the tax burden on residents. Commissioner Dorsey said the effect on taxpayers is a concern, noting that, “we're raising taxes 5.6% approximately on everybody over last year because that's the value of the property increase on average,” and warned that increases could push vulnerable homeowners toward homelessness. By contrast, other commissioners emphasized retention problems and the fiscal cost of catching up later.

Key facts
- The budget discussion referenced a McGrath compensation study previously used to adjust pay; staff said the county set aside $3,000,000 to implement that study’s recommendations and that the consultant fee was about $50,000. Sarah said the McGrath work was prompted by recruitment and retention problems in specific departments, including the sheriff’s office.
- Sarah told commissioners she consulted regional market data (the county receives market data from ESRI covering the Kansas City region) and noted area public employers’ planned increases, including the City of Lawrence’s planned 8% increase for 2026 and many Johnson County cities planning 4–6%.
- The budget as presented includes a 3% merit pool; staff described the merit pool as separate from the market adjustments and said not all employees would receive the full merit amount.

Elected-official pay proposal
Commissioner Dorsey proposed limiting raises for elected officials to 3% and freezing county-commissioner pay at current levels, framing the elected role in part as public service. He said: “I would recommend for electeds, we limit their increase to 3% and, freeze the county commission at current level.” Other commissioners pushed back, saying elected officials perform full-time work that should be competitive with comparable executive positions and that singling out elected positions could create equity and recruitment problems.

What happened next
No formal action was taken. Commissioners asked staff to gather comparative data on county-commissioner pay from nearby jurisdictions (Johnson, Wyandotte, Shawnee, Riley, Sedgwick were mentioned) and to return that information during the next round of deliberations. Sarah and Jake were asked to provide those comparisons and any clarifying spreadsheets to commissioners before the next meeting.

Context and constraints
Commissioners and staff repeatedly framed the discussion as a balancing act between limiting tax impacts on property owners and preserving recruitment and retention. Several commissioners said pausing market adjustments would likely create a larger, more expensive catch-up later. Commissioner Kelly said she did not support treating elected positions differently and worried about narrowing access to public office if pay were reduced.

Ending
Commissioners left the item open for further information rather than making immediate changes to the proposed budget. Staff committed to supplying peer-county pay comparisons and the commission will re-open the matter as part of continued budget deliberations.","During July 11 budget deliberations the Douglas County Commission discussed staff market-based pay adjustments that would raise employee pay above inflation and a proposal to limit elected-official increases to 3%. No vote was taken; staff will supply comparative data from peer counties for follow-up.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners review behavioral-health sales-tax requests; staff says $1.6M ongoing gap remains

Commissioners weigh adding ambulance, city cost-share as Lawrence-Douglas County Fire & Medical budget shrinks

Douglas County commissioners debate market-based pay increases and elected-official raises