Goodhue County approves one-year student resource officer contracts at policing rate; asks staff for cost analysis

The Goodhue County Board of Commissioners on a voice vote approved a one‑year student resource officer (SRO) contract option using city policing contract rates for the remaining 2025 school year and gave school districts the option to extend a second year at a higher policing rate.

The action came after an extended discussion about whether the county should charge school districts the county's actual SRO operating cost, adopt a percentage split with districts (discussants cited a commonly referenced 60/40 split), or use the city policing contract rates as the basis for fees. Supporters of the motion said the policing-contract method is closer to current costs and can be implemented quickly; opponents pressed for a more precise cost analysis and for a fair, countywide approach to sharing funds across multiple school districts.

Lucas, a county staff member who presented the draft SRO contract language, said staff had drafted revisions that would permit multi‑year terms (three years was discussed) and that the contract presented two methods to calculate fees: (1) a staff-developed method that begins with a $70,000 baseline for the 2025–26 school year and applies an inflation index in later years, and (2) a method tied to current city policing contracts. Lucas also explained that the draft includes historical rates and sample contract language so the board could give direction to staff.

Commissioner Jason argued the county should set fees based on the county's true costs and then phase any increase in over several years; he said many counties and districts he consulted with effectively have the school district cover about 60 percent of a school-year SRO cost and the county about 40 percent, which, when annualized, produces roughly a 45/55 split. Jason also raised equity concerns: some districts in Goodhue County currently receive no county subsidy while others do, and he suggested an alternative approach of allocating a broad dollar amount across districts so every district receives some support.

Commissioner Linda and other board members said an SRO position has different cost drivers than a patrol officer (for example, different equipment, fewer patrol miles, and little or no backfill for routine absences), and that those differences should factor into a cost study. Linda said she made a copy of the statute governing the safe schools levy and noted that districts can spend levy funds on many school‑safety purposes, not solely law enforcement.

The county's finance director clarified that the policing‑contract figures used in one option include components—about $18,000 for squad car equipment and roughly 21,000 patrol miles—that SROs generally do not incur, so those comparisons are imperfect. Several commissioners requested that finance and the sheriff's office develop an SRO true‑cost breakdown and return with recommendations on timeline and budgeting.

After debate, a motion passed to offer the first year at $73,030 using the policing‑contract method, with an option for districts to extend into a second year at a higher policing rate (figures for the second year were read during the meeting as "82,___" and discussed as approximately $82,000). The board recorded the motion, received a second and carried the motion by voice vote.

The board directed staff (finance and the sheriff's office) to prepare a more detailed cost analysis and to report back; several commissioners also asked staff to pursue a timeline to provide clearer figures to school districts well before their levy/budget deadlines (September was mentioned as a desirable target for more concrete numbers).