Johnson County supervisors review sheriff’s proposed FY26 operations budget, request for administrative assistant

The Johnson County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday discussed the sheriff’s proposed fiscal 2026 operating budgets, focusing on patrol staffing, the jail population and out‑of‑county inmate housing costs, contract revenue from seven small towns and a decision package seeking an administrative assistant for the sheriff’s office.

Sheriff Kunkel told supervisors the office recorded “about 38,000 and change” calls for service in calendar 2024 and said calls have steadily increased since the COVID period. He said those call volumes drive staffing needs for patrol shifts and the jail. “We haven't upped our shift minimums on patrol since 2012,” Kunkel said, noting the office must map staffing to cover time off, training and military leave.

The presentation said patrol staffing is organized around three main shifts (days, evenings and overnights) with roughly 35 sworn deputies assigned to patrol. The jail remains the other large staffing concentration. Major Lamb and other presenters explained that rural response times and distances influence how the office staffs two‑deputy responses for incidents such as domestic calls.

On jail operations, Kunkel and staff described long‑standing volatility in out‑of‑county housing costs and transports. The budget currently includes a line of $960,000 for inmate housing; presenters said that amount has been static for some years, with actual annual spending varying widely. The sheriff’s office reported that, so far this year, combined inmate housing and transport costs tally about $358,000, and that some years the department spent nearly the full budgeted housing amount while other recent years used only about 35 percent. Staff noted that per‑bed daily housing charges vary by contract county and can change quickly.

Presenters described jail‑related operational savings tied to electronic monitoring programs. The work‑release/in‑home‑detention program has saved about 5,500 jail bed days, and the pretrial GPS program has saved about 5,000–6,000 bed days; revenue from sentenced inmates on electronic monitoring is returned to the general fund.

The board heard that town contract revenue is growing, driven largely by the Tiffin contract. For fiscal 2026 Tiffin will pay 85 percent of salary and benefits and other costs associated with its contract patrol coverage; the county projects that the Tiffin contract will approach $1 million in the coming year. Presenters said contracts with other small towns are moving toward percentage‑of‑salary models for salary and benefits.

The sheriff’s office presented a decision package requesting a new administrative assistant position to provide backup and handle tasks such as billing, payroll support, grant compliance, accreditation work and a new asset‑tracking system. Major Lamb said the position “was something we asked for last year as well. We were denied last year, but it is still a need.” Lamb said the office administrator currently handles many critical flows and lacks a designated backup.

Supervisors asked timing and contingency questions about the inmate‑housing line and about how the new clerical position would interact with existing staff. County fiscal staff and presenters said the county typically reviews actual billed housing costs through spring and fall budget amendments and that contract billing timing can be unpredictable. Presenters also noted that some facility or capital discussions (including any potential new jail facility) are separate from the operational budget under discussion.

The presentation included other details used to frame the request: patrol shift schedules and 12‑hour coverage additions, the county’s seven contract towns and a rural served population of roughly 35,000 outside the metro area, inmate transport mileage and hours (reduced after switching primary housing from Lee and Clinton to Linn County), and one‑time lifecycle impacts to patrol vehicles tied to long transports.

The board did not take a formal vote on the sheriff’s items during the session; supervisors asked for follow‑up information on contract timing and the operational impacts of the requested administrative assistant.