Anoka County deputies present 2026 contract details; city cost to rise by about $110,000

Anoka County sheriff’s office representatives presented the proposed 2026 law enforcement contract to the East Bethel City Council during the July 14 work session, laying out personnel, vehicle, communications and administrative costs that staff said will increase the city’s contract roughly $110,000.

Lieutenant Derek Peters of the sheriff’s office explained that deputies received a multi-year wage agreement that includes a 5%, 5% and 3% increase over three years; the contract model reflects those increases and other line items. "The deputies were awarded a new contract, which included a 5% wage increase," Peters said.

Paul Lensmeier, commander of the patrol division, and Chief Deputy Bill Jacobson joined Peters and provided detail on staffing and coverage. Peters and Lensmeier said the contract reflects 7.6 full-time-equivalent deputy positions for East Bethel—six assigned deputies plus relief time that covers vacations, sick leave and training. Lensmeier said the 7.6 FTE provides relief coverage so the city does not lapse coverage when core deputies take leave or training.

The sheriff’s office officials outlined other contract components the city will pay: vehicle replacement and maintenance; emergency communications and equipment fees including body-worn cameras and portable/mobile radios; an annual replacement allowance for squad equipment; county IT charges; and administrative/clerical charges calculated as 10% of personnel costs. Peters said vehicle replacement is amortized at 0.83 of a unit to smooth year-to-year pricing; he gave a 2026 vehicle purchase bid price of about $55,000 and a prorated vehicle line of $45,650 in the contract model.

Chief Deputy Bill Jacobson explained that some charges shown on city tax statements are countywide services funded through the county levy (for example, the 911 center, jail operations and certain specialty units) and are distinct from the local patrol contract. He also explained that county IT supports squad-car computers and other in-vehicle technology and that those IT charges appear on the sheriff’s contract because the county provides and maintains the systems.

Why it matters: the sheriff’s presentation described specific recurring costs the city is being asked to fund through the contract model and clarified distinctions between countywide levy-funded services and city-specific patrol costs. Council members asked multiple technical questions about FTE calculations, IT charges and vehicle replacement timing during the presentation.

Ending: The presentation was informational; the council did not take a formal vote on the contract at the July 14 meeting. County representatives said they would stand by for follow-up questions.