Douglas County commissioners direct staff to study tenant right-to-counsel; no vote taken

Douglas County commissioners on Oct. 1 discussed whether the county should fund or otherwise establish a tenant “right to counsel” program to provide legal representation to tenants facing eviction in district court, and asked county staff to return with more analysis and recommended program options rather than vote on a policy at the meeting.

The commission heard nearly two hours of public comment from tenants, housing advocates, service providers and attorneys who described eviction as a common pathway into homelessness and urged the county to create a program that provides full legal representation (not limited legal advice) and a tenant-led oversight mechanism. Commissioners directed staff to consult local and regional legal-service providers, examine funding and eligibility options, and return with a program cost estimate and implementation options within roughly 30–45 days.

Why it matters: Advocates and service providers told the commission that legal representation at eviction proceedings can prevent homelessness, reduce downstream costs for human services and public safety, and help enforce tenant rights around habitability and counterclaims. Several speakers cited local data and national studies showing a much higher rate of favorable outcomes when tenants are represented.

What commissioners asked staff to study Commissioners asked county administration to gather specific information before the board considers formal action: examples from other jurisdictions; current scope and limits of the grant-funded eviction work now done by Kansas Holistic Defenders; whether existing county service agreements could be amended; options to partner with Kansas Legal Services, KU law programs or other providers; and whether the county should place any program obligations into county code, a resolution, or establish the program through the annual budget process.

County Administrator Sarah (first name on record) told commissioners the usual path to fund ongoing services is the annual budget cycle and that the county had set aside $40,000 in the 2026 budget for continued conversation about eviction interventions. “We don't fund things outside of the budget process,” she said, while also offering to assemble options and cost scenarios for the board to review. Sarah told the commission staff could prepare a program design and return with findings in roughly 30–45 days.

Divergent views among commissioners Commissioner Anderson said he believes the issue is better resolved at the city or state level, arguing counties have limited taxing authority and that landlords (who pay property taxes) should not finance legal representation “arguing against their position.” Commissioner Anderson said, “My opinion is this large group of people is in the wrong chambers. I think this issue needs to be addressed either at the state level or at the city level.”

Other commissioners pushed back, noting that evictions in Douglas County are resolved in district court and that a countywide program would reach people across the county, not only inside Lawrence. One commissioner summarized that “eviction is a district court proceeding. It's not municipal court,” and argued that the county’s responsibilities for homelessness prevention and for funding many human services make it an appropriate convenor for a right-to-counsel program.

Public comment: tenants, service providers and lawyers Speakers described a range of experiences and evidence in favor of county action. Mike Carroll, a former supportive-housing case manager, summarized in plain terms: “Eviction is intensely easy to avoid if you simply know what it is. It's that legal process.”

Katie Krause, a tenant and survivor of trafficking, told the board: “Right to counsel is a clinical intervention as much as a legal one. Counsel shows the process for fairness.” Multiple providers from Burton/Bert Nash and other local nonprofits described the clinical and service impacts when a household loses housing — medication lapse, lost documents and interrupted treatment.

Housing advocates pushed for full representation without means-testing. Genevieve Prescher and others argued that eligibility cutoffs would encourage landlords to “gamble” on filing evictions against people unlikely to qualify for aid. Lawrence Tenants and other organizers asked for a permanent tenant-led oversight committee to ensure accessibility and accountability.

What staff will research next Staff said they will: - Consult provider partners including Kansas Holistic Defenders, Kansas Legal Services and other potential providers (including KU law programs) to assess current capacity, what Kansas Holistic Defenders’ existing grant covers, and whether scope could be expanded. - Produce cost estimates for a phased program (including the county’s $40,000 set-aside already in the 2026 budget as an initial data point) and model different eligibility and delivery options (full representation vs. limited advice, county-run program vs. contracted providers). - Analyze legal and administrative pathways to implement a right via county code, a commission resolution, or a program established through the budget. - Engage community stakeholders, including nonprofit housing providers, landlords (including smaller “mom-and-pop” owners), and city partners to explore coordinated or complementary funding approaches.

No formal policy vote Commissioners did not adopt a code change, resolution or funding allocation at the Oct. 1 meeting. Several commissioners said they favored continued work on program design and policy language; others said they wanted more information before committing. County staff said it will return with analysis and options to the commission in the weeks ahead.

Votes at a glance - Consent agenda (items 2.1, 2.2): Approved 5–0. Motion to approve the consent agenda was made and seconded; vote recorded as 5 in favor, 0 opposed. - Appointment: Nolan Jones, nomination to Board of Zoning Appeals. Nomination moved and seconded; vote recorded in the meeting as “aye” and the motion carried.

Next steps and context Staff signaled it will gather comparative program examples and local cost estimates and bring a more detailed recommendation back to the board for further direction. Commissioners and community members also discussed whether city governments or the state legislature should adopt parallel measures; several commissioners urged concurrent engagement with city partners and the county’s intergovernmental relations staff to understand the statewide policy landscape.

The commission’s discussion and the many public comments make clear the county is at the exploratory stage: commissioners asked staff to map options and tradeoffs rather than adopt immediate code language or a permanent funding commitment at the Oct. 1 meeting.