Commissioners debate security staffing, public-information funding and uniform pay increase as they shape a constrained county budget

Leavenworth County commissioners spent the budget work session discussing proposed reductions and directional decisions affecting courthouse security, the county attorney—s public-information officer (PIO), salary-increase targets and the placement of emergency management.

Security at courthouse entrances: Commissioners reviewed the 2021-era decision to install two metal-detector screening points and to staff entrances with deputies. Some commissioners supported keeping two deputies and two screening stations, citing incidents and a deterrent effect. Others proposed reducing to a single public entry point to save roughly $100,000 or to remove sworn on-site coverage entirely to save a larger amount. Several commissioners and Sheriff Andy described incidents—including an instance involving a concealed blade inside a walking cane—that they said demonstrated the value of deputies and on-site screening. The board did not vote; the prevailing direction was to keep funding for courthouse security in the 2026 draft while staff prepare precise cost comparisons and alternatives.

County attorney PIO: Commissioners pressed County Attorney Todd Thompson on whether his office—s PIO is a discretionary luxury or a necessary public-safety function, given a constrained budget. Thompson said the PIO has been central to timely public alerts on fentanyl and scams and provides a communications infrastructure other offices lack. Commissioners were split: some favored keeping the PIO funding citing public-safety benefits; others said the commission, which sets the budget, should consider removing the line item and leave it to the county attorney to make staffing choices. No formal budget reduction was adopted; commissioners asked the county administrator to return with options.

Salaries and pay guidance: The county administrator and commissioners reviewed a prior guideline that departments submit budgets reflecting a 2% wage increase and a roughly 2.8% department-level increase for inflation. The sheriff—s office requested a 4% wage increase to address recruitment and retention. Commissioners discussed making the 2% guidance uniform across departments or allowing targeted, position-specific adjustments where recruitment difficulties are acute. The administrator said a 1% countywide salary change is roughly $280,000; commissioners asked him to prepare options that could avoid employees— take-home pay reductions tied to an upcoming change in the county—s health insurance plan.

Emergency management and other items: Commissioners asked whether emergency management should revert from the sheriff—s office to the county administrator and whether that move would lower costs; the county administrator said he would review grants and staffing and return with analysis. Commissioners requested the administrator implement several small agreed reductions department heads had already accepted (for example trimmed training lines) and to return with scenario options, including a revenue-neutral alternative.

Why it matters: The session shows commissioners balancing public-safety and service-level priorities against an overall budget constraint. Courthouse security, communications funding and requested pay differentials are among the most politically salient choices for the commission as it prepares the final county budget.

No formal adoption of budget changes occurred at the meeting; the administrator will return with refined options.