Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cole County commissioners approve court and juvenile budgets, defer salary decisions
Summary
Commissioners approved court- and juvenile-related spending as presented but postponed any salary increases pending a countywide review; items discussed included an added judge, one additional marshal, training, possible higher attorney rates and juvenile office staffing changes.
Cole County commissioners approved the county's court-related and juvenile office budgets as presented but postponed decisions on salary adjustments, the commission said during a budget workshop.
County staff told commissioners the court budget was built from last year's figures with several changes: the county now has six judges instead of five; an additional judge brought a court reporter and associated equipment and upkeep costs; court security now shows seven marshals instead of six; and staff requested increased training funds for marshals and judges. Staff also noted a change to the state statute on jury mileage that could raise costs if the county must pay higher travel or sequestration expenses for out-of-county trials.
The budget discussion carried significance because commissioners flagged countywide equity and a pending salary study as reasons to delay agency-specific pay decisions. Commissioners approved the operating budget items for courts and the juvenile office but agreed to set salary changes at a later meeting.
Why it matters: The changes in the court budget reflect both permanent staffing shifts and one-time or contingent costs. An additional judge and court reporter increase fixed personnel and equipment expenses; changes to jury mileage rules and the prospect of a multiweek sequestered trial brought from another county could produce substantial one-time costs that the 2026 budget does not include.
Key details from the discussion: - Court staffing and security: County staff said the budget reflects an additional judge (6 total) and an extra court marshal and court reporter. The court-security line shows seven marshals, increased from six; staff requested higher training allocations for marshals and judges. - Jury-related costs: Staff said a change in state law on jury mileage may increase mileage payments. They also warned that an anticipated sequestered criminal trial moved from Platte County could require weeks of lodging and transport costs, but those sequestration expenses are not reflected in the 2026 budget. - Pretrial and overtime: Pretrial staff sought pay adjustments tied to a state step increase proposal; commissioners declined to adopt isolated increases for one group before completing a countywide salary study. Staff also reminded the commission that marshals and pretrial staff sometimes need overtime and on-call coverage; an overtime line item was requested to cover 24/7 availability rather than relying on part-time wages. - Juvenile office staffing: The juvenile office requested restoring a part-time attorney to full-time for 2026 and proposed several specific salary adjustments. In the discussion, staff identified a desired lead-attorney salary of $80,000 and a second legal counsel position adjusted to $75,000 if moved from part-time to full-time; staff said that one part-time attorney currently makes about $41,000 in the part-time arrangement and that converting to full time would be roughly $80,000 before benefit-related adjustments. To fund the attorney change, juvenile staff proposed foregoing a deputy juvenile officer position. - Contract attorney rates and professional services: The juvenile office noted recruitment difficulty at current rates and proposed raising contract attorney compensation from $50 per hour to $75 per hour to align with surrounding counties; the office said they can continue under the current contract rate if necessary while monitoring budget performance. - Records and part-time clerical help: Juvenile staff said several thousand old files remain to be verified and entered; the office previously used county-paid part-time student workers (about $16,000 in prior years) and requested retaining that part-time help to continue records work and shredding tasks.
Discussion versus decision: Commissioners discussed grant and contract lines, staffing and recruitment challenges, and legal/process constraints on when budget changes are allowed. Several commissioners expressed reluctance to award pay increases to one group before finishing a countywide salary study; others said an overall COLA, when set, should apply broadly. As a result of the discussion, one commissioner moved to approve the budgets as presented except for salaries. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
Next steps and timing: Commissioners and staff noted state budget-process deadlines mentioned in the meeting (speakers referenced a September 1 deadline for changes and discussed an adoption date stated in the meeting). The commission agreed to finalize salary numbers at a later meeting after the countywide salary study and before the statutory deadlines staff cited.
No final vote tallies were recorded in the transcript; the meeting record reflects a voice vote approving the motion to adopt the budgets except for salary adjustments.
