Sedgwick County weighs new juvenile services campus after decades of split locations

Sedgwick County commissioners on Monday discussed plans to consolidate juvenile services into a single campus, with county Department of Corrections staff recommending a new two‑story building rather than a hybrid remodel.

The proposal, presented by Steve Stonehouse of the Sedgwick County Department of Corrections, would bring juvenile field services (probation and intensive supervision), home‑based services, the evening reporting center and the juvenile residential facility into one campus. "We're talking about a proposal to bring juvenile field services... and the juvenile residential facility into 1 location," Stonehouse said.

The recommendation follows years in which juvenile programs have operated from multiple sites. Stonehouse described how juvenile field services has moved locations several times since 1998 and that the juvenile residential facility (JRF), built in 1994, has functional and safety issues: "There's no waiting room. There's no rooms to meet with workers or therapists... the design just is not" adequate for current services, he said.

Why it matters: County staff said a consolidated campus would reduce operational inefficiencies and allow staff and community providers to share resources such as conference rooms and lobby space. Lindsay (county finance staff) told commissioners the project is already in the county Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): "So it's in the CIP that's been approved already. It's a total of just about $22,000,000. We had $2,000,000 in last year's CIP for the design, and we have $20,000,000 for the construction in this piece." The funding pathway includes authorization to reimburse bond proceeds for actual costs.

Two options: Staff presented a remodel (hybrid) and a demolition/new‑construction option. The hybrid option would preserve the existing JRF structure and add new wings, with an estimated construction budget of about $16 million plus previously approved design fees. The new‑construction option presented in the CIP envisions a roughly 50,000‑square‑foot building and a 2025 construction authorization of just over $20 million. Presenters said a remodel would retain operational inefficiencies — including multiple lobbies that require staffing — while the new design would provide a single secured public entrance and internal sight lines.

Staff also flagged licensing risks: presenters said the current facility is licensed by the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) and that a change in regulatory expectations — including possible oversight by the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) — could make licensing a remodeled, reconfigured footprint difficult.

Commission reaction and concerns: Commissioners expressed support for improved programming and community engagement but also raised questions about location, cost and long‑term value. Commissioner Howe said she was concerned the current campus location adjacent to juvenile courts and detention facilities may not be ideal for the children served. Another commissioner noted the roughly $3.5 million difference between options and said taxpayers would expect cost discipline.

Operational next steps: Staff said, if the commission directs the new‑build route, designers and project managers will proceed and licensing approvals and program moves will follow. Presenters outlined near‑term tasks: move the evening reporting center into the interim Munger Building space, plan for children currently at JRF, and obtain updated technical drawings and licensing approvals before construction bidding.

What wasn't decided: Commissioners did not take a formal vote. County staff asked for direction on whether to proceed under the existing CIP new‑build authorization or to revisit the approved CIP to pursue a remodel instead. Several commissioners requested additional one‑on‑one briefings on cost details and value engineering before formal contracting.

Looking ahead: Staff estimated it will be at least a year before drawings are ready to bid and emphasized that current CIP authority remains in place while the commission considers whether to move forward with new construction or pursue the hybrid remodel.