Sedgwick County weighs $22 million plan to consolidate juvenile services into single campus

County leaders spent the meeting weighing whether to rebuild or remodel the county's juvenile services facilities to bring juvenile residential, juvenile field services, home‑based services and the evening reporting center onto a single campus.

Steve Stonehouse, with the Department of Corrections, framed the need as operational and safety driven: "We're talking about a proposal to bring juvenile field services ... and the juvenile residential facility into 1 location." Stonehouse said the existing juvenile residential facility has dated circulation and HVAC systems, limited meeting rooms, and is inefficient to staff, and that the current population is about 16.

Staff presented two options: a hybrid remodel that preserves the core 40‑year‑old building and adds five additions, or a demolition and new 50,000‑square‑foot building with a single lobby, improved sightlines and space reserved for community partner programming. Presenters noted the hybrid option would be less expensive up front but would retain some of the existing building's circulation problems that increase staffing needs.

Commissioners pressed staff on practical consequences. One commissioner said location matters: keeping services adjacent to juvenile courts and the detention campus may not be ideal for clients, and suggested exploring alternative existing properties, such as closing school buildings. Another commissioner argued the new build's efficiencies and the ability to host grassroots partners on site outweighed a roughly $3.5 million initial premium: "If you can show cost effectiveness over time through the additional staffing with the lobby and the potential better outcomes for kids, I think that maybe helps soften the blow."

Staff also raised licensing considerations: the facility is currently licensed by DCF, and some remodel configurations could trigger different licensing reviews (KDOC versus DCF) that may be harder to meet. Presenters recommended the new build for long‑term lifespan and integration, but said the commission must direct staff on which option to pursue next.

The commission did not take a formal vote during the meeting. Staff said design drawings would take roughly a year to reach bid‑ready status if the commission directs the project to move forward; the design line item is already in the CIP.

The meeting left open next steps of one‑on‑one briefings to resolve remaining questions about cost detail and location and asked staff to return with refined information.