Logan County fiscal court, schools spar over who pays for school resource officers

Logan County magistrates and school officials spent the bulk of a fiscal court meeting debating how many school resource officers the county will staff and how the schools should share costs.

Magistrates and Sheriff Steven Stratton discussed whether the county should pay toward an eighth SRO at Logan County High School. Superintendent Dan Koslow and other school leaders explained the operational and safety reasons the school district values additional officers; Koslow said the district did not request the eighth officer but welcomed additional law-enforcement presence. Court members repeatedly emphasized the county’s responsibility to balance safety priorities with limited general-fund resources.

The court voted to approve a one-year agreement that will fund SROs for the upcoming fiscal year using a split the court adopted during the meeting. The motion on the floor called for an eight-SRO allocation with a fiscal-court contribution at a substantially higher share than prior years; the motion passed on a roll-call vote with the majority supporting the measure and one magistrate voting no. Several magistrates stressed that the court must see the full budgetary picture — including the additional recurring costs the county covers for deputies assigned as SROs (retirement, worker’s compensation, training, vehicles and fuel) — before agreeing to multi-year commitments.

Magistrates asked the superintendent and the sheriff to meet and present a single, agreed proposal that lists the exact number of SROs the district requests and a clear accounting of total costs (salary and benefits plus vehicle/fuel/maintenance/training overhead). The judge asked that the superintendent present that package to the court at its first July meeting so the court can consider rates and the number of SROs in a single, financially transparent proposal.

Discussion highlights and context

- Superintendent Dan Koslow said the district has multiple campuses and nearly daily student contact points, and described SROs’ routine duties in building relationships and monitoring student safety. Koslow repeated that “we didn’t ask for the eighth” but that the district values the additional presence when offered.
- Sheriff Steven Stratton explained the sheriff’s staffing choices and said he supported extra deputies in schools where campus size and traffic patterns create gaps a single SRO cannot cover. Stratton described the eighth SRO at the high school as a sheriff-initiated deployment that he views as necessary for safety on the larger campus.
- Several magistrates said the court supports SROs in principle but must limit the county’s long-term exposure. One magistrate framed the tension plainly: the county was being asked to cover a position it had not formally requested.

Next steps and uncertainty

Court members directed the judge to ask the superintendent and sheriff to finalize a written proposal that (1) specifies the number of SROs the school system requests, (2) lists the total annual cost per SRO including benefits and vehicle/maintenance overhead, and (3) specifies how one-time or grant funds will be applied. The court paused final multi-year commitments until it receives that agreed package. Several magistrates said they will not support multi-year contracts until both parties present a single, reconciled request that the court can budget against.

Ending

Court members and school officials agreed to continue talks and to return the issue to the fiscal court’s July meeting with a clear financial proposal. The court emphasized it wants to remain a partner on school safety but said the partnership must include consistent communication and an agreed budget line the court can adopt.