Logan County fiscal court approves temporary SRO funding; eighth officer to be paid from sheriff’s allocation

Logan County Fiscal Court voted July 8 to approve a one‑year agreement funding seven school resource officers (SROs) at a 75/25 split and to allow the sheriff to place and fund an eighth SRO from the sheriff's existing personnel allocation.

The action follows an extended public and court discussion about legal requirements, safety needs at sprawling campuses and who bears the cost of additional officers beyond what state guidance requires. The court's motion approved county funding for seven SROs under the 75/25 arrangement and specified that the sheriff may use his existing staffing allotment to provide an eighth officer; the court approved the motion by roll call vote (7 yes, 0 no).

The debate centered on two questions: how many SROs are required or recommended, and which body should bear any costs that exceed the school board's allocation. County officials and the superintendent described state guidance that schools are required to have one officer per campus; school leadership and the superintendent repeatedly told the court that the school board had requested seven SROs. The sheriff and other court members argued that the county should be able to support an additional officer at the high school because of campus size and local safety concerns.

Court members described the practical effect of the approved plan: seven SROs will be funded under a 75/25 split for one year, and the sheriff will be permitted to place one additional deputy at the high school using his department's existing personnel slots and budget. Supporters said giving the sheriff discretion to use an existing allocated position avoids increasing the county's total authorized headcount; opponents warned the move could shift ongoing costs onto county taxpayers if additional officers are later requested.

The court voted to rescind a prior motion and then to adopt the $75/25, one‑year proposal with the eighth officer at the sheriff's discretion. Judges and school leaders agreed to finalize contract language that spells out term length and financial responsibilities before the next meeting.

Court members and school officials said the arrangement is intended as a near‑term measure to ensure officers are in place when school starts; they also agreed to revisit the issue if the county or school board determines additional staffing is required.

The vote and subsequent administrative steps (drafting contract language and returning to the court if the school board takes final action) were recorded in the meeting minutes and will be brought back for final paperwork as appropriate.

Ending: The court's temporary agreement puts officers in place ahead of the school year while giving both sides time to settle longer‑term funding. Contract details and any school‑board vote on the county's offer will be reported to the court for ratification or additional direction.