A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Douglas County sheriff asks commissioners for IT staff and additional deputies tied to courthouse expansion

July 09, 2025 | County Commission, Douglas County, Kansas


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Douglas County sheriff asks commissioners for IT staff and additional deputies tied to courthouse expansion
The Douglas County Commission heard detailed requests July 8 from the sheriff's office asking the county to add IT personnel and sworn deputies to meet current operations and support an expanded courthouse.

Katie Fitzgerald, criminal justice coordinator, told commissioners the sheriff's supplemental requests “reflect continuing to meet the needs of today and preparing to meet the needs of tomorrow,” and described a package that includes additional IT support and four deputy positions.

Fitzgerald said two of the four deputies were already included in the county administrator’s proposed 2026 budget for court security. The sheriff’s office requested the remaining two deputies: one additional deputy to staff court security and a second to support warrant service, a function currently staffed by a single deputy for at least 27 years.

Under Sheriff Stacy Simmons said the sheriff's IT team is “more jack of all trades than they are specifics,” and described responsibilities that include cybersecurity, mobile data terminals in vehicles, dispatch systems and the jail’s records management system. Simmons said the sheriff’s unit operates 24/7 and that county IT is organized differently and largely works day shifts.

“Sitting where we are, we are holding on, but we are not meeting — we're not meeting what we have to do now,” Simmons said, arguing a dedicated IT position would let the sheriff’s office move from reactive maintenance to proactive planning.

Sarah, the county administrator, said she did not include the sheriff’s IT position in her proposed budget because she focused the initial proposal on positions strictly required to open the new tower and the Public Safety Building, and because keeping the mill levy flat set a high bar for additions. She told commissioners that the IT request is valid but outside the strict set of priorities she advanced in the proposal.

Commissioners pressed whether increases to the daily jail housing rate paid by municipalities could cover additional IT or staffing costs. Major LaRhonda Rome and other sheriff's office staff explained the jail daily rate is based on a three-year average of jail costs and is updated annually; Major Gary Bunting said the current daily rate is $265.96 and includes 24-hour mental health and medical coverage.

On warrants, commissioners and sheriff's office staff said the office is statutorily responsible for serving district court warrants and that more warrants are added than are served. Sheriff staff said having a second warrants deputy would increase safety and speed of service; they described that higher-risk felony warrant attempts would often be done with two deputies for safety while many other warrants would be handled individually.

Sheriff staff also said the Judicial and Law Enforcement Center (LEC) remodel and the new Public Safety Building (PSB) will expand secure holding areas, key-carded doors, additional cameras, courtroom AV and an increased need for staffing to operate a control center and manage transport and public entrance security. The sheriff's office said some staffing needs will begin as construction and the tower opening progress, with an anticipated mid‑2026 ramp-up to operations and security needs.

Discussion-only items: commissioners and staff discussed options including funding the IT position, assigning costs to the jail budget (which would flow into the per-diem city rates), and the timing for hiring deputies so they can complete training before court security needs begin.

The meeting did not include a vote on the sheriff’s supplemental requests; commissioners left the items available for further deliberation during the county’s budget hearings.

Ending: Commissioners recessed the hearing after the sheriff’s presentation and moved to other budget groups; no formal decision on the additional IT position or the remaining deputy requests was recorded in this session.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee