The Johnson County commission approved a sheriff’s office request for nearly $5 million to buy new Tasers, body cameras and other technology but only after some final haggling over how to pay for it.
Ultimately, a divided commission at its Dec. 14 meeting voted to approve the request using roughly $200,000 in civil asset forfeiture funds that will help lower the cost of the first year of the new contract for the equipment.
Sheriff’s office requested a new contract for Tasers, equipment
Earlier this month, Sheriff Calvin Hayden asked to enter into a revised contract with Axon Enterprises, Inc., to buy more body cameras, interview room cameras, fleet cameras, Tasers and video storage.
The sheriff’s office’s current contract with Axon expires in 2025. Sheriff’s officials requested the early renewal to accommodate the needs of an expanded number of deputies and to avoid price increases set to begin next year.
Under the new agreement as originally requested, the county would pay $3.35 million for the first year of the nrew five-year contract.
The commission tabled the sheriff’s request at its Dec. 7 meeting in order to give officials time to investigate whether some asset forfeiture money could be used to lessen the amount coming from the county’s general fund reserves.
Tensions flared between sheriff, some commissioners
During that Dec. 7 meeting, some commissioners exchanged sharp words with Hayden about remarks disparaging them he’d made during a political speech to a conservative group earlier this fall.
During that address on Nov. 10 in Kansas City, Kansas, at an event called the Determined Patriots Conference, Hayden referred to some commissioners as “communists” and said he and the commissioners did not like each other.
After being confronted with those remarks at the Dec. 7 commission meeting, Hayden objected to what he considered excessive questioning over his budget request.
Hayden did not attend the Dec. 14 meeting. His office was represented by sheriff’s budget director Brian Seidler.
Commissioners said they understood the need for the equipment for public’s safety, but they balked at the timing of the request, which came outside of the usual annual budget timeline.
Commissioner comments
Some commissioners also questioned whether the commission and sheriff’s office have a good working relationship.
Commissioner Shirley Allenbrand said she has been frustrated with the process: “I just feel like we don’t have that partnership with the sheriff’s office of working together.”
Commissioner Jeff Meyers also expressed frustration with how the discussion went at the previous meeting, when Hayden complained that the commission was being unduly skeptical of his budget proposals.
“Safety services is my number one priority, always has been for the thirty-plus years I’ve been involved in local government,” Meyers said. But Hayden’s request was an unwelcome surprise after the 2023 and 2024 budgets had already been written, he said.
“”We do need to have answers to questions. It is the people’s money,” Meyers said, adding that he doesn’t believe the commission has a poor relationship with the sheriff’s office.
Commissioner Charlotte O’Hara differed.
“This board has been aggressive towards the sheriff’s office, in my opinion,” she said.
She also expressed wonderment at the commissioners’ interest in saving money.
“I’m thrilled my colleagues have suddenly become such fiscal conservatives,” O’Hara said.
Commission disagreed on how much forfeiture funds to use
At the Dec. 7 meeting, commissioners had asked the sheriff’s office to come up with a contribution from its estimated $1.75 million unencumbered forfeiture funds for the contract.
Civil asset forfeiture is cash or property alleged to have been involved in a crime that the Sheriff’s Office is allowed to seize.
Seidler said Hayden had agreed to contribute $204,000 of those funds, which would bring down the first year payment of the new contract to about $3.17 million.
Chairman Mike Kelly proposed the sheriff’s office contribute $500,000 instead.
The commission is already making a compromise by working with the large request outside of the budget season, Kelly said, noting the larger amount in forfeiture funds would be a chance for the sheriff to meet halfway.
The “last-minute” request “leaves me unsettled,” Kelly said.
“I find it to be an unfortunate pattern of how we are asked for funding from only one particular department,” he said.
O’Hara questioned the commission’s ability to require a certain amount of forfeiture spending, saying the sheriff controls that money.
“That is his funds. We are overstepping our bounds,” she said.
Kelly rejoined that the general fund reserves are taxpayer funds governed by the commission.
“If there’s an overrun he can come back and ask for money,” he said. “It would have been nice for him to be here today to discuss it.”
How they voted
Kelly put forward a proposal to use $500,000 in forfeiture funds, but the commission ultimately accepted a substitute motion made by Commissioner Michael Ashcraft for $204,000 in forfeiture money and setting the first-year contract payment at $3.1 million.
The commission approved that motion 4-3.
Those voting for it were Commissioner Becky Fast, Meyers, O’Hara and Ashcraft. Against it were Kelly, Commissioner Janeé Hanzlick and Allenbrand.
Roxie Hammill is a freelance journalist who reports frequently for the Post and other Kansas City area publications. You can reach her at roxieham@gmail.com.
