[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6654919,"mediaKeyId","5430173-520325a906d570f5a2126c9a2b931462","parentId",5430173,"title","At a glance: Dickinson County Commission procedural votes, July 24","audioSeconds",188,"startMs",3286000,"endMs",3474000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5430173-520325a906d570f5a2126c9a2b931462&start=3286&end=3474","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5430173-520325a906d570f5a2126c9a2b931462/thumbnail_3286000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6654919/Dickinson-County/Kansas/At-a-glance-Dickinson-County-Commission-procedural-votes-July-24","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6654919-b4091cd828039662c35ecfd9034b1f76/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442729&Signature=ibf7l4j7taDb9tjDB4kkyO~5SZ15LULtGBns~cLCI47lt0wb4OWlejCSwEXQ-Umb5-9K~Wic5AseMFy0xNbL88xY5I1O4AT6nH9LTy6BpX9LYFBqgKZIvC4H7u0kjHrDPFeQ0hb0YbZKRqbihC70ySHLupQ5uBjTNMLEOxiwB~pPz-1ZtVUPLfA3-0UAGvIYG4Wk5h3uz5j3n5JT6fQxinHJaRcka7tc7JAD8Ye43rti0tK12gBP-Hn5me2OKrGFhMp2ih46tlUQ1kwAHhAWCB8xOfyxEBB3RzkZrKnLZRDja81L9WQTtSwKBUGwTpAZz3AhWeBW2mKx~41hjZ8ZXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Dickinson County, KS","date","2025-07-19T03:10:39.57Z","article","At its July 24 regular meeting the Dickinson County Board of Commissioners took routine procedural votes:

• Agenda approval — Motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously. (Mover and seconder were recorded in the meeting minutes; vote recorded as “aye.”)

• Consent agenda — The board approved the consent agenda, which included minutes (July 10), payroll of $428,696.62, credit card payments totaling $39,491.53, utilities payments of $10,000.35, Security SD payment of $4,104, and an abated tax of $368.76. Motion passed unanimously.

• Designation for deposition — The board voted to designate Tim Hamilton, planning and zoning director, to represent the Board of County Commissioners in the notice to take deposition regarding Johnson v. BOCC Dickinson County. Motion passed unanimously.

All votes were recorded during the meeting; no contested or split votes were reported in the audio record for these items.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Commission Meeting - July 17th, 2025 - Re-uploaded","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of County Commissioners approved the meeting agenda, approved the consent agenda (payroll, payables, abatements), and designated Tim Hamilton to represent the board in a deposition notice regarding Johnson v. BOCC Dickinson County.","taxTitle","Dickinson County, Kansas","taxId",61724,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6654924,"County and juvenile center staff agree contract is outdated; counties to review replacement",259,3506000,3765000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5430173-520325a906d570f5a2126c9a2b931462&start=3506&end=3765","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5430173-520325a906d570f5a2126c9a2b931462/thumbnail_3506000.jpg","/articles/6654924/Dickinson-County/Kansas/County-and-juvenile-center-staff-agree-contract-is-outdated-counties-to-review-replacement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6654924-d660a0d6af680217f019ef4d5bba9557/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442729&Signature=c4AxcigLbQRlSDv~fL5~g5m4D~d-BA2UUJOwrxl7gV-4wI1Vks9kizxtbNe4JKLYdIP3ipYvTRir4uFCo6rKPXjM2XwEdHM3tvBTu3CbQPc1XGl3x0SV2ZEklFKKlj25yTx~PAeLR4aJax1jLj8-1RVTyzCQ3Dl8uA4AiO7vPec9ZbF4CSLg5lQhtuHIP1BjzEcYOMYe4UCkt0WmTPJfZMSlZ0wHbfy-sgxo6c9JG8uroNSoIgknIqjNGhDwwfQmxXV62cZePD1G374b~D3qX2uh12~PrblJxreX7IRF1Kgy5ZsTKB7-FSCg-n~ZLIi~VAqOGkcKnocm8qLPf-qmuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During a July 24 study session, Dickinson County commissioners and county staff discussed operational and contractual issues involving the regional juvenile detention center. Angela (juvenile center representative) and Sheriff Davis joined a phone call with county staff to clarify current practices and the status of the interlocal agreement.

Sean (county staff) reported the county’s agreement with the juvenile detention center dates to the 1990s — he cited 1994 in the meeting record — and said statutory references in that document are out of date because juvenile statutes have been revised since the agreement was drafted. Commissioners directed staff to update the contract language and indicated the rewrite should involve the partner counties that use the facility.

Staff and the juvenile center also clarified operational practice regarding custody and transport. County staff said juveniles arrested locally are booked by the county, but when the juvenile is placed at the regional detention center the county typically records the juvenile as housed at the center; detention‑center staff explained the county is the legal custodian while the juvenile is housed at the center and the transporting agency remains responsible for transportation to the placement. Angela said the county will continue to track days in county custody (including when juveniles are housed at the regional center) and that the county’s budget reporting currently shows detention days (including electronic monitoring) as a days‑based line item; staff said they can provide commissioners with the number of juveniles and days on request.

Commissioner Ron asked how often the interlocal agreement is revisited; staff said the agreement has not been updated to reflect current statutes and recommended drafting a new agreement for the board and partner counties to review. County staff said an attorney can prepare a revision for multi‑county consideration and that a multi‑county conversation would be appropriate because one county (identified in the discussion as Geary County) now owns the detention building; staff said they would present a plan for updating the agreement at a future meeting.","Commissioners and county staff discussed juvenile detention operations, confirmed the interlocal agreement dates to the 1990s and noted statutes cited in that agreement have changed; staff said they will work with partner counties and counsel to update the agreement and clarify transport and custody procedures.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6654929,"Dickinson County staff: proposed budget would lower mill levy about 6.75%; Aug. 21 hearing penciled in",617,2733000,3350000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5430173-520325a906d570f5a2126c9a2b931462&start=2733&end=3350","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5430173-520325a906d570f5a2126c9a2b931462/thumbnail_2733000.jpg","/articles/6654929/Dickinson-County/Kansas/Dickinson-County-staff-proposed-budget-would-lower-mill-levy-about-675-Aug-21-hearing-penciled-in","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6654929-8e75a025077185f4096523269d435886/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442729&Signature=ErHXtumBXJTt2qYBhwecLpwHGa0-jecI78itJU2mpuMs2GDbx0DMBbqleNmK20PG-Ls20f6qBetcMqAu0gtKdJe82EDoosB5Bp87VCSocrP5HNHM8mvyusnc4o-cM6NwaUcGQ3T~3UqyGMRrZSL3yDVnias2~X9~ThZ5PcHDUefT59GOU~EJsSBWBykRMnAYU9HqGwm59vpFIt1CHZjIUufPXe82ldgHO~FumJQthHoiivrzQN2XwH6ifezNwM8gaDshT-sHlqUAlUZmFuJXHEnZUjKx8ky0d35QO8DElFUKJ-0Of2z2rxcHcJxzh0FM2CEcIKpMTQgpjn7-oOJI0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County Administrator Janelle Dockendorf told the Dickinson County Board of Commissioners on July 24 that staff have revised budget estimates for 2026 and are tentatively planning a public budget hearing for Aug. 21, with publication of the hearing notice expected about Aug. 11 if the board approves the schedule.

Janelle said updates to departmental submissions and use of carryover funds reduced the county’s preliminary mill levy by roughly 6.75 (a 3.634 mill reduction in total). She said current estimates include an approximate $516,000 increase in projected property tax revenue and that staff identified several items still planned for 2026: one pickup (Chevy Silverado or similar), one utility truck and a placeholder estimate of $350,000 for an excavator. Janelle said the special equipment fund balance is about $1,400,000 and that staff are soliciting vendor estimates for large purchases.

Staff noted a calendar effect that increases payroll counts in 2026: because of the way pay periods fall, the county will have an additional payroll in 2026 (a 27th payroll) and that amount is included in current figures. Janelle said the county also reviewed highway equipment funding and enterprise fleet options and will continue vendor conversations before finalizing equipment decisions.

Janelle explained sewer districts are handled differently from general county property tax funding: the Tallmadge and Detroit sewer districts are financed by user fees or special assessments, not by the county’s general property tax levy, and the county’s administration collects user payments for the Detroit sewer district and applies them to bond obligations.

Commissioners said they were comfortable with the level of detail and progress. Commissioner comments noted the staff effort to tighten the budget and suggested final review with commissioner Lynn Peterson (absent) next week; commissioners provisionally approved the schedule to plan for an Aug. 21 hearing but agreed to finalize after one more review. No formal vote to adopt the budget was taken at this meeting.","County administration presented a draft 2026 budget that currently projects a 6.75% mill levy decrease and identified key items (equipment replacements, sewer district funding, an extra payroll) ahead of an Aug. 21 public hearing date; commissioners agreed to continue review before final publication.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6654934,"USI consultant urges Dickinson County to consider partial self‑funding, drug‑cost strategies",2657,7000,2664000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5430173-520325a906d570f5a2126c9a2b931462&start=7&end=2664","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5430173-520325a906d570f5a2126c9a2b931462/thumbnail_7000.jpg","/articles/6654934/Dickinson-County/Kansas/USI-consultant-urges-Dickinson-County-to-consider-partial-selffunding-drugcost-strategies","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6654934-a0a75cafbcc58561308eac337bae2601/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442729&Signature=FRod8JeBy446PRE7OxHmEw0~sZyFF--dPw0xlHHL-~puwxYA1hRTX1tbT6V3bhaohHEMrkcozSY4NaOCvw7l3o8YbQD2yz4-LeaoyEbEOoeRCaMTizr0NH1gkKAQqbvJsS~Gq-hbQbNJMDwbt0J0jOqYfLZ6nN0O56Ue9z2-FVgkdwEmWT3755ivywmVkPMmkporwPq~hECSnszF8C9JjajL3CAxpPnR0iW2AfPT-UI8SlEHeka5mukWetbx0hDQn0mSXLS~9eTjfz5RnFOLY9-Z0ocK4y5poRWRqozWknC6T864ojdW5Ukm6nRnze4c6SmRGe~dY2m1w3sYbxOvtA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Steve, a USI consultant, told the Dickinson County Board of Commissioners on July 24 that the county could reduce health‑plan costs by adopting alternative funding and prescription‑drug strategies, including partial self‑funding and pursuing biosimilar purchasing programs.

Steve said USI used a working estimate of roughly 150 covered employees at an annual average cost of about $14,000 per employee, producing a plan cost “about $2,000,000” annually; he also said the county’s employee‑only plan runs about $643,000 a year. He told commissioners prescription drugs — especially specialty medications such as Humira — are a central driver of plan cost and described rebate and manufacturer coupon mechanics that can yield large savings under a self‑funded model.

The presentation focused on two points that USI said matter for local governments: (1) how changes to funding (fully insured versus self‑funded) affect county cash flow and underwriting risk; and (2) how prescription‑drug contracting and pharmacy benefit design can materially reduce net costs to the county and to covered employees. USI showed a Monte Carlo‑based analysis USI uses across clients that, in its view, indicates a 72% probability after one year and about a 90% probability after five years that a self‑funded model will cost less than being fully insured, with most of the modeled savings coming from pharmacy strategies.

In examples, Steve cited the impact of biosimilars and manufacturer programs on specialty drugs. He said Humira (manufacturer AbbVie) averaged roughly $7,500–$8,000 per month before biosimilars, that several biosimilars now exist, and that some newer supply‑chain models can reduce cost markedly (he cited industry examples in which a similar medication could be available at about $700 per month). He explained that fully insured carriers commonly retain manufacturer rebates rather than passing them through to the employer; under a partially self‑funded arrangement the employer can receive rebate benefit directly or capture manufacturer coupon savings in alternative ways.

Commissioners and staff raised practical questions about disruption, member access and vendor service. Commissioner Kenny and others asked whether service levels decline when employers move away from Blue Cross; Steve replied that disruption is likely whenever vendors change but that third‑party administrators vary in flexibility (he contrasted an Aetna “mothership” product with Meritaine, a third‑party administrator using the Aetna network). Marsha (HR director) asked whether some drugs would be excluded; Steve said clients do not eliminate coverage for specialty drugs outright but may change plan design, prior‑authorization rules, or use manufacturer assistance programs.

USI offered case studies — City of McPherson and USD 465 (Winfield) — and volunteered to provide commissioner staff with contacts at those entities for reference. Steve urged ongoing communication with employees and benefit committees to reduce disruption if design changes are adopted.

The discussion was informational; commissioners did not take formal action on USI’s recommendations during the meeting. USI agreed to provide follow‑up materials to county HR and administration.","A USI consultant told Dickinson County commissioners that shifting to a partially self‑funded health plan and changing how specialty drugs are managed could cut long‑term costs; the presentation was informational and generated several follow‑up questions from staff and commissioners.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

At a glance: Dickinson County Commission procedural votes, July 24

County and juvenile center staff agree contract is outdated; counties to review replacement

Dickinson County staff: proposed budget would lower mill levy about 6.75%; Aug. 21 hearing penciled in

USI consultant urges Dickinson County to consider partial self‑funding, drug‑cost strategies