The Douglas County Commission opened detailed discussion and public comment on Oct. 1 about creating a tenant right-to-counsel program, and commissioners directed staff to gather program designs, cost estimates and stakeholder input before returning with recommendations. The commission did not adopt a code change or allocate ongoing funding at the meeting.

Why it matters: Eviction cases move quickly under Kansas law, and advocates, service providers and unhoused residents told the commission that access to lawyers at the time an eviction filing is made can prevent homelessness, preserve access to health care and reduce long-term public costs.

County staff briefed the commission that earlier work sessions raised many open questions and that a number of options exist — from adding a county code provision to creating an administratively funded program — but that program design, scope and sustainable funding need more detail. County staff noted $40,000 in the 2026 budget had been set aside for related eviction work but that no new program had been funded.

Public comments and evidence: More than three dozen people spoke during the item and the separate public-comment period. Speakers included tenants, attorneys, supportive-housing case managers, and nonprofit representatives who described personal experience with evictions and cited local and national evidence that representation improves outcomes. Tenant advocates repeatedly proposed two central elements for any program: full legal representation for tenants in eviction proceedings and a tenant-led oversight committee to guide implementation and ensure access.

“Right to counsel is a clinical intervention as much as a legal one,” said tenant and survivor Katie Krause, describing how losing housing interrupted medical treatment and recovery. Supportive-housing staff outlined that eviction can cause immediate loss of identification, prescriptions and benefits and can rapidly shift people from recovery into crisis.

Staff questions and county constraints: County Administrator Sarah (staff member) and County Legal Counsel John Bullock told commissioners the county could pursue either a code-based approach or an administratively funded program, but that code changes typically apply only to unincorporated areas if placed in certain chapters and that Kansas counties have limited authority to compel city action. Staff emphasized the practical work needed to implement a program: defining eligibility, choosing service providers, deciding whether to fund full representation or limited advice, determining performance metrics, and identifying sustainable revenue (general fund, grants, or targeted fees).

Commissioners’ views: Commissioners expressed a range of views but, in the discussion, a majority signaled interest in directing staff to develop program options rather than immediately adopting a code change. Several commissioners said they prefer staff to return with options that include program designs, cost estimates, and possible partnerships with Kansas Holistic Defenders, Kansas Legal Services, KU Law clinical programs, and other local providers. At least one commissioner emphasized exploring collaboration with cities and state-level policy as complementary steps but did not call for delaying county work.

Next steps directed by the commission: Commissioners asked staff to research regional examples (including Topeka/Shawnee County and Kansas City), to consult with community partners and legal-service providers about capacity and grants, and to prepare cost estimates and program models (including a possible phased rollout and options for eligibility). Staff indicated it could return with preliminary analysis in roughly 30–45 days; the commission made no funding commitment at this meeting.

What was not decided: The commission did not adopt an ordinance or place a code amendment on the agenda, did not award contracts, and took no vote to fund an ongoing program. Commissioners explicitly distinguished between (a) discussion and direction to staff, (b) public comment, and (c) formal action; only the first two occurred for this item.

Community context: Speakers and staff noted that most eviction proceedings in Douglas County occur in district court, not municipal court, which affects jurisdiction and program design. Public commenters cited local numbers (about 581 eviction filings in the prior year, according to one speaker) and countywide rental estimates (about 25,220 rental households — 50.5% of households — cited by a commenter). Multiple speakers and service providers told the commission that only a small share of tenants currently have legal representation in eviction cases (speakers cited rates around 3%), and several referenced data from other jurisdictions showing high case-resolution rates for represented tenants.

Quotes

"Right to counsel is a clinical intervention as much as a legal one," Katie Krause, a tenant who described past homelessness and health impacts, told commissioners.

"One more attorney would make a huge difference in terms of who's currently showing up," said Vince Munoz, a community organizer, urging the commission to use existing budgeted dollars and amend service agreements if possible.

Scope and limits: Staff and commissioners repeatedly noted legal and budget constraints. County staff warned that placing a right to counsel in county code without funded program design could create expectations the commission could not meet without appropriations; staff also noted that if funding is limited, enrollment in any program would be constrained by available appropriations and those excluded would not have a legal claim against the county for unmet demand.

Bottom line: The commission signaled interest in pursuing program development — not immediate code adoption or funding — and asked staff to return with program options, partner assessments and cost estimates. The public record from the meeting shows strong community demand for full representation and tenant oversight. The commission set no implementation timeline and took no formal vote on creating a tenant right-to-counsel program at the Oct. 1 meeting.