Commission Meeting – October 28th

Dean Mann

Dean Mann and two KDOT employees came in to discuss US Highway 69. KDOT did a meeting in Franklin yesterday to talk about the corridor from Fort Scott to Pittsburg. There is money allocated to put 4 lanes from Fort Scott South to 680th Street. This should begin in 2013 be completed by 2019.

KDOT is trying to get things prepared for the phase that comes after that. Mr. Mann said that some times the Federal government has money available for “shovel ready” projects. So the goal is to have the planning in place to take advantage of such funds if they become available. They want to complete the design and if there are no funds available it will “go on the shelf” until funds materialize. There is hope that by the time the Fort Scott section is constructed, there will be funds to continue with a four lane toward Arma.

The purpose of the meeting with the Commissioners was to ask if they would support getting the design done. While the addition wouldn’t have a direct impact on Bourbon County, it does have impact in how traffic moves through Fort Scott. Having local governments supporting the projects may help KDOT lean more favorably toward those projects instead of ones where there is not support or support hasn’t already been expressed.

Commissioner Endicott expressed concern that putting in the Arma connection might delay the Crawford County Corridor and asked if the money would be better spent on that project which would go from 680th Street through Pittsburg.  Mr. Mann explained that since the timeline of the Crawford County Corridor is unknown, the benefit of having a four lane in the Arma area may be very beneficial to have sooner (if funds become available) rather than waiting for the larger project.

Fort Scott is submitting a grant application today for a grant to turn US 69 from 18th Street to 23rd street into a 5 lane road.

The Commissioners passed a motion to support the plan as long as it didn’t delay the Crawford County Corridor project.

Dylan Morrow Director of Security SEKRCC (county jail)

Mr. Marrow talked with the Commissioners about some of the things he was doing to help reduce overtime. He also wanted to thank the Commissioners for helping him move around some responsibilities to be able to give some raises in his department.

The jail is spending a lot of money on plumbers and electricians, but that is just due to the age of the building.

Terri Johnson – County Attorney

The County Attorney suggested that the commissioners go into Executive Session to discuss a possible settlement for case 11CB45.

Another Executive Session was called for Attorney Client privilege regarding suits filed against the county and insurance claim loss ratio for 5 minutes.

Chairman Endicott asked the County Attorney what their next step should be related the allegations about the Treasurer’s office . The County Attorney said that she asked the Attorney General and KBI to look into the allegations back in August and she has yet to hear back from them regarding this request. She expects to hear back at some point in the near future.

The list that went to the abstractor in preparation for the tax sale was for 2007 and previous years delinquent taxes. In addition non-homestead properties could be foreclosed on for 2008 delinquent taxes. Ms. Johnson pointed out that from a practical standpoint there may need to be more than one tax sale depending on how property owners respond to the suit to foreclose and what type of delays occur on various properties.

There was some discussion about whether or not it makes sense to try to differentiate between homestead and non-homestead property and whether it is even possible to determine which properties fall into the homestead exemption category. In the past the county has just applied the three year rule to everyone.

8 thoughts on “Commission Meeting – October 28th”

  1. What happened to 2006 delinquent taxes? According to the Feb. 8, 2010 minutes, the 2006 and 2007 taxes would be combined and sold . They should have already been sold by according to the minutes, they were delayed due to the fact the commissioners were told that there wasn’t enough to sell. Now where are they?

    1. It is my understanding that the list that went to the abstractor were for properties delinquent from 2007 and prior. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear and I will update the article to say this.

  2. The commissioners need to follow the LAW, there is a difference between homestead and commercial (or non-homestead, as you stated).

    1. If you don’t want to accidentally try to sell a homestead before it can be legally sold, how do you purpose to tell which properties are homestead and which are not?

      1. 1. Is it owned by a business, rather than an individual?
        2. Is a business being operated at that address?

        Just off the top of my head, those would be my first questions.

        1. Those questions could be used to determine if something is not a homestead, but if you want to be fair to everyone you need to determine if something IS a homestead to take it off the list.

          1. I tried to find a definition in the Statutes but could not. It appeared though from some of what I saw that it would include a home and a certain amount of acreage. I had thought more of vacant land than of businesses since when they tear down a house, I believe they hold a lien against the property unless they are paid the tear down cost which would be more than the value of the lot in many cases. They being the City. And, I can’t help but comment that “being fair to everyone” does not seem to be on the priority list for the County. Can’t help but wonder how messed up the list that went forward is anyway. How could it possibly be correct?

          2. I think the definition of “homestead” basically comes down to the house being owned by the people who are currently occupying it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *