The Bourbon County Commission meets Monday, and one of the first items is a set of minutes it already sent back — the Aug. 17 minutes, tabled on Aug. 24 after Commissioner Mika Milburn-Kee said they needed “extensive revision.”

That is not unusual. The commission has sent minutes back over the past ten months, and not always for the same reason. Members have never agreed among themselves on what the minutes are supposed to be.

The county has used AI software to help produce its minutes since at least the fall of 2025. The current program, HeyGov, was demonstrated to the commission in January 2026 by then-Clerk Susan Walker. It offered three levels of detail, she said then — “a simple level, a medium level and a detailed level.”

Acting County Clerk Michael Hoyt described the current process: after a meeting is uploaded to the county’s YouTube channel, the video is downloaded as a file and run through a program called HeyGov, which transcribes the meeting and matches what was said to each item on the agenda. Hoyt then proofs the draft against his own notes.

“All I have to do is go through and proof to my notes — you know, who made the motion,” he said. “Even sitting there as close as I am, you sometimes don’t hear who seconded, or if two second at once, who wants to take credit for it.”

The draft then goes into the agenda packet for the next meeting. The commission either approves it, or gives corrections and approves it later. Once signed, it is the official record.

Hoyt said he checks requested corrections against the video before making them, because “I’m the keeper of the records. Even though it’s their meeting and it’s their minutes, they still can’t make things up after the fact.”

The method is not new. In October 2025, Walker described nearly the same pipeline with different software. “I take what’s on YouTube and I take that link and push it into this software,” she told the commission. “And then it can produce a full transcript, but it was 145 pages long.”

The alternative is doing it by hand. Walker said a full-length meeting took her office about eight hours, “because you have to sit up there and listen to everything and then try and figure out who the speaker is.”

The commissioners’ requests have not pointed the same direction.

At the Oct. 20, 2025 meeting, with the commission ten sets of minutes behind, then-Chairman David Beerbower read out his view of what belongs in them, and argued against detail.

“They are official, they are permanent, they are legal record,” Beerbower said. “They are distinct from a full transcript, though. Details that should be in there is motions and resolutions, voting outcomes, summary of discussions — but it is not a direct quote.”

A week after Beerbower’s speech, Chairman Samuel Tran asked for more — and what happened to that request is instructive.

The minutes he objected to covered an Oct. 22 special meeting on the county’s decision to move payroll out of the clerk’s office. Walker had read a prepared statement, and the minutes record its sharpest line: “The decision to remove payroll responsibilities from the clerk’s office was portrayed as a cost savings, improved processes. I must say plainly that it was not an operational improvement, it was a political move.”

The minutes give Walker five bullet points, ending with that accusation. They give the commissioners five, all procedural — reach out to the vendor, get everyone to the next meeting, discuss the timeline, review the noise ordinance, “Commissioner Beerbower will contact legal counsel.” Nothing the commissioners said in reply appears.

They said a good deal. Tran answered at length: “In everything I’ve ever done in my life you either help or you hinder — if we have a problem, come to the table with the solution or a possible solution, not hindrance.” And: “We’re sitting here, I’m listening to a speech that does not paint us well in a public forum. We are elected by them. We are their voice. And I apologize for being terse, but I’m very frustrated.”

Tran did not dispute Walker’s cost figures or her account of how the decision was made; his objection was to the speech being delivered in public. The closest thing to an answer on the substance came from Beerbower: “And that’s a decision that we made at the time. And I’m going to stick with that.”

At the Oct. 27 meeting, Tran asked for those replies to be added, but the version the commission went ahead and signed on Dec. 1, 2025 appears to have been unchanged.

By June 2026 the software was producing longer minutes, and Tran objected to how they read. At the June 15 meeting, citing the May 11 minutes, he singled out phrases like “attempted to,” “push back gently” and “echo this point forcefully.”

“Minutes should be very bland. It should not have narratives in it,” Tran said. “I think we need to go back to just reporting what people say and leave it alone and not paint certain commissioners in a bad light.” He said the concern was not about any one commissioner.

The June exchange showed some differing opinions about what the commissioners think they can ask for.

Walker responded to Tran by explaining that the software produces long, medium and short versions, and that she had already changed which one she used.

“Before, I was being ridiculed for not doing enough, and so I went to the long version,” Walker said. “And now I’m being told the long version is [wrong], so now I need to go back to the medium version or the short version?”

Tran declined to say which he wanted.

“I’m not telling you anything, Madam Clerk. I’m not telling you anything. You’re an elected official. You do your job the way you see fit,” he said. “I’m just saying the final product does not meet my expectation of what minutes should be.”

On July 6, Beerbower put the question on the agenda to settle it: pick one of the three versions and move on.

He argued for the shortest, because “it provides just what is necessary by law to have.” Minutes “shouldn’t be about what you say,” he said, “it should be about what was done in the meeting.” Motley agreed: “My vote would be the short version.” Joe Allen said he had no preference, noting school boards “keep a shorter minute.”

Milburn-Kee’s answer was again about accuracy rather than length. “I’m happy with whichever one you want, Mr. Beerbower. I will read and correct whatever I need to do,” she said. “If they don’t send them to me with mistakes, I won’t have to make any corrections.”

County Counselor Bob Johnson gave the legal standard. “You shouldn’t have editorialized minutes,” he said. “It should be a concise description and summary of what was done. And I think that’s the law.” He added that the county’s minutes run “generally three times longer” than those of other boards he works with.

Tran said length had never been his concern. “That’s all I’m asking for, whether we vote on the long, the medium, or the short version,” he said. “To me, it’s always been one adjective in there changes the narrative.”

Then Tran made the motion: “So I move that we approve the short minute version of our minutes.” Motley seconded. The minutes of that meeting record that it carried unanimously.

Six weeks later, Tran asked for something the short version does not produce. At the Aug. 17 meeting, reviewing minutes that condensed Walker’s resignation statement, Tran said the full text should be in the record.

“I think it would be a disservice to the county if we did not include the whole verbiage of that resignation statement,” he said. Asked by Beerbower whether the letter would already be in county records anyway, Tran said the minutes are what people actually go to: “Very few people go back through and look at the actual documents.”

The commission agreed. Walker’s full three-page statement was attached to the Aug. 10 minutes, which were approved Aug. 24.

Running alongside the disagreement over length is a separate one about accuracy, and that request has been the same throughout.

Walker told the commission in June why speakers get mixed up: “It doesn’t pick up your voices because you don’t announce when you’re talking, and so therefore sometimes it might get Beerbower and Allen mixed up.” She added, “Oftentimes it says Mrs. Milburn is a man.”

Milburn-Kee has raised the same point at least three times. In October 2025 she asked that “great attention be paid before they’re sent to us in the first place.” A week later: “It’s important for me not to have extra things that are untrue in there, mainly.” On Aug. 24 she said it again: “Please, please make sure the right speaker is notated in there before sending it out as the minutes. I think I’m the only one bringing back edits for that.”

The commission takes up the Aug. 17 minutes again Monday, with corrections, and will review the Aug. 24 minutes.

Hoyt is doing the work alone. He said he is the only person in the clerk’s office, “replacing three people and doing it all.” He is seeking appointment as county clerk at the Bourbon County Republican convention on Sept. 1.

Four weeks after narrowly enrolling the old county landfill in the state’s walk-in hunting program, Bourbon County commissioners unwound the deal Monday. The sale of the land is dependent on environmental paperwork the county has owed on the property for years.

“I’m making a motion to withdraw our contract with the walk-in hunting on the old” landfill, Commissioner Joe Allen said. “The reason why is the city has opted out on their portion, and this was a package deal, and so we need to opt out on our side.” (video, Aug. 24, 65:54)

The board then voted to list the roughly 24-acre parcel — southwest of Oak Grove Cemetery at 225th Street and Native Road — for sale, but only after groundwater testing and only with a restrictive covenant filed against the deed. Commissioner Mika Milburn-Kee supplied the conditions in her second: “pending water testing and restrictive covenant.” (video, 68:22)

Chairman Gregg Motley explained: “The big one is groundwater, because if that groundwater travels, we can’t expunge ourselves from liability.” (video, 67:12)

Four weeks, four meetings

The walk-in hunting idea arrived on July 27, when Justin Harbit, a wildlife biologist with the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, pitched enrolling the parcel in the Walk-In Hunting Access program: about $10 an acre per year — roughly $260 for the tract, by Chairman Samuel Tran’s math — with the state posting, patrolling and publishing the ground in its hunting atlas, and covering liability — Harbit pointed commissioners to a state recreational-use statute. (video, July 27, 30:09) Commissioner David Beerbower moved to enroll the same night, and it passed 3–2 — Beerbower, Motley and Allen in favor — over objections from Milburn-Kee and Samuel Tran that the public had not been given notice. County Clerk Susan Walker flagged another issue in the same discussion: the county has “an obligation” on file from the landfill’s closure, and the ground cannot be used for anything that disturbs the soil for 30 years, a restriction that runs to 2039. (video, 46:53)

On Aug. 3, as the contract came back for signature, Tran read aloud an email reply the clerk had obtained from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Walk-in hunting itself was fine, KDHE wrote. It is considered an “acceptable post-closure use” that would not disturb the landfill’s cover soil. But on the restrictive covenant required on closed landfills under state regulation, “our files do not represent that [a] restrictive covenant has been filed, and Bourbon County has been notified several times that this is required.” KDHE gave the county until Sept. 30 to file one, noted the covenant “runs with the land so any further buyer is aware that a closed landfill is on the property,” and pointed out that under state law a buyer inherits the site’s post-closure care. Commissioners agreed to hold the matter until the county attorney returned mid-month to review the deed issues. (video, Aug. 3, 123:05) Beerbower, who had made the enrollment motion a week earlier, said he was still weighing other ideas for the property, “I’m not done researching some options for that land,” though when Motley asked whether he opposed signing the hunting agreement, he said no, “it wouldn’t impact that anyway.” (video, 120:54)

On Aug. 10, the neighbors arrived. Oak Grove Cemetery’s caretaker, Phillip Pavey, asked how the plan came about (video, Aug. 10, 26:50), and Milburn-Kee read a letter from Richard and Alyssa Cronemeyer, whose land adjoins the parcel: 24 years of trespassing hunters, cut fences, game cameras and deer stands on their trees, calls from out-of-state hunters wanting access and a reminder that roughly a decade ago a county commissioner had personally posted the ground against hunting. (video, 28:52) The same night, Milburn-Kee pressed the other unfinished obligation: “I ask that we fulfill our duty to the legalities of testing the water on that old site, which have not been fulfilled as to this point.” (video, 32:23) The board authorized her to draft a proposal directing Public Works to conduct the testing with KDHE and file the deed restrictions. (video, 55:22)

By Aug. 24, with the city out, the county withdrew. Beerbower reported one more wrinkle from his research: under the closure restrictions the land cannot be dug or built on — but “somebody that wants to use it for private hunting land” could buy it. (video, 67:21) Milburn-Kee offered the other possibility: “Or an adjoining neighbor that wants nobody to touch it.” (video, 67:46) Either way, one use that would survive a sale is the same one the county just declined to lease to the state. And the delinquent paperwork was on the commissioners’ minds as they voted: “we are delinquent,” Beerbower acknowledged. “We have until September or something.” (video, 68:06)

The city’s half of the deal

The county’s 24 acres were never the whole plan. Harbit told commissioners the City of Fort Scott owns “20 some” adjoining acres — 22, he said at a later meeting, that KDOT owns roughly 45 acres to the south, and that the goal was “one big contiguous block” of public hunting ground — but he would not enroll the city’s piece without the county’s, “just because of access and the size.” (video, July 27)

The city is no stranger to the program. It has held a walk-in hunting agreement with the state around Lake Fort Scott for years. City staff cited the agreement, which runs through 2027, as far back as October 2021, when staff raised it as the commission weighed — and tabled — an unsolicited $350,000 offer on 80 lake acres. The city’s 2018 comprehensive plan describes “many acres of walk-in hunting” around both Fort Scott Lake and Rock Creek Lake, and Harbit noted the city also has “a big chunk across the river at the wastewater treatment plant” — the reason the county tract was proposed as archery-and-shotgun only, to match the rules already posted next door.

Harbit and KDWP’s Don George were on the city commission’s Aug. 18 agenda for walk-in hunting contracts and a wildlife-parks grant. By Monday, Allen reported the city had opted out, but what the city decided, and when, is not yet in the public record: no recording of the Aug. 18 city meeting has appeared on the city’s YouTube channel, and approved minutes are not yet available.

The program the county walked away from

Kansas’s Walk-In Hunting Access program, started in 1995, leases more than a million acres statewide from landowners, mostly private, and opens them to public hunting on foot, no vehicles or camping, from fall through spring. Enrolled tracts are posted with the program’s signs, patrolled by the department, and published in the annual hunting atlas and a statewide GIS map. Harbit told commissioners the program is thin in eastern Kansas, where access is hardest to come by: “citizens and everybody … they’re just being priced out of hunting and fishing.” In Bourbon County, he said, the program already includes “all the city property and a handful of others.” (video, July 27, 41:56)

Contracts run September through May; long-term deals, historically 15 years for government-owned land, can pay up front in a single check, with a prorated refund owed if the land is sold or withdrawn mid-term. A federal Farm Bill grant, expected to be decided this fall, would have allowed such a long-term contract to be paid up front here. The program also offered habitat cost-sharing to knock down the Johnson grass on the county site.

What has to happen now

Before the parcel can be sold, two obligations from the landfill’s closure have to be met: the groundwater testing and the restrictive covenant KDHE expects filed by Sept. 30. The 30-year no-disturbance restriction runs with the land to 2039 either way, which is why, as Motley observed when the idea first surfaced, “landfills are hard to sell.” (video, July 27, 44:40)

Bourbon County’s agenda packet should carry the documents the commission votes on, Chairman Gregg Motley told fellow commissioners at the end of Monday’s meeting — contracts, bids and resolutions included, so both commissioners and the public can read them before decisions are made.

“Our agenda was, with accounts payable, about 30 pages,” Motley said, describing his review of other local governments’ agendas. “In most cities and counties, their agenda is about 100 to 200 pages, because all these kinds of documents that we have laying around are on the agenda so that the public can see it, along with commissioners, in advance of meetings.” (video, 71:45)

He pointed to the five road-work bids Public Works had handed across the table earlier that evening as the kind of document that “could have been on the agenda and in the packet so that we could see those in advance.”

Motley also connected the thin packet to the county’s open-records workload. Stronghold, the county’s IT contractor, services numerous cities and counties, he said, and “we have more KORA requests than all other cities and counties in their jurisdiction combined. And some of that is that documents like this, people have to KORA instead of just seeing it in the agenda.”

His ask: “I’m going to suggest that we send documents to the clerk so that they can be included on the agenda packet… contracts, resolutions, bids, anything that we can get in the agenda packet. I think it’s going to be helpful to us and the public.” No motion was made; the suggestion drew no objection.

Commissioner David Beerbower answered that the requirement, at least in part, already exists: “The resolution we did on meetings said… you shouldn’t put anything on the agenda that … you’re not prepared to provide the supporting documents” — unless, he added, an item is “pure discussion” with no documents to attach. (video, 73:23)

A rule with a year of history

Beerbower is right that the books already say something. The commission has been circling this exact problem since last fall.

September 8, 2025. Then-chairman Beerbower first proposed meeting-procedure reforms, including that “all items on the agenda … supporting documents should be provided to the clerk prior to the deadline date.” (video, Sept. 8, 7:20)

October 14, 2025. Beerbower brought a drafted “Rules of Procedure” resolution requiring agenda requests “to include supporting documents” be submitted to the county clerk before a deadline. Commissioner Samuel Tran’s question then still hangs over the discussion: “How hard are you going to adhere to this? Because quite frankly, that has not been adhered to since I’ve been” on the board. (video, Oct. 14, 1:50:55) The same night, the board debated what counts as a supporting document, and the clerk noted an agenda-request form exists but  “the only one that really ever uses it is the sheriff.”

October 20, 2025. The board adopted the resolution 2–1 (Beerbower and Tran yes, Mika Milburn-Kee no), amending the deadline on the floor to noon Friday before a regular meeting. (video, Oct. 20, 2:57:40) The text, as drafted, is on page 145 of that meeting’s own agenda packet: any county department, elected official or commissioner may submit agenda items, and “such requests, to include supporting documents, must be submitted to the County Clerk’s office” by the deadline, with the chair able to add emergency items. That packet, at 156 pages, drew Tran’s praise the same night: “For 90% of your package, it was spot on… I just want to give you props.” (video, 2:49:16)

Since then. The rule has proven easier to adopt than to live by. In December, Tran went looking for documentation on a benefits item — “if you’re going to bring something to the table, you’ve got to have some supporting documentation” — and Beerbower conceded compliance had been “kind of iffy.” (video, Dec. 15, 4:52) In February, Motley himself named the failure mode — “what’s problematic is when a resolution hits the table that we never read” (video, Feb. 19, 2:28:54) and Commissioner Joe Allen noted the City of Fort Scott had just adopted a stricter version: a resolution nobody has seen in advance is tabled to the next meeting except in emergencies. (video, 2:29:17) Tran shared his view Monday’s proposal: nothing in the county’s rule requires the documents be available to the public. Though it wasn’t clear if he was suggesting a different packet could be sent to the commissioners separate from the public published agenda.  (video, 2:30:56)

The dynamic predates the resolution. In May 2025, when a landfill restructuring proposal arrived with no numbers attached, then-commissioner Brandon Whisenhunt declined to second it — according to the minutes, saying that had he known the topic was coming he “would have brought his numbers in,” and asking not to be surprised “like this with discussions.” The motion died. (video, May 5, 2025, 1:47:33)

The existing resolution talks about what reaches the commissioners: documents go to the clerk so the board is prepared while including those documents in the public agenda is generally how that is given to the commissioners and the public, Tran seemed to suggest the information could be provided ahead of time for the commissioners in way that wasn’t public.  Motley’s suggestion was to follow the existing resolution and also include all the information in what the public sees, making the published packet posted with the agenda so people have access without requiring a KORA request to view it.

FORT SCOTT — Otis Elevator and Bourbon County settled on dates Thursday for the courthouse elevator shutdown that will push district court out of the building: the elevator goes out of service Wednesday, Oct. 21, and is scheduled to be back in service by Friday, Nov. 20.

The dates came out of a work session with Otis project manager Kyle George, who told commissioners the replacement equipment has already been bought and is sitting at a distribution center waiting to ship.

“We can deliver material today or next week if we call upon it now. It’s ready to go,” George said. “It’s procured, and it’s at our third-party company right now.” (video, 18:50)

Nothing was voted on. The session was noticed as a work session at which no formal county business would be conducted, and two decisions the court is waiting on are still outstanding.

What still has to happen Monday

Chief Judge Amy Harth needs two things from the commission at its next meeting, Monday, Aug. 24: permission for district court to operate out of the county-owned building at 108 W. Second St., and a vote closing the courthouse’s second and third floors to public access while the work runs.

“I ran into Commissioner Beerbower in the hall,” Harth said. “I would like to be able to make the request to change the location of court on a temporary basis to the Supreme Court sooner rather than springing it on them at the last minute. So the sooner you guys can get to that, that would be great.” (video, 16:20)

Asked what the commission needed to do formally, Harth said: “Just tell me that we’re okay to have court in that building. That’s really it.” (video, 16:40)

Beerbower confirmed the item is coming. “We had to make a decision on 108 West 2nd on Monday at the next meeting on the court being there, because we didn’t formally do it yet,” he said. (video, 16:07)

The floor closure would run the length of the project — from the Oct. 21 start through the conclusion of the work. Only staff and county attorney staff would be upstairs. Staff would keep their access, Harth said, because court recordings still have to be run from the courtrooms on those floors.

“From our perspective, we have asked the commission to close the second and third floors to public access,” she said. “If the commission hasn’t already, and they act on that request, that solves any disruptions for us.” (video, 15:14)

Two commissioners missing

Three of the five commissioners took part: Chairman Gregg Motley, David Beerbower and Mika Milburn-Kee. Samuel Tran and Joe Allen did not.

Tran had pressed Otis for a pre-construction meeting in the first place, he is the one who had been dealing with the company — “I’ve been working closely with Samuel up to this point,” George told the room — and he is the one who moved the meeting to 3:30 p.m. to suit the court’s schedule.

At Monday’s regular meeting, Deputy Clerk Michael Hoyt asked whether three or more commissioners would attend, which is what determines how the session has to be noticed. Tran answered for himself.

“I will be here. I can’t speak for my peers,” he said. (video, Aug. 17, 22:19)

Minutes later, explaining how the time had been set, he was more explicit still: “Originally, when I spoke to Judge Harth and I spoke to Otis, it was a later time. Her staff came back and said the judge can make it at 3:30. So I said, that’s fine. I’ll make myself available.” (video, Aug. 17, 23:19)

Allen told the commission that night why he could not come. Besides his county seat he is the Fort Scott school district’s transportation director so he has commitments when school is insession.

“I will not be there during bus routes,” he said. (video, Aug. 17, 23:51) Thursday’s meeting started at 3:30 p.m. It is a constraint he has raised before: setting work-session times in March, he said, “4:30, 5 o’clock is about the earliest I can get here on a school day.” (video, March 16, 89:26)

Motley said that night that he would not be there either — “Yeah, I won’t be there Thursday” — but he did end up attending.

Beerbower, asked the same question Monday, said “I’ll come” — and did.

Start date moved from Oct. 20 to Oct. 21

Harth opened by asking for an Oct. 20 start, the date she had floated at the Aug. 12 work session. George said that would work — material delivered Monday, elevator out of service Tuesday.

Then Harth reconsidered, because of a retirement reception for Judge Mark Ward on the afternoon of Monday, Oct. 19.

“We have a retirement reception the afternoon of the 19th. Should we push it to the 21st, or will there be anything disruptive about what’s going on on the 19th?” she asked. George said it would not be a problem. (video, 11:21)

“Let’s do it the 21st, and that way we just aren’t even having that problem,” Harth said. “We have a judge retiring… he’s local, and so I think a lot of folks are going to want to come and wish him well.” (video, 11:56)

The back end moved too. Milburn-Kee asked George to confirm the window — “October 21st through November 19th” — and then, after George said his crews might want the option of working a Friday, the group extended it a day to Friday, Nov. 20.

How the four weeks break down

George walked through the schedule. A semi arrives with roughly eight pallets of material, and from that day the elevator is out of service until the final inspection is signed off.

“Generally speaking, we account for a month of downtime,” he said. “The elevator portion of the work will be about 90% complete within two weeks.” (video, 5:59)

The third week goes to building work — fire alarm and electrical tie-in — handled by subcontractor CBI under Otis’s umbrella. The fourth week is contingency, and buys time to get a third-party inspector scheduled.

“That fourth week is just more so a contingency,” George said. “So we like to plan for four weeks.”

Otis will schedule and pay for the inspection, which he said runs two to three hours and gets booked a couple of weeks out, with the electrical and fire alarm subcontractors on site in case anything needs fixing that day.

Motley asked what could cause delays. George pointed at the building side rather than the elevator.

“A lot of it normally falls on just that building-related work — our fire alarm tie-in, sometimes there’s maybe a software upgrade to the fire panel that we otherwise wouldn’t know until we tie in those new devices,” he said. “Within the span of a month, it’s usually correctable and not causing any delay on the project.” (video, 12:42)

The crew works four 10-hour days, Monday through Thursday, 6 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., which means someone has to open the courthouse at 6 a.m. Beerbower said that would be handled: “We can make sure the building is open.” Deputy Clerk Michael Hoyt noted that Veterans Day, Nov. 11, falls inside the window; the crew will be off that day, and he raised the November election calendar as well.

Most of the work happens in the basement machine room and the shaft. George said noisier work could be kept to the early hours before business starts, and that nothing on the job requires drilling or other sustained noise.

A 1977 elevator, well past its expected life

Harth asked George why a modernization was needed at all — whether it was simply something that “pops up.”

“In the elevator industry we tell all of our customers it’s 20 to 25 years is the average life expectancy for an elevator,” he said. “We’ve gotten quite a bit more out of this elevator than that.” (video, 13:49)

The courthouse elevator was installed in 1977. Asked whether the rebuilt unit should last another 20 to 25 years, George said that was the expectation.

Commissioner Mika Milburn-Kee asked George whether the county’s maintenance contract is now with Otis. It is, he said, and “we’ll have a lot more streamlined once the project’s wrapped up.” Otis is the elevator’s original manufacturer; the county’s prior contract was with Kone, and Commissioner Samuel Tran told the commission on Aug. 3 that Kone had “dumped us on the contract,” which is why replacement parts for this summer’s breakdown had to be routed through the manufacturer.

The elevator is working now. Asked whether the last repair was just a board, George said he believed so — that and the switch serving the basement.

What the court still needs

Harth said the court is finalizing an equipment list for 108 W. Second and will email it to the commission before Monday. Her instruction to her own staff was to keep it cheap and reuse what the county already owns.

“When you see the list, you’re going to see, like, I think I said, 10 or 12 six-foot tables. If you have 10 or 12 six-foot tables, use those. Don’t go buy them,” she said. (video, 17:10) Later she summed it up: “Just when you get our list, don’t think we need fancy things. We just need the things.” (video, 21:17)

Chairs do not have to match, she said, and metal folding chairs are fine. Renting or borrowing tables and chairs from other communities at no cost, rather than buying them, came up as an option. The court has already been through its own stock — Harth said Chief Clerk Administrator Stephanie Gerken and District Court Clerk Melissa Trim had worked through the court’s devices to see what still works. Court staff attended alongside her; one asked that the list include chairs for them.

Two things on the list are not optional. The first is internet capacity: the plan calls for roughly eight Zoom rooms running at once in the perimeter offices. The second is a camera covering the open space those rooms open onto — a recommendation from the Office of Judicial Administration staffer who walked the building with court staff the previous Friday.

“It’s a blind corner back there, and we just want to be able to see,” Harth said. “Also, if someone were to need help back there, the clerks won’t be able to see them.” She said an off-the-shelf doorbell-style camera would do: “We don’t need some fancy spyware back there.” (video, 22:32)

Moving courthouse security over to 108 W. Second is also on the list.

What did not come up: asbestos

Asbestos was not mentioned at Thursday’s meeting. The question is a live one at the courthouse, and the state’s position, as the county itself has recorded it, is that asbestos becomes a regulatory matter when construction disturbs it. The meeting was about construction inside the courthouse, chaired by the commissioner the board assigned to the asbestos question three weeks ago.

Reached by phone Friday, Motley said the two are not in the same place.

“Those are not in proximity, so there wouldn’t be any concerns there,” he said.

Background

Commissioners approved the Otis modernization on Dec. 18, 2025, accepting a $199,700 proposal and funding it from the jail sales tax fund, Fund 370, on a 2-1 vote. Harth told commissioners at that meeting that the inoperable elevator was “an ADA violation for us and probably a 19-104 violation for the county.” K.S.A. 19-104 requires Kansas counties to provide a suitable courthouse and keep it in repair.

The elevator failed again this summer. Harth told commissioners on July 27 that the court had been “really down since June 16th,” that a defendant charged with aggravated kidnapping had a jury trial continued, and that because the obstacle was the court’s own inability to hold a trial, the delay would not be charged against the defendant — “if these people run out of time, these cases will have to be dismissed.”

At the Aug. 12 work session, Harth proposed running court virtually from 108 W. Second for the outage rather than building out a courtroom there, scaling back an earlier and more expensive concept. No cost estimate for the buildout has been made public.

Thursday’s meeting was the pre-construction meeting Tran pressed for at that Aug. 12 session. It was the commission’s first work session on the elevator since Gregg Motley replaced Tran as chairman on Aug. 17.