Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll start with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Good morning everyone. Welcome to the Shaune County Board of County Commissioners. It's March 19th, 2026 and uh it's going to be a warm one today. I have a feeling. Uh Lisa, what is first on the agenda? Oh, wait a minute. Let me introduce everybody.

I'll do introductions. On my immediate right is Commissioner uh Kevin Cook who represents district 2. On my left is Commissioner Aaron Maze who represents district 3. I'm Bill Ripon. I represent district 1. And for our council today is Jonathan Brazon and Lisa Schmidt, our county clerk. So with that commission. Okay. What's first? All right. You're excited. I like it. First item with something on it is item two, unfinished business. a county or consider approval to award the bid for weed management chemicals to Van East Supply Company.

Good morning, commissioners. John Landon, director of the weed department. Uh this item was brought to you last week. It's it's chemicals for our herbicide control of noxious weeds. Uh we run into a little hiccup last week with uh our dye product. Uh dye is something our applicators use to identify where they've sprayed. It's it's uh part of our contract with Kot that we have to use it. But the problem was we explained it as a just a generic die and not a not a name brand. And so it was a generic name brand confusion. Uh that has since been worked out. And so this morning I'm here requesting approval to award the bid to Van De uh as submitted for being the most responsive bid out there. Um, Van Dy's a little history with Van Dies. We've been doing business with them with Shauny County since 2008. They have three, uh, distribution centers in Kansas, Iola, uh, Abalene, and Garden City. And so, uh, with that, commissioners, I'd be happy to answer any of your questions.

Any questions? Nope. And none. So, I will move for approval. Okay. Go ahead. Second. Motion's been made by Commissioner Riple, seconded by Commissioner Cook. All in favor say I. Opposed. Motion carries. 30. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank John. Next item. Next item is item three, consent agenda. Um I would move for approval of the consent agenda. Second. Motion's been made by Commissioner Ripon, seconded by Commissioner Maize. All in favor say I. Those opposed. Motion carries. 30. Next item.

Item four, new business. A county clerk one, consider all voucher payments.

Commissioners, we have vouchers this morning. The total 4,664,5725. Some of the highlights are significant payments out of the voucher report. 356,422 to Mammoth Sports Construction. That's the final payment on the Betta's baseball turf replacement project paid for by the equipment fund and parks for all foundation. $456,39342 cents to Bettis asphalt and construction. That is a progress payment on the Northwest 46 Fielding Road project paid with infrastructure funds. $44,7129. That's to construction company. That's a progress payment on the southwest Auburn road from 29th to K4 highway that's paid with infrastructure funds. I don't have any question regarding the voucher report but move through approval.

I'll second. Motion's been made by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ripon. All in favor say I. Opposed. Motion carries. 30. Next item. Two. Consider correction orders. I'll move that we approve the correction orders. Second. Motion's been made by Commissioner Ripon. Second by Commissioner Mays. All in favor say I. Opposed. Motion carries. 30. Next. B. County Counselor. One. Public hearing. Consider approval of resolution number R2026034 vacating a portion of Southeast Hersel Road.

Good morning, commissioners. Jonathan Bzon, County Counselor's Office. Um, we have sent notice to the adjoining property owners, the utilities in the area, and Monmouth Township. And we did hear back from On the Township that they are in agreeance with the proposed vacation. So unless you have any questions for me, we just need to open the public hearing. All right. I commissioner go ahead. Yes. Um

we have received communication from the um Jerry and Dolores Howbert Trust and Family and I believe that they are here and their councils here. Have you had a chance to review the letter that they had? I did look at it just a second ago. Okay. And they're asking us to um It appears to be table or defer action on this for 30 days uh for some discussion. Do you have insight as to that or that's really up to the commission what you want to do. If you want to hear from the people that are here today, that's and then we can decide if you want to table it or vote on it today.

Okay. Well, I think that maybe we should open the public hearing and then hear from them. So, I'll make a motion to open the public hearing. I'll second. Uh, motion's been made by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ripon. All in favor say I. Those opposed. Motion carries 300. We are now in a public hearing. So, um, is there anyone here would like to speak in favor of this project? Yes. Well, or the vacation. In favor of the vacation. So that in favor of the vacation. Excellent.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Lee Hendricks. I'm here on behalf of Midstates Ventures, which owns the real estate to the east of Hershel Road and uh Midstates Materials, which is party to a lease agreement with the property owner to the south, the Howard Trust that you just mentioned, uh and Daryl Vale, um who is the property owner to the west. Uh I I'm not sure the township of Mr. Veale is president. The township is here. The township is here. The the impetus for this coming in front of you was a a letter in February uh from Monmouth Township in which they had stated to you they were concerned about safety risks uh of uh continued operation of Hershel Road. um that was triggered by my attendance at their meeting in January where I raised this concern upon uh my employment with Midstates Ventures and Midstates Materials. I visited this property uh to to determine what all was at play. I have a few photos here. Um this is a view as you can see there looking south. Um, this is where it just further to the north from here, it tees into 45th Street. Um, this is a a deemed a minimum maintenance road as was discussed by Monmouth Township. It is it is akin to a farm road. Um, there has been no uh action taken to improve it anytime recently and there's no public use or public benefit of this road beyond to the uh to the neighboring property owners. There's mining on all three sides of this road. As I stated, looking south here, the Howard Trust property is to the south. Um, mining that has been been ongoing for some time. These pictures were taken last year uh late last year. The the drop at

that time was about 60 between 60 ft and 100 ft at its at its most uh along these depths. What is concerning to us is the fact that this could go to a depth of of of up to 200 f feet. This is a view out on the end of that point. Again, looking out on the the Howbert Trust property. And then this is showing that I I'll just consider or or label here a peninsula. Uh what is important to stress is that the mining will continue to go northbound all the way uh to where we are constrained from doing so up against the 45th Street. the the biggest concern for the township and for Midstates uh is that this safety hazard isn't temporary. Um when I visited this property, what what jumped at me was on this end that you can see here, I drove out and then walked to the end and saw ATV tracks and beer cans. Um, I'm concerned that this is the kind of area that's, especially as this continues to get deeper, that is a real uh uh enticing place for youth or others to go out uh and congregate uh park cars, whatever the case may be. And those tracks and those beer cans were were proof of that. As I said, the the concern was this isn't temporary. The Halberts entered into the lease with Midstates in 2010. That lease runs an additional 11 and a half years from now. Uh it's actually 9 and a half years for mining and two years for remediation. The Veil lease, uh Daryl Veil's lease on the west side, uh runs an additional 19 years from now for mining and 2 years for remediation. So even though remediation by the terms of that lease would be required on this

end, you know, the the uh south end of the peninsula and 11 12 years, we're talking two decades where there could still be this uh drop at some point on Hershel Road heading back towards 45th Street. Um I I don't want to speak too much for him, but I believe Mr. Bale uh who's on the west side is agreeable just as we are to the vacation of this road. I know that the Howberts are not. Commissioner Cook raised uh the letter that was sent around yesterday via email. Uh it is true that in that letter uh we had attempted uh revisited discussions on perhaps some alternate access to this property for the Howards. Um, I met with the Howberts uh on the on behalf of the Howard Trust um in June of last year in an effort to try to find uh some common ground on on another access point that couldn't be reached. There were discussions yesterday afternoon as as you know in that letter uh those also couldn't be reached. Um I'll come back to that timeline here at the end, but I would I would stress two things that they have raised. Um if I can go back here. Of course I ruined it. Thank you. One of the issues that they have uh the the trust raised to us was that the safety may be partially mitigated by you can see in this photo overburden. Obviously any concerns about someone falling off a cliff uh to the west in this photo um that overburden is there. What I would stress to the commissioners is we're talking about two decades of work. This overburden will be moved. It is an ongoing mining process. Uh and I can tell you that as of 1:00 yesterday where you can see the signs at the end of that road. You can drive around those to the

edge. There is no overburden or protection. There is a significant drop off that edge. Um, so while I understand that there may be portions of that peninsula that are protected as we move along uh and that there is not a drop off on all three sides, there will be throughout this process for 20 years portions of this road that will have that drop and as I said up to 200 ft. The secondary and more important I believe issue for the Alberts is access. Um they have uh stated to me that it's important for them to retain this road to access the north side of their property. I would note to you that uh and that is primarily for farming. I I would note to you that they have had access and will continue to have access during the term of this lease. Obviously recognizing they're not taking any farm equipment off this road down to their property. Have had access to their property the entire time this has been ongoing. There is access off of 53rd Street which they've been using now and certainly for a 300 acre parcel there are numerous other opportunities for access off of 53rd or Stubs Road. While uh I appreciate the concern that this road uh if vacated would no longer provide access to north part of their uh parcel. As I said, numerous ways they can access this and this is something that had to have been contemplated. um when this procedure began, we're talking about a 27-year period where this road and access to the north side of the property would not be available during the mining procedure. So, you had to find other ways to to farm this during that period of time. The public works department in your u summary today stated there was no need for this road as the cost to maintain outweighs uh the benefit to the public. Certainly that's the the statutory language that we deal with here. I agree

with that. The only thing I would edit there is I don't think there is any public benefit of this road. I think there is private benefit to a single individual and that's the party at the end of that road. That's the Howard Trust. Um the cost I I think it's even simpler than that though too. We're not talking about just maintaining the road. We're talking about ensuring safety. This is a massive safety hazard as we move forward. A 200 foot drop at any point from that road is a ma massive safety hazard to Monmouth Township. It is to the county and it is to the neighboring property owners around that property around that road, pardon me. Um, lastly, I, you know, I I appreciate the request and and concern about alternate access, but I think 27 years of figuring out a way to access the north part of that farm property uh, is proof positive that's possible. And the fact that they have been compensated for the loss of this access road for what could be up to 27 years is more is a significant thing to take into consideration when uh when listening to their concerns about maintenance of the road. Uh we would um Midstates Ventures and Midstates Materials would um adamantly agree with the township's uh determination that this is a public safety issue that there is no public benefit and this road should be vacated as soon as possible. Um as to the 30-day uh continuence, I I cannot see any benefit. We don't believe there's going to be any sort of agreement reached between the parties and continuing to kick this can. This this danger exists. This safety risk exists today. Uh and it's not going to improve anytime soon. So we would ask this uh motion to vacate beh.

Yes, Mr. Hendricks. Yes. So for the foreseeable future, what we see on the screen right now is what the uh landscape will look like u with the active mining operations. Correct. The what will change is that mining will occur more and more to the north closer to the screen closer to uh 45th Street. Okay.

Away from the end of that peninsula. Now, is it possible that, as I said, overburden is pushed up against it, things are moved? Yes. But there will never be a time in the remainder of this until it's done and remediated that there wouldn't be some portion of what is now Hersel Road that would have a a significant drop until the remediation is completed.

And while it's not part of our discussion today or consideration today, when you say remediation, what what would it look like again 20 years from now? Right. So there are remediation plans for those properties. Um I believe in in both instances to the south for the Howard property and and to Veil to the west there is uh water features ponds and then rebuilding the ground up to be able to farm grace cattle whatever the case may be. So, if this picture we're looking at right now, again, 20 years from now,

um, you would envision that it's going to look like a series of ponds or lakes or a body of water, not the entirety of those properties, okay, but portions of those properties. Okay. Yeah.

Um, at that point, again, we're 20 years down the road, right? would we then consider looking at having access or roadway to that if a person wanted to have that as a a subt oftent times you'll have um developments around bodies of water uh people like to live on a lake and I mean we have several in Shauny County that were former quaries former uh that wind up becoming housing developments um are we going to need roadway access 20 years from now so rather than completely vacated uh and then having to come back again for a commission 20 years from now.

I I want to stress to you that um so what your your your alternative would be shutting it down doing something beyond vacating it. Yes.

I I think the is it possible certainly that a development could occur there? Often times these don't on mining sites like I said often times it's farming or or grazing of cattle. Does the possibility exist? it it it exists and I think at that time if you were going to plat the property then you could put in your your private road that go into that or or public road I suppose but I you know that would be saying we are definitively doing it at this entry point and who knows where that's best there is a quarry across the road on the north side of 45th street that plays a bit of a role okay um I think preserving this at the cost or at for the pure benefit of we might use it for a development later wouldn't be worth it whatsoever that that party who developed it would have the opportunity to put in a road or whatever that case may be then.

Okay. I just thought this would be the time to ask the question. Sure. It's a lot easier to keep it than to vacate it and at some later point try to reestablish it. The only thing that's obviously the owner who would be platting and putting in those homes would want access. So, it's not like they wouldn't, you know, I I guess you're probably not going to say, "Sure, the homes are great, but no road." I mean, I I think that'd be a party a part of the review you have at that time. I don't have any other questions. I have a question. Um, if we don't vacate this Mhm. and say 20 years down the road, we'll have this peninsula out here. If we don't vacate it, it'll

No, no. What I'm What I'm saying is for that 20-year period, you'll have ongoing mining, and that peninsula in some form, and that drop off of these edges down to that will in some form exist that entire time. when it's over these these grounds will be remediated. Now what those uh elevations will be I don't know you know whether or not this road perfectly transitions into that property to the south or not. It's going to have to be determined as that remediation process proceeds. There may be ramping up to it. Whatever the case you know if there's a body of water that they want there there are a lot of whatifs. Um,

in the final the final grade of the property, would it be more smoothed out and some top soil put on or how how do they leave it at the end? That's part of the remedi remediation process is top soils added. Yeah. Commissioner Mays, you have any I don't know that I have much to add. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this abandonment of the road? No. All right, then we'll move to those who are opposed. We have anybody here who would like to speak.

Just going to preface this. I'm not a public speaker, so let's see how this goes. You just have to say your name.

Okay. Um, I'm Gilda Singleton, Monmouth, uh, trustee. Um we had voca we had voted to vacate the road two months ago. Um the hobberts were not present at the meeting. Um which was an error on our part. But um we did listen to the attorney and with what he provided us we decided to vacate. Last month's meetings were there. They provided us some additional information. I forwarded a letter to y'all that said we had reversed our decision to vacate the road and somewhere it didn't get get probably my lack of technical skills but um somehow it did not get passed on to y'all that we had decided to vote against vacating it. Um my main concern and as a township is safety. I don't want anybody getting hurt out there. Um I whether or not the road is vacated or not, we want some way to block off the road with uh concrete barriers or a gate or something to keep people off of that road to protect the township and people's safety. Um, we need to we we agree with that Howards need to be able to access their land in some way, whether we provide a place off of Stubs for them to get to it or 53rd or whatever it takes. Um, I think that Bettis or, you know, we need to work together to make sure that they have access. Um, and I, as you guys had talked about the rem, uh, fixing it back up to the way it was before, um, I think is something

that was promised to them and I think that they deserve that if that was was the, um, premise that all of this took place. Um, but our decisions as a township were made on information that was provided to us. Some of it hasn't been quite accurate at the time that we got it. We tried to listen to all of it, tried to get all of it and make the best decisions possible. So, sorry for our flip-flopping on this a little bit, but our main concern is public safety. Um, and doing what's right by the people and the patrons of the township. So, do you have any questions?

So, this is a road that is maintained by the township. It is. It has been a minimal maintenance road for eons. That's where it would appear in the photographs. We have not done anything to it for a very long time. Okay. And it's your request that we not vacate, but we make it safe. Block it off. Yes. That would be our recommendation. And is there a spot where you're suggesting it should be blocked off at? At 45th Street.

And that would be the request of the township is to close access to Hershel Road at 45th Street. Yes. Um, we I went out there myself, looked at it. It is a terrible drop off and if somebody wasn't familiar with the area for some reason and thought that they could go down and turn around, they could end up in the bottom of the ravine and that is very dangerous. And I do see kids going down there and horsing around and drinking beer and other things, you know. But I I do believe that we need to try to make the best of a situation that is kind of tough to to call. So,

okay, Dale, do you need to add anything?

Just make sure you state your name so that our clerk can get it. Dale Bonger, clerk for Mama Township. my when you block it off, block it off in a place where the Halberts still have can get access to their property to the south. So rather than it being completely blocked, it would be limited access. Yeah. Mid mid states is going to need access to it. Halberts are going to need access to it. Yes. Are there other people that would need access to it? Uh I I don't know about the Veil family.

The Veil. So now we've got three people or three parties or three groups that would need access to it. I mean, okay, just I'm just trying to get a feel for for what the township is looking at.

I I was out there drove down there yesterday and the road is terrible. Uh it looks like there's one place that's a little ways south of 45th Street where they get access to their property, but uh our attorney advised us to say block it off with some type of concrete barrier just south of 45th Street. Currently, you have to go a quarter mile down before you even see any signs that says do not enter or anything. And there's still a 35 mph speed limit on that road. So, if I may, um, if we put a concrete barrier though, then how would they access it? Um, that's

I mean I I the only way I can think of is a gate. Um, with with a padlock on it or something. I mean, that's but I mean Shauny County, we're not we don't want to pay for that. Um, it's not it's not our road, is it? I mean, I think this would be responsible for that in my my opinion. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Bour. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Brian Jakes. I'm attorney for the uh Howard Trust. Um, I had sent you some uh a letter uh and it included some photos and I think it's important to look at the the photos that were provided in comparison to the photos that Mr. Hendricks provided. A

and this is a this is a moving situation. Um but but again typically, you know, they are there's three or four layers of rock out there, which if you haven't been out there, I strongly encourage you to go out and look at this cuz it's pretty pretty impressive stuff. Um but but there's three or four layers of rock that they're working to to get to. Um and so you can kind of watch that uh across this this property. The second photo that's in here um is if you look at this this group of trees on the very front of it is actually the end of that peninsula that we looked at. So the drop off there it currently is oh it looks about 20 feet to me. I mean 20 25 feet it is a is a much smaller drop off than than the pictures that were provided to us before and and again that's part of this process. But when we when we talk about hey we've created a safety issue and you say well okay who created the safety issue it's the the mining operation as they go through this process. I, you know, from from the mining company, if you look at it and say, "Okay, we're coming across this section and we're going to mine this piece of property and and we've got a a half a mile road that runs through the middle of this mining. Do they have a a a strong interest in wanting that road out of there so they can just mine straight across and not have to to navigate around this road?" Yes. Um, does that um is that maybe the best way to mine this? Possibly. Um, what we're saying though is this road has been there. This road has been accessed for my clients to be able to access the upper portion of their farm. They intend to be able to use this road um again once this is completed. And

that was uh this was never a discussion, never a a um an issue at the time that this was uh it wasn't included in the lease. I mean, had it been discussed and included in the lease, I think that would be fair. Is this road benefiting anyone other than my clients, probably very little. Um because the the two land owners, um this road runs right between their properties. So, so to some extent they have access from from there but it leads to our property and it's very important to us and and we want it maintained and we want it kept there. We have made offers and we've been willing to say look we just need access. You can do whatever you want to do with the mine. Just give us access. The issue has been then you can never object to anything that we do on our property ever again. We're unwilling to do that. We we want I mean we want the ability to use this road and have access to our property when it's done. It's it's important to us. Um it is the way that they have access that um I don't know there's a there's a beautiful stone house, a shell of a house that's up there on the top of this landing. Uh likely that house is going to cave in. It might be included in part of this mine. Um but that's how those folks access that property. It's been that way for years. Um they're going to put a nice big pond up there, but it's not going to be the entire um 120 acres that they've leased from us. That would be a very very large pond. Um but but there are going to be some expanded ponds. Um I I again um you know, kind of as Mr. Hendricks indicated we were hopeful that we could come to a resolution and we wanted to come to a resolution on this but we can't come to a resolution that doesn't doesn't give us access and doesn't ask

us to to do something that is I think unreasonable. Um so that that is the situation. But I do think if you look at these pictures, the the other pictures, and again, I took these pictures, so they're not the best pictures, but if you look at the third picture, um the the uh piles are actually higher. Uh and this would be I'm from Vermont, so I struggle with this. Um this would be to the to the uh east side. And this third photo, uh, and then in the very first photo that is included in your packet, um, is another photo just showing how much higher than the road that the overburden is on that side of the road. There there's, um, I again, I I understand why why they're asking to vacate this road. It would be much more convenient for them. There are ways that they can they can illuminate this and or get our approval to do that to go forward. that's just hasn't happened at this point. Um to create your own safety issues and then come out and say this is a safety issue, you should take it out seems a little disingenuous in ways that they have the ability to to prevent that. I mean, they've run overburden all the way along one side of this road as was shown um even even in the pictures u by Mr. Hendricks. There's no reason that couldn't continue if they if they chose to do so.

Commissioner Cook, Mr. rejects. Under the original lease, what was contemplated for this roadway? It was not it was not contemplated in any way. Okay. Well, as it currently stands, your client with this peninsula serves no purpose to gain access to any of their land. It it will when this project is complete and and the the the problem is once you vacate the road, we will not get that access back. We don't have a way to get that access back. So if we were to look at again the peninsula as it stands right now, the road just ends. It it ends in our

saying that 20 years from now when the remediation happens, the road will be constructed again across this mining operation to your client's upper property. It well it it will connect as it stands now. Yeah, it will connect to our it ends in our property line. Okay. So it it would connect to our property at that time. But are you contemplating that 20 years from now there'll be a road all the way across that mining operation? It it will connect to our our ground. Um and so then we we could create whatever roads we needed to or wanted to at that time on our own property, but we will we will not have access if you vacate this road.

But are you asking that for the next 20 years we have this peninsula with deep drop offs on either side? Well, I what I'm saying is there's not there's not big drop offs today. Okay. I mean, there were when those photos were taken, right? I think you said today it's 20 ft, but the photos showed a deeper and as the council for Midwest said, it's going to change over time. And I think you would probably agree it's going to as mining operations continue and develop, it will change, right? And we we are we're we would be in support of what the the county has proposed of of, you know, blocking that road. um for that period I'm township. I'm sorry. Yeah.

So your request then is it that it be blocked or limited access to it? We would be fine with that. Commissioner Mays. So I'm looking at the satellite images and I mean it looks like the Halbert residence or a place that's owned by somebody named Howard, a house is on 53rd Street. I guess I'm not understanding why would you want access from 45th instead of 53rd.

There's pretty significant elevation change on that piece of property. Um and and there's a creek that runs through there that um currently the the only access to this piece of property I is through the creek. Um and um that is owned by by one of uh is owned by a relative. It's not owned by the trust. A and uh there has been um potential litigation over that crossing. So that that crossing may not be be able to be used to access this farm crop. You mean the crossing over the creek?

Correct. Commission Ripon, which is on the trust's property, though. It it it is on the trust property, but the but the access to it is not. So, the the the son who lives to the south, uh Mr. Stacy Halbert, um Mr. Johnson, Joe Johnson, and I have had questions and potential on the edge of litigation over that issue. because I'm I mean I'm just looking on here and I you can see the tire tracks in the fields where somebody's been driving. That is currently how that is accessed

and the trust does have a lot of frontage. So I mean would it and it looks like the crossing is out of the homesite property. What I'm what I'm telling you though is at any given time that access may be denied us because it is not it's well I guess what I'm saying is what if there was new access created on 53rd Street that that would be a solution but getting up to the getting up the elevation is part of the challenge with large equipment. Yeah. Now I don't have a topography on here so I guess you'd have to cross a creek

and you'd have to cross a creek. Yeah. So there's two two different challenges with that. Commissioner Co, you had a comment. Yes. Well, just a question. So walk through with me. The commission takes action. They vacate the roadway. The roadway then becomes the property of Mr. Halber. No. No. It's who owns the Who owns the roadway? Well, there are two neighbors because it it comes out half a mile and it it's it's half on each of their property is my understanding. So half would go to Mr. Veil and half would go to Mr. Albert. Nope. Mr. Howard does not Mr. Halbert is at the end. Okay. So, we're at the end at the end of the peninsula is our problem. So, it would be the two land owners that are on either side of that roadway. They wind up becoming the owners.

Mhm. Your comment is that roadway was never contemplated in the original lease because I mean your comment was if there's no roadway, Midstates is going to be able to come in and wipe out that whole peninsula and mine that too. That is correct. And so then they would be gaining additional land that wasn't contemplated by the original lease. Well, it's not our property. I mean, that's it's I says it's not our property. We don't we don't we don't care if they harvest. That was an issue that you were raising is they're going to get, you know, unjustly enriched by this action.

No, no. It it it's we don't care about about them taking that rocket. When in fact, if if we could work out a resolution, we'd be good with that. It's the it's the loss of access and our inability to get it back. If you vacate this road, we will not be able to access where Hershel Road was before. That's a problem. But then the question is, as Commissioner May, is there other access points that might be available either on 53rd Street or other areas? I mean, we have we have road access, but is it is it feasible? Is it easy? Uh is there going to be significant cost involved in that? Uh yes, yes, and yes. Probably crossing a creek somewhere. I mean, that's that's the issue.

The low water. But this this is the whole site, correct? Yeah. Okay. Everything but this right here. Yeah. I wish we had this in plan view on a map. It would And then this is I I would encourage you all to come out and look at it. It's like I said, it's impressive. It's very cool to look at. I don't know that my car could traverse that. Um say my client's got a Gator. be happy to take your I see this. Yeah.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I I feel like there's a lot of questions. The ask in the letter, I believe, was to delay action. And I think the appropriate thing to do right now would be to table this until a future meeting. And looking at our calendar, um I'm thinking possibly the April 23rd might be about a month and I believe it's a meeting that we're all going to be here. So um if you guys are amanable to it, I'd make a motion that we defer action on this till April 23rd. You know, I'd agree with that, too. I'd like to drive out there and take a look at this site and um Don't drive off the edge.

I will do my best. Um park on 45th and walk it. I would like to see it and I like to study things in plan view too which we we really don't have a good plan view shot of all this. So I would agree. Let's Commissioner Cook, do you have any? I don't have but I think that maybe Mr. Hendrickx might have a I saw him raise his hand or maybe Nope. Okay. All right. I will make if if and I apologize. I don't know if I'm out of form, but I I I will be out of town on the 23rd. Is there any chance we could do it the next week? The 30th. I don't I don't care. I'll be here that week, too. Or the 16th. Either one is fine. Yeah, let's do the 16th then.

Okay. Okay. Um I believe the motion's already been made by Commissioner Mace. Uh I will second that. So motion's made by Commissioner Mace. Oh, wait, wait. We got to clo we have to Well, I think we actually wouldn't we leave the public hearing open or Yeah. So, we're just going to recess this issue until April the 16th. Yeah. And leave the public hearing open. Okay. But we need to vote on that as well. Yeah. I made the motion. I don't I don't know if Motion's been made by Commissioner Mays uh seconded by Commissioner Re. So, we will delay any action till the 16th. Thank you.

We got to take a vote. All those in favor say I. Those opposed. Motion carries. 300. All right. Thank you all for being here. Yeah. Appreciate it. Next item is C, information technology one. Consider approval of contract C2026112 for the purchase of eight laptops and four years of support through PC Nation at a cost of $26,16.

Morning, commissioners. Mark Price Information Technology. Um this is a request to replace um our developer computers. Um first off, if you notice, they're probably a little more expensive than our typical computer. Um part of the reason being is we have to have a little heavier duty machine for them to do compilation of code. Um I did look up the machines these are replacing were purchased back in 2019. Um, and we were able to extend those the life of those computers through um, hard drive and memory upgrades to make them last longer. Um, that is kind of why you see the big disparage disparity in price from the last group of computers we ordered to this group. Um, the other piece I would like to point out is I have some little extra verbiage. Um, something we're running into right now when we receive quotes is we're getting um, sometimes a 3 to 4 day guarantee on the quote. So, I have some verbiage in here in case they do not honor the quote. I have requested or that we have attached to this. Um we will refresh the quotes and have a not to exceed and that's in hopes of if they don't honor these quotes and we have to get new quotes and the prices have gone up any um we don't have to come back down to the the board to get a secondary approval questions.

I'll move for approval. Second. Motion's been made by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Mays. All in favor say I. Those opposed? Motion carries. 30. Thank you, Mark. Next item.

D, public works one. Consider approval of construction contract C2026113 with WCI Incorporated of Paleol, Kansas for a bridge replacement with Colbert project on Northeast Calhoun Bluff Road over a tributary to the Kansas River at a cost of $280,516.52. Construction will be paid for using the county bridges portion of the halfsent 2017 through 2031 retailers sales tax program. Good morning, commissioners. Kurt Ene House, director of public works. Um back on um March 4th um uh we received um four bids for a project to remove a bridge and replace it with a small cver. The reason we can do that is because through the years with Soldier Creek, uh construction on US or US 24, the drainage patterns have changed up there east of town and we can um there's not as much water conveyed under the structure as there used to be. So again, we were going to replace a bridge drive bridge size structure with a cover. Uh again, we received four bids. The lowest bid was presented by WCI Incorporated. They have built two bridges for us in the past. They've turned out well. If you recall, they're also the low bid on a K. project on Valencia Road for two bridges structures. And uh so I think it's a good bid. We should move forward with construction. And with that, I'm asking you to approve a contract for construction with WCI Incorporated. I look forward to your questions,

Mr. May. So, this means we'll have one less bridge in Shiny County. Yes, correct. What will that bring the number to? 260. Yeah. Always has to come up. Um, did you guys have an estimate on this project? Well, the engineers estimate was at the very bottom of the table. So, there was a substantial savings from the from what we thought it would Okay. would let for good. And when would you start project all everything goes?

Um, that's a good question. And it looks down here in this memo that I wrote that we would start, it's up to the contractor, but he would start no earlier than April 13th and no later than June 1. And depending on when he starts, work would end between August 14th and October 2nd. All right. And uh we have a good alternate route for people to to take.

Well, if you were recall, Calhoun Bluff Road is just south of US 24. It runs parallel to US 24 at a much lower elevation. Um uh there's two access points to US 24. One is near Happy Hollow Road and the other one is near K4. Uh Kot has told us that both access points will be open. So uh whether you're on the west side of the structure or the east side, you should be able to get in and out of Calhounl Bluff Road and get to your destination. All right. All right. Any other questions? No. I move for approval.

Second. Motion's been made by Commissioner Ripon, seconded by Commissioner Cook. All in favor say I. Those opposed. Motion carries. Zero. Thank you. Thank you, Kurt. Next item. E, Department of Corrections one. Consider approval to select the lowest responsive bidder for various items of inmate supplies and clothing for fiscal year 2026 based on results of an RFP.

Good morning, commissioners. Brian Cole, Shelby County Department of Corrections. This is a yearly process that we go through is to try to determine our lowest uh and accept the lowest responsive bidder to all of the different materials we buy when it comes to all the supplies to the modules, the inmates, the jail, and everything. This is a long-standing practice that we have to ensure that we're being fiscally responsible and getting the lowest bid. And uh we've done this, the commissioners approved uh authorized us to set up and do an RFP for this back in December of 2025. and we're ready to go and just would ask for permission and authorization.

Questions? Not. I'll move for approval. Second. Motion's been made by Commissioner Rupon, seconded by Commissioner Mays. All in favor say I. Opposed. Motion carries. 30. Next item. Two, consider approval of contract C2026114, a three-year agreement with Power DMS for the continuation of policy management software within the detention centers and community corrections at a firstear cost of $20,81166, secondyear cost of $22,26328, and third year cost of $23,488.81 81 cents to be paid from the detention and community corrections budgets.

Good morning, Brian Cole, Shauny County Department of Corrections. This is just to us a continuation of a current uh contract that we have for uh power uh DMS. This helps us with our training and tracking of all the work that we do. This has become much more efficient than the processes we have for when the county council needs anything when uh for regarding training when it comes to multiple agencies that were accredited with uh and tracking and being able to document all of our training uh for any purpose. This has been very efficient has been very good uh simple enough I could even figure it out. So I'm able to get all of my training documented and it just it much more efficient and much more cost efficient than the process we had in the past. So, this is a very good contract, a very good partnership, and uh I would stand for any questions. You may have

questions. Move for approval. I will second. Motion's been made by Commissioner Cook, second by Commissioner Ripon. All in favor say I. Those opposed. Motion carries. 30. Thank you. Next item. Item five, public comment. I we had uh three people signed up but uh they spoke during our public hearing. So is there anyone else? Seeing none, um next item, item six, administrative communications.

Here we go. I don't want to belver the meeting, but Brian Cole, Department of Corrections. Yesterday, the Shauny County Department of Corrections was honored to host two different uh uh uh events, should I say. One of them was is that we had the governor's uh mental health council. It's not the governor herself that's there, but this is a council that's set up to monitor all of behavioral health practices uh throughout the state of Kansas. and uh they had selected uh Shauny County to come in and just kind of look at the processes of uh at our behavioral health program, what we're offering, but on top of that, a tour of the behavioral health unit. They were uh uh very impressed and appreciative of the investment from the county commissioners and are going to champion this uh uh project um throughout the state of Kansas. And uh we have been when it comes to behavioral health unit uh have been inundated with tours. were going to have more more tours and things like that. So, that was a very exciting uh time for us. And then also the Rotary of Topeka had the Rotary International here doing a story on our intersection to uh care program which is a a female inmate-based program that deals with uh finding uh risk factors uh for re-entry uh to to break the cycle of of arrests and also uh to start and work very closely with the district attorney and them on there if we find any uh indications of anybody being trafficked. So they were there, they spent uh with the inmate population, the females and stuff like that. So that those were just two ideas of that I think is important from time to time when you drive by the jail, you you kind of maybe wonder what goes on that these programs are, in my opinion, cutting edge programs and are are going to be something a model for a lot of people. It's not about vanity. Uh we certainly uh are looking to do whatever we can to reduce recidivism

um uh provide services and find ways to be and this these programs and I'll just cut it to the chase. These programs will help us save money and I plan to come back in a year or two once we have a really good base to try to show that financial uh outcome. And so I just wanted to let you know. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. May, nothing for me today. Mr. Cook, glad to see the sun's back.

Sure. Yes, I'll second that. I have nothing else to add. Uh, do we have We don't have a need for executive session, I don't believe. So, uh, we're adjourned.