Discussed ambiguous future of Eureka Downs
Representatives of the City of Severy attended the Tuesday, Sept. 3 Greenwood County Commission meeting to discuss an error in association with their mill levy.
Severy City Clerk Tessa Riggs and City Treasurer William McClendon shared that they had received recent inquiry in regards to their mill levy rate. Riggs explained that the levy amount they approved was not the same as the figure the county had. Riggs told commissioners that, for the 2024 fiscal year, Severy was supposed to be at 218 mills, but Greenwood County had only assessed 194. Riggs noted that they are preparing to hold their Revenue Neutral Rate (RNR) hearing for 2025 and were hoping to have an answer/solution. She noted that they have received a lot of flak as the proposed levy is 245 and the public thinks this is increasing from 194 when the number should have been 218.
Newly appointed County Clerk Deann McCaffree explained that the operating system for the RNR must first be cleared of previous year’s data or a maximum is placed over the new figure being inputted. She noted that this was likely what had happened; the individual could only set the figure as high as 194 because this had not been cleared.
Riggs then noted she called the Clerk’s office in recent weeks regarding the issue and was told by a staff member that the computer did not like the number when it had been entered. Riggs noted that she had expressed they should have been informed of this.
McCaffree noted her office has reached out to the state and is waiting for a reply. She noted that if this is amended, they will have to send out new tax statements to Severy. Commissioner Preston Evenson asked that McCaffree stay in touch with Riggs as they look to resolve this.
Legal Counsel Paul Dean noted this essentially sounded like a billing error, as the 218 figure was approved and he believed they have the spending authority for the higher levy.
Commissioner Mac Obourn reported on the recent Greenwood County Community Center (GCCC) meeting held regarding the Eureka Downs facility. Obourn told fellow commissioners that after looking into the item, ownership of the building transferred in 1997 from the City of Eureka to the Greenwood County Fair Association (GCFA), who now holds the title. In regards to recent legislation pertaining to bringing horse racing back to the facility, Obourn noted that terms had not been reached with the Department of Commerce in regards to the funding anticipated. It was noted that the GCFA thinks they will utilize first-year dollars toward dirt work and preparing the track and then look at the building the year following.
Eureka City Administrator Joel Laws, who was in attendance at the County Commission meeting last week, joined in for discussion of the subject. Laws noted that they would first be looking at half a million dollars in needed repairs which would include attention to the roof and work to the HVAC system. Laws commented that this would not include reworking of the electrical. Status of the roof was discussed. Laws explained that this was a metal roof that has no slope, which has caused the seams to rust. Commissioner Obourn, who was in attendance of the GCCC meeting along with Laws, noted the need for adding a slope to the roof. As discussion of needs continued, Commissioner Roy Ballard stated to Laws that this was not the county’s building, not the city’s building, and then questioned why the city was so involved. Commissioner Obourn commented that once horse racing is up and running, they would likely have someone come in to manage operations/the facility who will want total control of the building. It was noted that a future question may be walking away. Ballard told the council that the GCFA is aware they have a bad roof and commented that it is not up to the county or the city. As he continued, Ballard noted he would rather invest dollars in Memorial Hall rather than Eureka Downs. Commissioner Evenson noted that what bothered him was the unknown factor. Obourn suggested the concept of the governing bodies paying rent for use until the building’s future is determined. Ballard commented that he didn’t feel they had enough information to make any decisions. When Laws provided data to commissioners for review, he noted that operations would at least cost $42,000 next year. Ballard then questioned why the city was paying utilities. Laws noted he had asked the city council during last meeting to consider their financial priorities. He then told commissioners the city is hoping to work with KSU to access aid through them. Laws explained that Eureka lacked a community center and efforts were being made to have a place to hold community events. Ballard again commented that they should put their money into Memorial Hall not Eureka Downs. When it was noted that dollars from the sale of the Matt Samuels building were being used to pay utilities and maintenance costs, Commissioner Ben Fox commented that he had voted to sell the building because he remembered when Ferguson Production was here and wanted to expand, but as no help was given, they went elsewhere. Fox commented that he would have hated to see this happen with Midwest Mill Modernization. In regards to needed wiring for Eureka Downs, Obourn offered a suggestion. Obourn noted that they may be successful in applying for grants for wiring if they could look at incorporating car charging stations.
County resident Larry Stuber attended the commission meeting last Tuesday morning in regards to the intersection of Q Road and 90th Street. Stuber was present seeking 3x2=$39
additional information and to speak in opposition to doing away with the curve/ slip lane. In response to the question of why this was being done, Commissioner Obourn commented that safety was the factor.
Emergency Management Director Levi Vinson explained that designation of Q Road would be transitioning from its previous status as a primary route and 90th Street will now serve in that capacity. Maintenance of this portion of Q Road will soon be conducted by the area township and 90th Street will be performed by the county. Vinson noted that leaving the curve would cause problems with people not stopping and would be a safety issue. After Stuber spoke in favor of leaving the curve in place, Vinson was questioned why he wants to take out the curve. Vinson noted that he wasn’t the motivating factor; they were looking at removing the curve in accordance with the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Uniform Traffic Control Manual which describes taking out curves when such roads switch to the primary route.
Vinson added that the county updating their road network mapping had spurred the change. It was shared that this became a county road in the early 1940s and the curve was put in shortly after because it was serving as a primary route. Vinson told Stuber that the motivation is to promote traffic safety. Stuber noted there has historically not been any accidents at the corner. Vinson affirmed this, noting that in his career, he hasn’t been to a traffic accident at that location. In further information offered by Vinson, he explained that the transition would be made as of Jan. 1, 2025. When Stuber spoke in favor of leaving the curve and putting in a stop sign, potential for safety and liability issues was cited. It was noted this would conflict with the traffic control manual.
When dissatisfaction was conveyed by Stuber over the decision, Vinson noted the county wasn’t reviewing the road map to see how they could get rid of curves. The county changed the primary route at the recommendation of an established committee.
When the question of who was going to take care of the corner was posed, Vinson explained that this would be turned back to the property owner. It was then noted that the owner of the property was Stuber’s sister. In reference to expense and labor, Stuber questioned who would be building fence around this. Legal Counsel Dean noted if the property owner wants to build fence, they can build a fence. When Stuber conveyed that it would have been nice if his sister had been contacted in regards to the upcoming change, rather than finding out about it by reading a newspaper, Vinson extended an apology and explained that he had reached out to all local property owners in regards to corners looking to be taken out. He added that her address was not local.
In further information provided by Vinson, he explained the concept of Rural Secondary Roads (RS Roads). Vinson shared that every county has RS Roads designated by the federal government and governed by USDOT and Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT). Vinson noted that a majority of Greenwood County roads are RS roads. According to Vinson, once every 20-25 years, the government updates that map and the RS designation makes a given road a primary route. If the highway system failed to exist or was closed, these RS roads serve as alternate routes to navigate through. Vinson noted that updating mapping to reflect changes has not been done on the county’s end since the early 1990s, something noted as being neglected.
Vinson reported to commissioners that they had reached the point in the road mapping project where they would soon be looking to mail out letters to relevant residents. Letters have been drafted and are to be sent out in relation to issues which include: locations that have gates on open roads; roads which are open that do not reflect that on taxes and roads that were closed and weren’t filed properly. Vinson noted that this will probably be the first time within their lifetime that the county will have an accurate map product when this is finalized. Commissioners approved for Commissioner Fox to sign the letters once Dean has them finalized. Commissioner Fox abstained from the vote.
When a county resident in attendance questioned if the public would have access to view the changes, Dean commented that they will be published once finalized, before they are officially put into effect. It was noted that Townships are aware of this process and anticipate changes.
Vinson told commissioners that they are able to print a map and could display this in the courthouse as a reference for the proposal. A consensus was reached to do so.
Eureka City Administrator Laws voiced appreciation for the opportunity to work jointly on an upcoming chip and seal road project.
Before exiting the meeting, Laws told commissioners that the city is perusing a cost share grant for a shared road. He noted that if received, the shared portion paid by each party would be $125,000 each for blacktop and concrete work. He expressed that they are looking at writing a grant to submit in the future and expressed hope that the county would have room for this in their budget.
EMS/Ambulance Director Brian Mongeau reported that Greenwood County is now in line for another remount which is anticipated to be conducted in 2028. In regards to the truck currently being completed, Mongeau noted the chassis would be going straight from Osage Ambulances to Emporia.
Commissioner Evenson shared that on Saturday, Aug. 31 an individual had driven a side-by-side into a river in his district. Evenson voiced appreciation to emergency services and noted that responders had performed well.
An executive session for 5 minutes was held with McCaffree for discussion of jury duty and part-time staff. No action followed.
Dean questioned if the minimum maintenance road hearing had been held while he stepped out of the meeting. When it was conveyed that this was not on the agenda, Dean noted he had extended a reminder and this was supposed to be done at 10 a.m. Commissioners noted that no one had appeared from the public to comment on this item.
Payables in the amount of $126,156.15 were approved.
Special payables in the amount of $13,908.59 were reviewed and approved.
Payroll in the amount of $148,664.64 was approved.
Minutes of the Aug. 26 meeting were approved.
Coverage from the Sept. 9 meeting can be found elsewhere in this week’s edition.
