[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6608698,"mediaKeyId","2936955-89b60e12cbc729ff5f2f4b65724975ea","parentId",2936955,"title","County outlines CIP updates, prioritizes bridge replacements and County Route 30 project","audioSeconds",5125,"startMs",1972309,"endMs",7098000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936955-89b60e12cbc729ff5f2f4b65724975ea&start=1972&end=7098","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936955-89b60e12cbc729ff5f2f4b65724975ea/thumbnail_1972309.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6608698/Leavenworth-County/Kansas/County-outlines-CIP-updates-prioritizes-bridge-replacements-and-County-Route-30-project","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608698-5f0b284f3430762e28afa4f3b8e3b0c4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771112458&Signature=jsTb3G0~OvSZah7AHNYTkc78~oERkgT0OPsG0PIP1hYdo1E-gVwVMRy-m2JnkVFjmA0zK-dXonX460uKQ0qQSQSdU0Hq7bIm1q2UFk6TLKOF-cz4J7-5X9Resg09q~FdZyXCF6PiGkQG-2n4xdo~Npg8fvlJ8unJQQmcAESzP5oVY2mQJXOApswxL8fTfvBM3it~Dlrp9vnLm0zJ45Ko~oHOAO9K8AtWj57l~uSNBzXvlK6YMZPSDm0stHFyddqUO5MZ20CcQSkNlwT-zYYyRo19Uag-C7-5c0hC4M~VUsKjlFHVZvWxb87c5QBganMh2ho8Qm1ktBliGD6fWaSBBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Leavenworth County, KS","date","2025-04-09T21:44:06.397Z","article","Leavenworth County commissioners received an update on the county’s capital improvement plan (CIP) focused on roads, bridges and culverts, with staff urging continued emphasis on a backlog of structurally deficient bridges and on a multi‑phase County Route 30 project intended to create a north–south paved corridor on the county’s west side.

Public works staff described a long‑running shortfall in bridge replacement funding and outlined a triage approach that prioritizes structures by condition, detour impact and traffic. Staff said 24 bridges were identified that need to be moved into the CIP and that 47 structures exceed the 20‑foot length threshold that triggers biannual bridge inspections. Staff also said the county’s culvert inventory includes tens of thousands of small driveway culverts and several hundred larger box culverts; the county completed an initial round of culvert inspections and replaced 14 culverts with ARPA funds, a program staff said cost “in excess of, $4,500,000.”

Bill (public works staff) walked commissioners through current-year carryover projects, grant activity and the constraints on design, right‑of‑way acquisition and construction timing. On County Route 30 — a major sales‑tax funded project that aims to connect north and south county roadways — staff said the project has federal earmark support for an initial phase ($2,000,000) and a Kansas cost‑share award ($975,000). Staff estimated the phase planned for 2026 at $6.8 million and said a later phase submitted as an earmark request could add roughly $4 million; a commissioner observed the total program could amount to about $14 million if all phases are included.

Sales tax and other funding sources were a focus of the discussion. Staff explained the county’s 1% special sales tax (enacted in 2017) funds road projects and that cities receive a share of those collections; staff said the county receives roughly 45% of the total sales tax collections after statutory distributions to cities. Staff also told the board that the county used ARPA funds to accelerate culvert and bridge work and that the board increased the levy for the road and bridge fund in recent years as part of efforts to close the maintenance funding gap.

Commissioners pressed staff on tradeoffs between contractor work and county crews, whether to add staff to manage more concurrent projects, and geographic equity in paving. Commissioners noted that much of recent paving activity was concentrated in the county’s southern townships and discussed ways to address northern townships’ backlog. Staff said dust‑abatement and participatory paving programs remain in place (property owners pay the majority and the county subsidizes a portion), and that county crews can complete some short dust‑abatement stretches at lower cost than contractors but that crew capacity and weather windows limit how much can be done this season.

Staff also reviewed the time required to deliver larger projects: design, acquisition, utility relocation and permitting typically extend over multiple years before construction can begin; the board and staff noted that replacing bridges can be a three‑year process if the county must start environmental and right‑of‑way work after an unexpected failure.

Ending: Commissioners did not adopt a final CIP in the meeting; staff said grant applications were ongoing and that the board will continue to refine priorities and funding allocations before a later vote.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Work Session For April 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Leavenworth County staff presented a six‑year capital improvement plan emphasizing a backlog of bridges, a culvert inventory, and a multi‑phase County Route 30 roadway project; commissioners discussed funding sources including a 1% county sales tax, ARPA money and federal earmarks.","taxTitle","Leavenworth County, Kansas","taxId",53898,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6608702,"Leavenworth County reviews draft RHID policy, seeks earlier city notice",1949,22925,1972590,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936955-89b60e12cbc729ff5f2f4b65724975ea&start=22&end=1972","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936955-89b60e12cbc729ff5f2f4b65724975ea/thumbnail_22925.jpg","/articles/6608702/Leavenworth-County/Kansas/Leavenworth-County-reviews-draft-RHID-policy-seeks-earlier-city-notice","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608702-5704c0daa33ecdf85dd75ee8bf8bceaf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771112458&Signature=iv9fGL934URdNQXWQmNt6h8v7UrgMKyQO7RtmTVnBbpqNYj7K2e1jL7x6gh1qfbuCJAq2Iz0owfBqsOiVhkp~kDs9Ull84YlnBNadJnMUfnzPxMJMr7xMjy~se1qQGSdj1iMTLid9lYey6GpLiQOJRlHdCjjWMWuP2DOH3E9K4~TP22DNM6kk5czJoPVOW1rltCqS~g-~Yu~M0iTjF~6xrrU5kn-qtthsQi8tPC9S4qXFj07Ilx4WA0uM9JEucNdeTy4hgAqpv~oexlTZogEW3uMUyrv3ke0fWSbI-nOu3JIG~p~Po~7zoNCXRmuG2oH4wKm9xcMe6KdQKj6YxTGwg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Leavenworth County commissioners on Tuesday reviewed a staff-drafted policy that would guide county response to proposed Reinvestment Housing Incentive Districts, or RHIDs, a state-authorized tool that redirects incremental tax revenue to pay for infrastructure in areas targeted for housing development.

The draft policy requires cities to provide proposed RHID materials to the county at least 15 days before the city’s public hearing — a timeline staff said would give the county a minimum of 45 days to review proposals — and creates a presumption that insufficient notice will be treated as adverse to county interests. The policy also lists factors the county would weigh, including potential loss of tax revenue, increases in demand for public services, feasibility of the development without RHID funding, developer track record, whether RHID boundaries are contiguous, overlap with other incentives and whether the term exceeds a presumption threshold for the county.

County staff described the RHID program as a state-law process that begins with a housing assessment and a city resolution finding an ongoing shortage of housing; the resolution triggers a review by state officials before a district plan and local ordinance or resolution are adopted. Staff cited the statutory maximum RHID term of 25 years and said the draft policy would treat RHIDs longer than 15 years as presumptively adverse to county interests. Staff also noted that under the statute a county or a school board may block an RHID if it finds an adverse effect.

John (staff member) told commissioners the draft is modeled in part on policies developed by Sedgwick and Riley counties and is “intended to set forth the criteria that will be used to evaluate RHIDs in the future.” He said the draft would require the 15‑day pre‑hearing submittal from a city so the county has adequate time to evaluate impacts.

Legal counsel Mark and other staff answered questions about procedural details and statutory timelines. Mark explained the approval-by-inaction rule for the county and school boards: “So inaction would be an approval of the RHID,” a point several commissioners raised as a reason to require earlier, clearer notice from cities.

Commissioners debated whether RHIDs are appropriate where private development is already occurring without subsidies. Commissioner Mike questioned why the county would subsidize developers in parts of the county where subdivisions are already being built, noting the effect abatements have on other taxpayers. Other commissioners pressed staff on whether the draft should require an economic impact or feasibility study and on how notification to the county should be delivered (for example, certified mail, which some commissioners contrasted with the statutory notice method).

Staff answered specific technical questions: the draft contemplates an economic risk assessment overseen by Living North County staff and includes financial review items such as private equity in a project, total project cost, number of units, and whether other funding sources are available. Staff said the RHID statute number they relied on is KSA 12‑5241 and related sections, and that statutory review by state officials — the office named in the memo — remains part of the process.

After discussion commissioners asked staff to draft any desired changes and return the RHID policy as an agenda item in two weeks for further review and possible action.

Ending: The board did not take a final vote on the draft RHID policy. Staff said they would update the draft to reflect commissioners’ feedback (including a clearer notification method) and return it to the board as an agenda item in two weeks.","County staff presented a draft Reinvestment Housing Incentive District (RHID) policy that would set notice requirements and evaluation criteria for RHID proposals; commissioners discussed notification timing, fiscal impacts and statutory limits and asked staff to return the item as an agenda item in two weeks.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County outlines CIP updates, prioritizes bridge replacements and County Route 30 project

Leavenworth County reviews draft RHID policy, seeks earlier city notice