[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-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",[32,75,86],{"_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",6529439,"mediaKeyId","3800892-a513cf028670a4e07f090a7bb06fcc24","parentId",3800892,"title","County staff seek protective overlay for Arc 95 area to preserve right‑of‑way options","audioSeconds",94,"startMs",486000,"endMs",580000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3800892-a513cf028670a4e07f090a7bb06fcc24&start=486&end=580","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3800892-a513cf028670a4e07f090a7bb06fcc24/thumbnail_486000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6529439/Sedgwick-County/Kansas/County-staff-seek-protective-overlay-for-Arc-95-area-to-preserve-rightofway-options","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6529439-c28dc8cf37a9a6887ee393ba69d8dff2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770936493&Signature=F6MFS7JQtkYDiWu-hiOaw-nJhXseObCxMCQHBcEUJm2hReneQABdJ0daqnrTGyKYmQ8zvg65~FedGQPaDyZ2ubd~JgZn08HeGJqptEdBnvq4CIBJaP~gJeKCgkOBMXHy4ca~S~xN1iwt1E8N9rJg9PRVfgeIFSclw9UQ1Upz8sHuwhQ82eeFJPSABENCbY-Aem1JLC6I122FMJs3GiG5Lt7aa5SUaRsp5WarOKMhIvODk7waFnLt7RKLnPbeVoGebbrMWdgIXaB9Baq~MH3t7gcew6TwB9kIYkWd76TbBd2DMwjNVSX3RvuyHfOMczJ~EGPhrjjbZTdNQZRIBVd4ow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Sedgwick County, KS","date","2025-06-07T10:51:43.373Z","article","Sedgwick County staff described plans to seek a protective overlay for the Arc 95 project area that would give the county notification and a voluntary opportunity to acquire property or rights‑of‑way as planning and environmental review proceed.

\"One of the goals ... is to apply a protective overlay similar to what we have for the Northwest Expressway,\" a county planner said during the agenda‑review briefing. Staff said the overlay would be voluntary and would not create eminent‑domain authority; instead it is intended to reduce speculative platting and to notify the county when owners offer land or rights‑of‑way for sale.

Staff recounted that when planning for the Northwest Expressway became public, some parties submitted what staff called \"ghost plats\" — plats filed to raise the sales price of land even though no development was imminent. The protective‑overlay approach is designed to provide the county with a clearer picture of anticipated rights‑of‑way and to get early notification of voluntary sales.

The county said the overlay is an early planning step; staff will provide maps and additional parcel information to commissioners before any formal planning or environmental review. There was no action or vote at the agenda review; staff said the overlay would be voluntary and the county would notify property owners and the public when filings begin.

Ending: Staff offered to provide a visual map of the proposed overlay area to commissioners and said the protective overlay would mirror earlier overlays used on other expressway projects to protect future right‑of‑way acquisition options.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Sedgwick County Board of Commissioners Agenda Review Meeting - 6/6/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Staff presented a plan to apply a protective overlay for the Arc 95 project similar to protections used on Northwest Expressway, designed to give the county voluntary opportunity to acquire rights‑of‑way and to reduce speculative platting ahead of planning and environmental review.","taxTitle","Sedgwick County, Kansas","taxId",2883,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6529442,"Sedgwick County examines records‑management policy; commissioners raise questions about digital conversion and storage",0,1231000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3800892-a513cf028670a4e07f090a7bb06fcc24&start=1231&end=1231","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3800892-a513cf028670a4e07f090a7bb06fcc24/thumbnail_1231000.jpg","/articles/6529442/Sedgwick-County/Kansas/Sedgwick-County-examines-recordsmanagement-policy-commissioners-raise-questions-about-digital-conversion-and-storage","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6529442-b98afcee4c0632549a24a0fbe7271abe/orig.mp4?Expires=1770936493&Signature=P6I3ULEtTwBdwWGrlDJDC7LE5oFkO5lj0jD0kZK8TNqSzuZ6wn1I5QxtXbRd7ndfgx~0QZ7qynq4y~s4DXCHliOAW3H3vCuYNUrszyBXalj-2XbwqSxluAW3RJg8nyfrO~FxnRI~O4wwl4Sn6ozqL0aZkc0QCMO0z8TUEFs7TjsGMJWRevZxpbeGqlhcwtxUMnY4AoInfEWc55Bxl2bJEhdjWQOO5z4th1SxVrQF2wz51E1LfHYfgJycCnvDq2EHlQBQGlFXKawxpmWb6n1FMhFQsGm35pqZGbaou0UWlTUA098S7cojXbI-E0kXDjeKcZk5Bfk8YarOsyaHXGzLlA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sedgwick County staff presented a proposed records‑management policy at an agenda‑review meeting intended to provide a uniform framework for converting paper records to electronic formats, storing them, and handling retention and disposal.

\"Paper records are still the official record,\" Corey, a county records staff member, said, \"but if they want to convert to electronic records, this process is how they would do it.\" The proposal would not mandate conversion; rather it would establish standards and a countywide framework for departments that choose to move to digital records.

Commissioners pressed staff on several operational and security questions. Commissioner Howe said he expected the county to move beyond scanning images and to rely on digitally natively produced PDFs with consistent file naming and digital signatures; he warned that \"when you become disorganized at the beginning, it's almost impossible to fix it down the road.\" Howe asked whether the county has a consistent file‑naming protocol, where the official copy is stored, and whether the county has the Adobe and DocuSign licensing in place to support searchable, signed PDFs.

Corey and other staff responded that OnBase is used for cloud storage and that security groups control access. Staff said some departments can already produce searchable PDFs if they have professional Adobe licenses and DocuSign, but that licenses and capabilities vary by department and that a countywide standard would likely require a broader procurement.

Staff framed the policy narrowly as a retention and records‑management tool to meet statutory duties under state law and to ensure consistent preservation and disposal practices. \"We want some degree of uniformity with how we're preserving these documents if we're choosing to transfer them to electronic,\" Kirk Sponse, the deputy county counselor, said, adding that the policy's initial focus is retention compliance rather than a full IT migration.

The proposed policy appears on the commission consent agenda and on the Fire District No. 1 agenda as the same item. No formal vote or adoption occurred at the agenda‑review meeting; staff said departments can continue using existing processes while the policy provides a recommended framework.

Clarifying details provided in the meeting included that OnBase is cloud‑hosted, scanned images currently may be OCR'ed but produce mixed results, and that departments can purchase Adobe and DocuSign individually today. Staff said the policy includes a process for disposing of paper originals after successful conversion when legal retention requirements are met.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to provide more specifics — a maturity plan for enterprise Adobe/DocuSign licensing, file‑naming conventions, and details on security and custodial responsibility — before the item comes to the commission for final action.","County staff presented a proposed records‑management policy to govern electronic conversion and storage of county documents. Commissioners and staff discussed OnBase cloud storage, searchability, DocuSign/Adobe licensing, retention duties under state law, and whether paper or electronic copies remain the official record.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6529447,"Sedgwick County staff to seek multimillion-dollar upgrade to tax software; budget transfer planned",113,184000,297000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3800892-a513cf028670a4e07f090a7bb06fcc24&start=184&end=297","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3800892-a513cf028670a4e07f090a7bb06fcc24/thumbnail_184000.jpg","/articles/6529447/Sedgwick-County/Kansas/Sedgwick-County-staff-to-seek-multimillion-dollar-upgrade-to-tax-software-budget-transfer-planned","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6529447-f4c337ed3aaa44234a2e68e9e990ff05/orig.mp4?Expires=1770936493&Signature=Yx8o-ATOFMNru~CHmrWU29Do9IcFINZlydybATTc3xa34nWJ2IH6sxPqsEWiom11Zz5fwuara2qBVjMw-3hL2TPjyZgo1iLAThTaBhIgBTxDfwoBT-hCJ5h9AA0CjWFG1pDHRN0xOdCQzzdM8E7UtVwr1jbR~1aiER8GJVNk1L6aCM5hbwu7AsSlP-bzw-3yI79jX6QqvL8~FUhPQXh78apMKDmXlgJmJJQSI4Y23rrpl7e0qQ7kpe-OLel1aw2kYKP842veGRvxEHPFMCHOvQLpWfXmYNKVUVndbvbg~l3FotFGkULr35DqDlAC5GsHRlgSuJKOQFVKI3ri45OL5g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sedgwick County staff told the county commission at an agenda-review meeting that they will present a contract and a request to transfer budget authority from the county's rainy day reserve to pay for an upgrade to the county tax system.

The upgrade is now estimated in multiple presentations during the meeting at roughly $3.3 million to $3.6 million; staff said the final contracted amount shown in the bid board item will be presented to the commission for approval. \"It is a 15 year old system,\" Lindsey, a county staff member, said, adding the county is moving from an on‑premises system to a hosted system and that the change should avoid capacity problems that recently caused a multi‑day outage.

A fit‑gap analysis completed since the initial TRB estimate increased the projected cost well beyond the $850,000 that had been identified previously for this year. Lindsey said staff will ask the commission to approve a transfer of budget authority from the rainy day reserve to cover the immediate gap and that the project, with an estimated 21‑month timeline, will likely require an additional transfer next January to move remaining funds into the technology and equipment reserve.

Why it matters: Sedgwick County's tax system handles collections for \"100 plus taxing entities,\" Lindsey said, so the IT and budget choices affect multiple elected and appointed offices and other jurisdictions that rely on the county tax collection system.

County staff described the procurement history and current plan. The staff presentation said no formal RFP was done because the procurement path used an existing contract vehicle; staff characterized the work as a host migration plus configuration after the fit‑gap analysis. One county speaker said the total project cost could be \"right at $3,600,000\" when the hosting component for the first year is included.

The commission did not act on the item at the agenda‑review meeting; staff said the contract and the formal budget transfer request will appear on the commission agenda for consideration. No formal vote or approval occurred during the agenda review.

County staff asked commissioners to expect more than one future appearance by the item: the initial contract and rainy‑day transfer for this year, then a request next January to transfer remaining funds to complete the project.

Speakers and roles listed in the meeting record who discussed the item included Lindsey (county staff member), Tom (meeting facilitator), Kelly Arnold (county staff member identified by peers as a frequent system user), and Scott Wagner (participant). The staff presentation recommended the hosted system to reduce interruptions and address capacity constraints experienced with the older on‑premises system.

Budget and procurement context: staff said the Technology Review Board (TRB) had previously allocated about $850,000 for the project for the current year; the fit‑gap analysis produced a larger actual cost estimate, prompting the planned request to move funds from the rainy day reserve. Staff estimated the procurement and hosting timeline at about 21 months and said the contract will not be completed in 2025.

Next steps: staff will place the contract and associated budget transfer on the commission agenda for formal action. Commissioners asked staff to make technical and cost questions available in advance through the normal TRB or agenda materials process.

Ending: The county's presentation emphasized that the tax‑software project is intended to address recurring capacity problems and that the upgrade will affect many taxing jurisdictions that rely on Sedgwick County tax processing. Staff said they will return with the formal contract and budget transfer request for commission consideration.","County staff told commissioners a fit-gap analysis raised the expected cost of a tax system upgrade to roughly $3.5 million and that they will ask to transfer budget authority from the county's rainy day reserve to cover the gap; the project is expected to take about 21 months and affects tax processing for more than 100 taxing entities.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County staff seek protective overlay for Arc 95 area to preserve right‑of‑way options

Sedgwick County examines records‑management policy; commissioners raise questions about digital conversion and storage

Sedgwick County staff to seek multimillion-dollar upgrade to tax software; budget transfer planned