Franklin County temporarily suspends rifle‑range permit pending engineering review after neighbors report stray rounds

The Franklin County Board of Commissioners voted Oct. 15 to temporarily suspend the special‑use permit for the Great Plains Precision Rifle Range (SUP 19011646) and directed county planning staff and the range owners to work with ballistic engineers on redesigned berms and firing angles after residents and trail users reported bullets and near misses.

Pat, a Franklin County planning department staff member, told the commissioners that the original SUP was approved in February 2019 with 11 conditions and that the planning commission later recommended additional safety conditions after an engineer’s review and public comment. "Staff feels confident that the plan of action with these added conditions create a safe environment for the shooting activities that are to take place on this property," Pat said during the presentation, summarizing the planning department’s position while noting remaining public concerns.

Why it matters: The range sits roughly a mile south of a recently opened section of the Flint Hills Trail. Neighbors told the board they can hear bullets and that projectiles and bullet fragments have been found on private property. Several residents said the range’s membership and volume of use have grown far beyond levels described in the original application, prompting calls for stronger safeguards and independent engineering verification before range activity continues.

How the issue developed

County planning staff said the SUP for the Great Plains Precision Rifle Range (common address listed in county materials: 2245 K 68) was originally approved in early 2019. After complaints and a 2025 planning commission meeting attended by about 179 people and 29 speakers, the planning commission recommended a set of expanded conditions that included a requirement for engineering‑designed berms, annual inspections, liability insurance, perimeter signage, a dedicated range master on site during operations, and documentation of lead reclamation consistent with U.S. EPA best‑management practices for outdoor shooting ranges (EPA‑902‑B‑01‑001).

Pat told the board the county received an engineering report from Netterveld Consulting in mid‑August and that the report used ballistics calculations to recommend berm heights and layout changes. Pat also said a second firm, Total Range Solutions (Kerry O’Neil), had been suggested by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks as a commonly used reviewer for range designs.

What residents and users told the board

Several nearby residents gave sworn public comments describing incidents they said involved bullets landing on their property. Linda Alderman of Osborne Terrace told the commission, "This is a plea for safety… We are tired of getting shot at," saying riders on the Flint Hills Trail have redirected onto the county road to avoid the range area.

Randy Winkler, who lives directly downrange, told the board he and his family had found multiple bullets on their land and described a string of incidents and property damage dating back several years. "We know of at least seven bullets on our property, and we have been able to dig out three of them so far," Winkler said, and he urged the board to act.

Range owners and managers told the board they are willing to cooperate. Tim Yoder, identified in the record as the applicant/owner, said the club has tried to mitigate risks and had removed some long‑range targets nearest the trail. "Safety is a a very large concern of ours. That's number one," Yoder said. Dave Powell, a co‑owner and range manager, said members are required to attend a safety orientation and the club has restricted certain targets while it works with county staff.

Engineering, berms and operations

Planning staff summarized the expanded list of conditions the planning commission had recommended, including: $1,000,000 liability insurance; a requirement that berms for long‑range firing meet either the original 20‑foot‑by‑40‑foot‑by‑20‑foot specification or larger dimensions recommended by a ballistic engineer; annual berm inspections by the planning department; removal of tracer and armor‑piercing ammunition; perimeter warning signs; on‑site sanitation; surface parking improvements; restrictions on hours of operation (subject to statutory limits on local noise control); and a requirement for documentation of lead reclamation no less frequently than every five years.

Pat told the board the county cannot impose an enforceable noise‑based curfew once an SUP is established because of state statute (referenced in the meeting as KSA 58‑32‑21 through 58‑32‑24), and said that is one reason the county is focusing on engineered containment (berm design and layout) and written operational controls.

Board action and next steps

After hearing the planning presentation, testimony from residents and a lengthy discussion with the applicants, the board took two procedural steps: it first moved to table further formal action on SUP 19011646 so staff and the applicants could pursue a revised plan and additional engineering details; then the board voted to temporarily suspend operations under the existing permit pending further engineering work and agreement on specific design and operational conditions.

The suspension motion directs planning staff and the applicants to work with a ballistic engineer (the applicants had already provided a Netterveld consulting report and discussed the possibility of working with Total Range Solutions) to produce a site‑specific plan showing berm locations and heights, a construction and inspection schedule, and a proposed set of enforceable operational restrictions. The board did not adopt a firm calendar deadline for that work during the meeting; commissioners said staff should return the revised plan to the board when it is ready.

What the suspension does — and does not — require

- The suspension is temporary and was adopted to allow county staff, the applicants and a qualified ballistic engineer to develop and agree on technical specifications and a compliance plan before full operations resume. - The suspension does not permanently revoke the SUP; the board instructed staff to work with the applicants and engineers on a remediation plan that the board can approve or reject later. - The board directed planning staff to coordinate floodplain permitting if range regrading would move significant quantities of dirt; staff said floodplain permits and no‑rise documentation will be required for larger earthwork given the site’s location in mapped floodplain.

Public safety, liability and community concerns

Residents repeatedly told the board they fear for personal safety while walking or riding the Flint Hills Trail and for the safety of children and livestock on neighboring properties. The range owners emphasized their internal safety training, competition controls and membership rules; they said private‑range membership and officer training are central to how they manage the site. The planning staff and multiple commissioners said independent, documented engineering verification is necessary to restore public confidence.

Ending note

The board’s actions leave several open items for technical follow‑up: a signed engineering design showing berm dimensions and locations, a construction and inspection schedule, a floodplain permit determination for the proposed earthwork, and a draft of operational rules the county would enforce if the SUP is reinstated. Planning staff said they will coordinate those items with the applicants and will return to the board when a completed package is ready for formal review. The county did not set a specific date for the applicants to return with a completed engineering plan during the Oct. 15 meeting.