Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Development Burlington Rec Center topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Coffey County to pay up to $10,000 toward surveys for school-owned lot near Burlington rec center to explore housing

2270777 · January 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County commissioners authorized paying half the cost of a plot and drainage survey — up to $10,000 — after Burlington USD 244 and the local housing authority asked for help assessing development feasibility on school-owned land next to the rec center.

Coffey County commissioners on Monday authorized paying up to $10,000 — half the cost — of site surveys to help the Burlington school district and the county housing authority evaluate turning a school-owned lot adjacent to the Burlington recreation center into housing. The vote carried with one commissioner opposed.

The request came from Burlington Housing Authority Director Rhonda Gilbert and Burlington USD 244 Superintendent Craig Marshall, who described the parcel, immediately west of the rec center and close to the middle and high schools, as “prime” for housing but in need of drainage and plot work before it is marketable to developers or builders.

Why it matters: school and housing officials said the parcel could support several single-family lots and help with local housing shortages arising from staff recruitment and turnover. Commissioners agreed to help fund initial engineering work so the school board can decide whether to sell, lease or partner with the housing authority.

How the county will proceed: engineering firm CFNS Engineering provided a ballpark estimate for preliminary work: roughly $10,000 for a plot survey and about $8,000 for a drainage survey of the ditch that divides the block. Commissioners authorized paying up to $10,000 — half the combined survey cost — to be drawn from the community improvement reserve. The motion sets a cap of $10,000 on the county contribution; additional funding, if needed, was not specified.

Next steps described at the meeting included the housing authority returning to the school board at its Feb. 10 meeting with the county’s committed support for survey work; CFNS Engineering or another consultant will perform the plot and drainage studies; and the parties will use results to decide whether to prepare lots for sale, sell the parcel to the housing authority, auction it with development conditions, or pursue other approaches the school board prefers.

Officials emphasized limits and conditions: the school board repeatedly said it is not seeking to profit heavily from the land and wants development that fits the neighborhood. Commissioners pressed for safeguards — for example, contract terms that would require building within a set timeline and prevent purchasers from holding lots undeveloped.

Formal action: the commission moved and seconded a motion to pay half the cost of plot and drainage surveys not to exceed $10,000. The motion passed with one commissioner voting no; names of individual votes were not recorded on the transcript.

What was not decided: no sale, lease or binding development agreement was approved. The county’s vote covers only the initial survey work; decisions about disposition or developer selection remain with the Burlington USD 244 school board and the housing authority.

Background: speakers said the parcel has been used informally by the rec center for practices and mowing. Officials estimate the reconfigured drainage could allow about six building lots that would match surrounding block patterns. School and housing authority leaders said the district owns “a little over an acre and a third” of land there and that drainage reconfiguration is the principal obstacle to development.

Outlook: with county support for surveys, the next step will be a school-board discussion in February and survey work by engineers, followed by any required city involvement on drainage and permitting. Commissioners signaled willingness to help with upfront survey costs but did not commit to paying construction or remediation costs beyond the capped survey contribution.