Housing authority outlines drainage study, potential six‑lot development near Market Hill; bids due before next board meetings

Housing authority staff and school district representatives briefed the Coffey County Commission on a drainage‑ditch survey and a possible six‑lot housing development on school property near Market Hill and the recreation center.

The housing authority reported it has paid $1,200 toward an $8,000 survey and plan package; about $6,800 remains outstanding. Bids to fix the drainage problem were expected the day of the meeting. The authority said it will evaluate bids, confirm whether the project is feasible, and then discuss financing options — including board funds, shovel‑ready grant money, and discussions with the city about long‑term benefit and possible contributions.

Why this matters: The housing authority and school officials said lack of local housing affects recruitment (including teacher hiring) and community tax and utility revenue; they described the six lots as a tangible opportunity to add homes in a desirable neighborhood near schools and the recreation center.

Details presented: The drainage plan proposes reconfiguring the property’s internal drainage from a diagonal flow to a 90‑degree L‑shaped system along the west and south boundaries to open more building sites. The housing authority said the inlet and outlet locations likely would not change in a way that affects neighboring property owners. The site has shallow soil/rock considerations in places, and some participants noted the potential to use excavated material from the ditch to fill other areas, but the housing authority emphasized it is not an engineering firm and will rely on bid results and the engineer’s final design.

Funding and legal steps: The housing authority said its board will consider how to pay the remaining survey and construction costs; options discussed included a cost share with the county, seeking grant funds, direct city participation (the project lies within city limits in part), or selling lots with development conditions to guarantee timely building. The authority suggested a contract clause requiring development of all six lots within a specified time (the board discussed three years as a possible benchmark) and a repurchase or price‑adjustment clause for lots not developed within that window.

Stakeholder outreach and next steps: Commissioners and school representatives emphasized the need to coordinate with the city (the ditch is partly a city facility) and to consult neighborhood stakeholders; the housing authority said they had ‘‘very basic conversations’’ with city staff but had not submitted the full plan for city sign‑off. The housing authority expected to return to the commission within one to two weeks after bids are reviewed and after the housing authority board meets the night of the meeting.

Ending: The commission did not take formal action at the meeting. Commissioners encouraged the housing authority to finish bid review, coordinate with the city on approvals and funding, and return with bid totals and a proposed financing plan.