Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Intergovernmental Coordination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City and county officials press for coordinated approach on property-tax lid, economic development and regional services
Summary
Leavenworth City and Leavenworth County leaders met May 25 for a joint discussion that covered a proposed property-tax lid constitutional amendment, solid-waste options, regional transportation and a possible countywide sales tax to fund emergency radio upgrades. No formal action was taken; commissioners agreed to pursue follow-up study sessions.
Leavenworth City and Leavenworth County officials used a May 25 joint meeting to discuss several multi-jurisdictional issues, including a proposed property-tax lid constitutional amendment, options for the city's solid-waste transfer station, regional coordination on economic development and transit, and potential funding for a countywide emergency radio upgrade.
The meeting opened with a county presentation on a proposed property-tax lid constitutional amendment that would cap annual valuation increases on owner-occupied homes at roughly 3 to 4 percent and require revaluation when property changes hands. Mark (county staff member) said the measure previously passed the Kansas Senate but failed to pass the House and that county leaders are asking cities to consider sending letters of support in the next legislative cycle.
Why it matters: Commissioners said property-tax pressure is a persistent concern for residents and local government budgets, and they expressed interest in coordinating advocacy and educational outreach to state lawmakers before the next session.
City and county officials also discussed the city's solid-waste transfer-station service. City staff described three options under review: fully privatize collection, build a city-owned transfer station on city property, or contract with a local private operator that proposes to build a transfer facility. County representatives asked for a detailed cost breakdown (transportation, staffing, fuel and contract hauling costs) so the two governments can compare options. City staff said hauling costs are the largest driver of fees at the transfer station.
Economic development coordination drew substantial attention. County and city leaders discussed whether to continue funding multiple entities (Leavenworth County Development Corporation, Port Authority and others) separately or to pursue a refreshed, joint approach to business recruitment and downtown revitalization. Commissioners agreed to hold follow-up, joint study sessions and to invite local economic partners to a city economic-development roundtable.
Regional transit and mobility services were also reviewed. City staff described the pilot Ride LB program and noted that some cities (including Lansing) have expressed interest in joining. Commissioners and county staff discussed existing countywide transportation provided by the Council on Aging and whether a regionalized model or stronger partnerships could expand service to workers and rural residents.
Finally, county officials raised a potential funding gap for the public-safety radio/9-1-1 system. County staff explained that statewide changes in how 9-1-1 fees are assessed and broader shifts to mobile and VoIP phone services have reduced traditional fee revenues. The county said replacing aging radio infrastructure and consoles could cost millions and floated funding options including a countywide sales tax or an alternative user-fee model. City and county leaders agreed to continue exploring funding scenarios.
No formal votes on policy or funding were taken at the meeting. Officials identified several next steps: staff will compile cost-detail reports on solid-waste operations, the city and county will schedule joint study sessions on property-tax legislation and economic development coordination, and county and city staff will continue conversations about transit partnerships and radio-system funding.
