Geary County commissioners approve outside counsel for Asherby Board case; agree preliminary NRP changes, hear public concerns about spending

The Geary County Board of Commissioners voted to hire outside counsel to defend the county in a pending lawsuit and agreed by consensus on proposed changes to the county nd city Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP), while residents used public comment to press the commission on county property sales and perceived wasteful spending.

After returning from executive session with no action taken, an unnamed commissioner moved "to hire Kevin Case with Case Linden to defend the county in Asherby Board of versus the Board of Commissioners, case number 24 CVE 1 80 1." Another commissioner seconded the motion. Commissioner Keith abstained; the motion passed. The transcript does not record the full roll call or a complete vote tally.

The vote matters because it directs the county to retain private counsel for pending litigation described in the meeting as "Asherby Board of versus the Board of Commissioners, case number 24 CVE 1 80 1." The commissioners did not discuss additional litigation strategy or legal fees on the public record during the meeting.

Commissioners and staff also spent an extended portion of the meeting discussing proposed revisions to the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. Participants said the group reached a consensus to file an NRP plan that sets new minimum investment thresholds of $10,000 for single-family residential projects and $30,000 for commercial projects (referred to in the meeting as "$10,000 and $30,000"). Staff described how the program has historically used a different scale for residential rebates (a sliding scale that declines over successive years) and said commercial and multifamily projects had previously been treated on a 10-year schedule while single-family residential typically used a five-year schedule. By consensus, the group favored returning commercial terms to a 10-year schedule while maintaining shorter terms for single-family residential.

County staff explained distinctions that will guide implementation: the NRP will use the amount invested (for example, the building permit value) as the clean, consistent basis for qualification rather than an appraised post-construction value; the city permit amount will be used to verify investment and qualifications; and the County—inancial/Assessment software (referred to as "CIC") will be updated to calculate the incremental value and rebate once the plan is entered. Staff noted the plan must be reapproved by the state before becoming fully effective, and that the current application period for the plan runs through Dec. 31, 2026, meaning timing affects which budget year an approved project would impact.

Several implementation questions were clarified on the record: the first year of a tax rebate is based on the year after the project is complete (the gain is calculated on the assessed value as of Jan. 1 following project completion); projects are not eligible until construction is complete; and county staff will coordinate with city permitting to align permit values and NRP applications so applicants do not misstate project scope. Commissioners voiced a preference that the new NRP provisions, once approved by the necessary partners, start immediately rather than waiting until the current plan expires, but noted the existing plan would remain in force until a new signed document is finalized and the state approves it.

During public comment, resident Janet Clark told the commission she recently purchased property on East Seventh Street and asked how to pursue buying an adjacent county-owned vacant parcel. Clark said she had spoken with the county attorney and was advised to bring the request to the commission. County staff said the parcel may appear on an upcoming tax sale list or could be the subject of a public hearing if the county decides to dispose of property deemed not to benefit the public; staff said they would research the specific parcel and follow up with Clark.

Another resident, Steven Capizzi of 1926 Lydia Lane, pressed the commission on fiscal oversight, calling for more transparency and for elected officials to ensure department spending adheres to policy. Capizzi said he and other residents felt Geary County was among the higher-tax counties in the state and urged commissioners to hold each other and department heads accountable for expenditures, large and small. Commissioners responded that policies exist and said they will work to ensure compliance; one commissioner said elected officials must remain a step above department operations while still providing oversight.

The meeting also included brief administrative items and staff updates, including discussion of office renovations and disposition of old cubicles, which staff said could go to the transfer station.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to hire Kevin Case of Case Linden to defend Geary County in Asherby Board of v. Board of Commissioners, case number 24 CVE 1 80 1: Passed. Commissioner Keith recorded an abstention; remaining commissioners voted in favor as recorded on the meeting transcript. The transcript does not provide a full roll-call breakdown or the exact yes/no counts.

What happens next

Staff said they will incorporate the agreed NRP dollar thresholds and term lengths into the draft plan, coordinate with city partners (including the city permitting office) and seek the state pproval required to implement the revised NRP. County staff will also follow up with Janet Clark about the parcel she identified and will report back on the status of the property and any required public hearing for disposition.