Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges transparency on Call Valley SUP and roadway agreement; questions county use of consultant reports
Summary
Nancy Carpenter, a Bonner Springs resident, told commissioners she’s concerned the county may be drafting a roadway improvement agreement and engaging consultants tied to the applicant before the Call Valley special-use permit is approved, and cited county traffic-impact policy and a July 2023 roadway agreement template with blank resolution numbers.
Nancy Carpenter of Bonner Springs used her public comment time to press the Leavenworth County Board of County Commissioners for greater transparency and clearer sequencing in the Call Valley special-use permit (SUP) process.
Carpenter said she reviewed the county’s traffic impact policy (effective Feb. 17, 2021) and noted the policy allows applicants to pay for traffic studies and that the Kansas City engineering firm GBA produced the report in this case. She asked whether the county or the applicant selected GBA and whether the county would instead seek proposals from independent firms.
Carpenter also cited a roadway improvement agreement template she found — approved by the board on July 5, 2023 — whose recital language included placeholders such as "date to be filled in" and "resolution number to be filled in." She asked whether drafting such an agreement before final SUP approval implies that the county is presuming approval, and whether that sequence is consistent with county policy.
Carpenter asked the board to ensure planning conditions and the list created by planning and zoning are openly discussed by the board and to confirm that conditions would only take effect if and when an SUP is formally approved. She closed by urging adherence to proper sequencing and clear rules.
Commissioners acknowledged the comment, clarified that policy language allows the county to issue requests for proposals for engineering consultants, and said staff would try to provide answers at an upcoming meeting.
No board action was taken during public comment; commissioners said they hope to address details at a future meeting.
