Voters will decide Nov. 2 whether to increase a countywide sales tax by 1⁄4 of a cent to go toward a new Allen County Hospital.
Members of the Allen County Healthcare Committee address questions about the issue.
Q: In constructing buildings like hospitals, Kansas law limits counties to three different approaches. What are the approaches and how would each approach im-pact cost control, use of local contractors and local labor, etc.?
A: Part 2 of Methods for Building the Hospital — The Design-Build System for delivering a hospital building project. Kansas law for counties and for awarding construction contracts, Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A.) 19-216 covers the method of delivering projects known as “design-build.”
The most appealing aspect of design-build to an owner (Allen County Hospital Board of Trustees) is having a single point of responsibility — that is, dealing with one service provider rather than a separate architect, contractor, and possibly other entities, such as landscape architect, HVAC engineer, and interior designer. Projects using this method may be completed sooner as a consequence of the efficiency of having a single entity for both the designer and the builder functions.
As with design-bid-build discussed in Part 1, this second method is a competitive process between teams that each have a designer and a builder as part of the team. The law indicates the bids are solicited in a three-stage process. The first stage asks for the qualifications of the design build team and the law spells out both the process and the qualifications. The number of teams responding is reduced us-ing a point system also spelled out in the law.
The final three to five teams are invited to prepare presentations of a technical nature in phase two and of cost specifics in phase three. Each phase is rated on a point system spelled out in the law. The evaluator used by the owner then compiles the points as-signed for each team from phases two and three and the winning team with the most points is awarded the contract. The owner can reject all the bids if the proposals exceed the budget for the project. 
In this approach the designer and the builder are one team so review of payments made to the builder would need to be done by a third party to achieve an independent review. Also, the use of local contractors and local labor, again, depends on which team gets the bid. Some bidders may include local sub-contractors and local labor while other builders may not. All bidders must meet the requirements of the law for performance bonding and other qualifications specified in the law. 

Only four days remain before the election. If you would like to help our voter information effort contact the Thrive Allen County office at 365-8128.

I think we should vote NO on Charter Ordinance Number 17.
The people of Iola need more representation, not less.
It would be beneficial to have the city meetings in the evening so more people can attend and provide their opinion. If we go to a city council form of government I think we will be able to have these evening meetings.
We voted 2 to 1 over a year ago to change to a city council form of government instead of a three-man city commission.
I believe it is wrong to use a charter ordinance to overturn a vote of the people.
I will be asking all my friends to vote NO on Charter Ordinance No. 17.

Doris Hill
Iola, Kan.

After reading all the information these many months on the pros and cons of a new hospital, I’ve decided to share my appreciation of medical care in Allen County and my plan to vote YES for a new hospital.
In preparation for my first surgery at the University of Kansas Medical Center, my doctor advised me to plan for at least one night in the hospital.
I left home early on June 26, 2006, expecting to be home in a couple of days. I was there two nights, swelled out of a cast. They cut it off and put on a bigger one and released me that evening. I was home overnight and by noon was in Allen County Hospital.
The next morning, Dr. Glen Singer directed the removal of the second cast and said to leave it off. I was in ACH two weeks, then transferred to Windsor Place Nursing Home.
When a culture was taken it revealed staphylococcus infection along with three other infections, the names of which I don’t even remember. I had watched, terror stricken, as my foot and leg swelled, turned angry red, black and blue up to the knee, fearing my foot would have to be cut off, but not breathing a word of my fears to a soul.
A different plan of care was immediately initiated and about four weeks later I was released to go home on Sept. 6.
The things I have since learned about staphylococcus infection tell me that I’m not only blessed to have my foot, but I’m blessed to be here and I owe it all to some fantastic physicians, Drs. Wolfe and Singer, a very special little nurse named Dee, to Allen County Hospital and to Windsor Place Nursing Home.
Please vote YES for a new hospital.
To vote YES for a new hospital is a “no brainer.”
We have some very skilled and dedicated, top notch physicians, nurses and other support staff in Allen County, and I believe as taxpayers we have a responsibility to provide them with a top notch facility in which to work.
Our expectations of their performance is top notch, yet it can only be that if they have an adequate, modern facility with the latest in medical equipment with which to work — and that’s where we come in.
Please vote YES for a new hospital. See you at the polls.

Frances Williams
Iola, Kan.

 I am so proud of Sam Brownback’s election campaigns. I can’t recall Sam or any of his campaigns “going negative” like so many of the others.
I prefer candidates who tell us the truth about the issues — the good news and the bad — while leaving the other candidates to sink or swim on their own ideas and credentials. In this gloomy economic time, we need truth tellers and candidates with experience and a plan who take time to tell us what they are going to do if we elect them.
That is exactly how Sam Brownback has always campaigned. That’s why I will vote for Sam again this election.

Bill Mentzer
Iola, Kan.

Thank you for printing the Charter Ordinance information in your paper.
We were really excited when we read that our votes in April of 2009 would give us two people in our neighborhood to vote for. That was really great, but then it all went away and we couldn’t understand why.
Thanks again for your help. We know now that we need to vote no so we can get back to being able to vote for some people who may be our close neighbors or friends and we’re going to tell all of our friends and relatives that it will be good if they will vote no also.

Respectfully,
Adam and Amanda Reiter
Iola, Kan.

This coming Tuesday, Nov. 2, we have several very important questions listed on the ballot to be voted on.
One of those questions affecting the citizens of Iola regards Charter Ordinance Number 17, the formation of a five person city commission to rule the city of Iola governmental affairs.
Charter Ordinance Number 17 came to life in the months following the April 2009 election when the voters of Iola decided by a very large majority (2 to 1) to abolish the commission form of government in favor of a larger, more representative city council form of government.
The seated city commission, saying they feared citizens were confused by the language of the question voted on and had not fully understood what form of government was needed, set in motion the ground work for Charter Ordinance Number 17.
A meeting with the Kansas League of Municipalities was held to try to inform citizens of differences between commissions and councils. The formation of a citizens group of 14 members, of which I was one, was brought together to define different forms of city governments and how they would work for Iola.
After weeks of discussions the group held a vote and the majority favored a larger, more representative city council with seven members. The city commission still favored its plans for Charter Ordinance Number 17, which would seat a five person commission, and held a non-binding vote. The question was for a five, seven or nine person commission.
The outcome was truly non-binding in the fact that the majority of the voters cast their votes for a government with more than five seated.
Now we are asked once again to go to the polls and answer a question that I feel has been answered twice before by majority.
Please join me and vote No on Charter Ordinance Number 17.

James J Kilby
Iola, Kan.

To my fellow citizens of Kansas:
Election Day is right around the corner. Please join me on Tuesday in electing Sam Brownback as our next governor of Kansas. As our senator, Sam has worked tirelessly to represent Kansas, always putting the best interest of its citizens above the special interests of Washington politics. Sam Brownback will bring integrity, experience and proven leadership to the state of Kansas.
Sen. Brownback strongly opposes healthcare reform. Earlier this year, Sen. Brownback and his colleagues unveiled an organizational chart outlining the new nightmare facing Americans under the new healthcare plan. Sen. Brownback has publicly called for its repeal. The new healthcare reform cuts Medicare ($529 billion), raises taxes ($569 billion) and costs the government money that it simply does not have.
Sen. Brownback has long called on the federal government to reform its existing economic policies which have proven to be wasteful, wreckless and inefficient.
As an advocate of low personal income and corporate taxes, he believes citizens should be able to save their hard earned money and businesses remain competitive with emerging markets across the globe. He also advocates fiscal responsibility, improved education for our children and grandchildren, as well as social security reform.
Finally, Sen. Brownback has a plan to create jobs and promote job growth for the state of Kansas. Through implementing his “Strategic Economic Development Plan,” Sen. Brownback will seek to increase the quality of life for every citizen in Kansas.
Kansas needs strong Republican leadership. I ask you to join me in voting for Sam Brownback for governor and Derek Schmidt as attorney general on Tuesday, Nov. 3. Together, as already exemplified in their many individual accomplishments, Kansans can continue to work towards an even brighter future.

Respectfully,
Casey A. Lair
Neodesha, Kan.

Many of you know Derek Schmidt as our state senator. He has served us honorably in that capacity for 10 years and has become a real friend to this community. Derek is now running to be the next attorney general of Kansas and we can’t think of a better person for the job.
He worked as an assistant attorney general for consumer protection in the Carla Stovall administration and went on to serve as special council to Gov. Bill Graves.
During his service in the Legislature, Derek has led efforts to make sure Kansas is a safe place to live. Derek has fought to reduce the number of meth labs in Kansas and helped pass legislation to crack down on drunk drivers.
Derek demonstrated to us his ability to lead when he spearheaded the efforts to pass significant disaster recovery legislation after much of southeast Kansas was affected by the flood of 2007. He was instrumental in helping Allen County get the tools it needed to get back on its feet. Our community has been lucky to have Derek as an advocate for our area, but it is time to share him with the rest of the state.
We hope you will join us in supporting our friend, Derek Schmidt, for attorney general.

Sincerely,
Joe and Cheryl Miller
Iola, Kan.

This letter has nothing to do with the hospital. This is a letter about the fishing at the dams on Elm Creek.
I have been at three county commission meetings and have gotten different answers each time I asked why commissioners stopped the fishing at Elm Creek.
Here are the answers:
First meeting: We were driving on private property, fireworks, drinking beer and leaving trash.
So I did a little research and found that the hill of shale is 20 foot on the right-of-way and not on private property.
That it’s not against the law to shoot off fireworks in the county.
Drinking beer is not against the law in the county.
Flooding and wind is responsible for most of the trash at the dams and the creeks.
Next meeting: No driving on the right-of-way, said a Department of Agriculture employee who did some looking back there and reported to Mr. King that it was dangerous at the high water dam. This is what Mr. King told me: Now that he knows it’s dangerous he can’t let us go fish anymore at the high water dam.
Some more research found it was dangerous when it was built, and the county has had no trouble all these years.
We drove on a road over the right-of-way that has been there for 60-plus years and it was “dangerous” to come onto the highway. When it was a state highway, the road was over the right-of-way and they never stopped anyone from using it. If you look at the side of the road, you will see that it was built up by the state so that cars could drive off the highway to get to the low water dam.
All this time they let me think that we would get to fish, but it would take some time to work it out.
You know the county is not going to put out any money to fix up anything for us.
Mr. (Dick) Works told me that the county was not in the business of recreation.
Mr. (Rob) Frances told me he did not care if we had fished there for 100 years; we were not going to do it anymore.
Last meeting:  The county is not going to do anything to help the young or old to get to fish. I was told we could fish, but no more driving to the low water dams. How in the world do they think we can walk 500 or 600 yards?
When Mr. King was told what was going on, he should have asked the sheriff to have his men check on the dams and see that all were fishing. If they were doing wrong, give them a ticket and publish it in the court news. With their names in the paper, all would know of the wrongdoings, and that those wrongdoings would not be tolerated.
Now, this is what it will take to get back to being able to fish as we did before: It is time Mr. Works be replaced. He has been in office too long.
He thinks that he can do anything he wants and not have to answer to the people, nor does the public have any say in the matter.
As for Mr. Frances, he needs to be replaced as soon as his time is up.
I think that if we do this we will let all commissioners know that they answer to all the people — not to a few — in matters such as these.
It should be our right as taxpaying citizens to be allowed to have input on such matters and decisions not left to an elite few.
Kansas code 60503 is 15 years old and says we can use “Prescriptive Easement: Obtaining rights in land by use.”
The land is not used for anything. I think we could win in court, but if we did it would come out of our tax money. I don’t want that to happen. I only want everyone to fish without breaking the law.

David Hawn
Iola, Kan.

As the election approaches there are a group of people on the ballot that we have not seen or heard flashy advertisements for, but these people perform a vital role in our society. These people are our Kansas judges and justices. Each election cycle, some judges and justices who were originally appointed to the bench are on the ballot to stand for a retention vote. The question is: Should each judge/justice be retained? The choices for the voter are yes or no.
Many Kansans do not have interaction with the courts and feel that they really do not have enough information to cast an in-formed vote involving judges and justices. In an attempt to provide more information, the Kansas Judicial Performance Evaluation System was created. Each year when there will be a retention election, those judges and justices who are on the ballot are subject to an independent evaluation process. That process involves detailed questionnaires being completed by attorneys, court personnel and most importantly, regular citizens who have been involved in cases before the judges and justices.
The evaluations are collected and the results made public so that the average voter can see how the judges and justices are doing. The evaluation results are available at www.kansasjudicialperformance.org.
I encourage everyone to see for themselves how our Kansas judges and justices are doing by reading the evaluations. Our local judges on the ballot this year, Magistrate Thomas Saxton and District Judge David Rogers, have both received excellent evaluations and are recommended for retention.
The judges on the Kansas Court of Appeals and the justices on the Kansas Supreme Court who are on the ballot also have received positive evaluations and have been recommended for retention.

Very truly yours,
Dennis D. Depew
Neodesha, Kan.