[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6553432,"mediaKeyId","5067807-043f19af589bde04c41c4025bcf4b7ef","parentId",5067807,"title","Finance director outlines 2026 budget drivers; commissioners set timeline for R&R notice","audioSeconds",749,"startMs",5689000,"endMs",6438000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5067807-043f19af589bde04c41c4025bcf4b7ef&start=5689&end=6438","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5067807-043f19af589bde04c41c4025bcf4b7ef/thumbnail_5689000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6553432/Atchison-County/Kansas/Finance-director-outlines-2026-budget-drivers-commissioners-set-timeline-for-RR-notice","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553432-c24213d7207a827ce11ced83b88a13cc/orig.mp4?Expires=1773639560&Signature=CZ59IPLbXgZ3Lfg-CQY~k41zCIoZ0d-LeGN4AGcosvq-cYxUb075O7KlKH2CxwMMyZnytNAoDIkjvY6lsNOK~dNIOqf42GoEtAViWLiNrnzZm95eKPkQS7tADRllRTP3dJvj3n6M34Tk8LAjaaxAzpkBiGiOO42qmAjbK9CjK6eX~YB9XZhdW5dzDHy9LceqrkD0Od5lKHznhRrOVOyuKoNcRbrAOKbPVf35SfOVaFoDHMmM9Cxwml-4FBbR0-oPHL6OPFgIQbTPijH4obGh7t6xb1W9--0ViuqDbc~nIcnJXWztU9DmvHuhFXZMDQv4e9~TAXGq7TYW4w24aoG64Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Atchison County, KS","date","2025-06-24T21:44:49.007Z","article","Mark Siltner, Atchison County finance director, briefed the commission on June 24 about updates to the 2026 budget draft and next steps for certifying a preliminary ad valorem (mill) figure for public notice.

Siltner said he had added recent appropriation requests that had been discussed in prior workshops — including a request from the county’s elections office for new voting equipment and a request from a community organization — and had modeled the countywide sales tax shortfall. He reported an initial, assembled ad valorem figure of about 68.09 mills in the draft (a working number reflecting all requests plugged into the budget model) and reminded the board the amount published on the R&R form is the maximum that may be levied and that the board can later reduce it through internal adjustments.

Siltner outlined capital and lease‑purchase options for items totaling about $245,000 (election equipment plus IT/server needs). He reported approximate lease payments if the county used a lease purchase: a 4‑year lease for both sets of equipment would be about $67,700 per year; a 5‑year lease would be about $55,004 per year. Commissioners discussed whether to add the sheriff’s air‑conditioning rooftop unit to a lease purchase as well.

The finance director also described a potential shortfall caused by changes in taxable personal property valuation (examples cited included watercraft exemptions) and reminded the commission those effects would be clearer in the 2026 tax roll. He advised that final budget numbers will be adjusted after an upcoming executive session on wages and further department prioritization.

The commission set a schedule for the R and R (the preliminary tax notice) process: commissioners asked to receive a proposed figure and supporting justification by July 1 to allow Siltner to give the certified figure to the county clerk by July 8 so it can be published and meet the clerk’s July 15 filing window for notice mailing. Commissioners discussed how to present the figure publicly and suggested displaying the initial request total and then showing revisions and the commission’s downward adjustments at the budget hearing to give context for the published number.

No final mill levy was certified at the June 24 meeting; commissioners directed staff to prepare the paperwork, provide supporting materials and return with a draft number for discussion at the beginning of July.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Atchison County Commission Video 2025-06-24","oneSentenceSummary","Atchison County’s finance director told commissioners June 24 that budget requests and sales‑tax shortfall modeling produced a working ad valorem estimate of about 68.09 mills and presented lease/lease‑purchase options for $245,000 in equipment needs.","taxTitle","Atchison County, Kansas","taxId",70752,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6553437,"Atchison County Lake committee policy adopted; committee outlines cleanup, revenue and outreach plans",436,3499000,3935000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5067807-043f19af589bde04c41c4025bcf4b7ef&start=3499&end=3935","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5067807-043f19af589bde04c41c4025bcf4b7ef/thumbnail_3499000.jpg","/articles/6553437/Atchison-County/Kansas/Atchison-County-Lake-committee-policy-adopted-committee-outlines-cleanup-revenue-and-outreach-plans","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553437-04b8d67747ae41b5178141cf4fb3e456/orig.mp4?Expires=1773639560&Signature=hhEcrano2smmAh5AkZqtHWEMnAB91wy3IQv0J1x3Dzj77I5ld69IArOIiymo5qNxBcT~x4tb7XiEXiARv0UWQQ6UnUKm69vGhvludi4-RwUsxYlKlHV4PvJxquJ1ec3RIAl3YS3bKgC6dwQYrO7VDt3cd~X1qQ8XUN00lLHsFcHKGlpoTDWgqZ3Ty~~iIvs8z1kTcLIMcqX~ONr8uy6IkC2lP0SB~aXOSxhoiDJJ0GDfl1fTHGpCICssqxTOsJaS5-OUwNIBHkoQHF3RyhqlHklq0N~7hoHbyuo0hTNLNot0im9EHBte-maZeeQwoRc54~q~FICcIdPso3FP0QhGLw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Atchison County Commission on June 24 adopted a policy recommended by the Atchison County Lake Committee and asked staff to coordinate implementation, including website updates and revenue tracking.

Ian Saxton, committee chair, presented a short policy document and a committee plan. Saxton said the committee had agreed responsibilities with Road and Bridge staff and described the policy as “short and sweet,” asking the commission to accept the committee’s submission. Saxton told commissioners the committee has established a foundation for donations and plans volunteer cleanup days to maintain the park facilities.

Committee materials presented at the meeting showed planned amenities and revenue ideas: an initial set of 4–5 RV sites with utilities expanding to 10 over time, tent campsites in two locations that could total roughly 10 sites, and continued use of shelter houses. Saxton said the committee is pursuing a kayak rental business that expected to operate around the Fourth of July weekend and is organizing volunteer cleanup work; the committee reported coordination with the sheriff’s office for discarded drug‑needle removal at shelter houses.

Saxton asked the commission to accept the committee’s policy document as submitted; commissioners voted 3‑0 to adopt the policy. Commissioners asked staff to update county webpages to reflect the committee structure and to ensure lake revenue is routed through county accounting. The committee also said it would continue outreach, hold a “match day” fundraising event in August and present a broader plan at a July date requested by the commission.

The committee emphasized that it will not pursue selling county lake land, and that revenues (for example hay‑ground leases) will be routed through county accounting and reported to the commission. The committee requested staff help with minor edits to the draft policy (for example correcting department names on county organizational charts) and to bring a formalized policy or resolution forward if the commission desired a more formal record.","The Atchison County Commission adopted a county lake policy proposed by the county lake committee. The committee described cleanup work, volunteer days, a new Facebook page, a foundation and plans for limited RV and tent camping to generate revenue.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6553442,"Atchison County commissioners approve routine purchase orders, payroll changes and lake policy; multiple votes pass unanimously",102,3915000,4017000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5067807-043f19af589bde04c41c4025bcf4b7ef&start=3915&end=4017","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5067807-043f19af589bde04c41c4025bcf4b7ef/thumbnail_3915000.jpg","/articles/6553442/Atchison-County/Kansas/Atchison-County-commissioners-approve-routine-purchase-orders-payroll-changes-and-lake-policy-multiple-votes-pass-unanimously","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553442-8732d4afe3b7a0de2ff4d9f44b81bc5b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773639560&Signature=WLRVTFeDjVtT-zhDkuaB5KU6-N9N98hYzZC8IfZLzXmc6ZKixhR-~eq~S4tHpmRtd3Hl7QY9MjKzPBWwhH4OS43WkxB6bguIkA5U45OKQ3Gnq9ooGAx8xOgLsTluKRSxJbhbMGmzWd90is-daKtYjfD~atm32IaryMKbnAcRjPsYmDmErMPFJ6MLptuD0EVUg5G6yzxEcGCxXk55chxskjqF~9p0KfPrWGqdQxmSNHtZgf6jGolRW80J5BXcihP21rpq-Bq-z8GsWY0j9f0yf4V5CgNjkUJddZE-KsI7OOZt8XKVi8ZzP2~iK5l9QkFqTtCPadHjvCLTXdmg-H8SBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Atchison County commissioners approved a series of routine agenda items on June 24, voting 3‑0 on each recorded action.

The commission approved the day’s agenda, including three additions, by voice vote (ayes 3‑0). The consent agenda — meeting minutes and the finance director’s review — passed on a unanimous voice vote.

Formal approvals recorded in the meeting included:

- A purchase order payment to Tunkes Construction for payment number 3 on a culvert/bridge contract in the amount of $9,022.84 (commission motion and unanimous voice vote).

- A purchase order for Atchison County Community Corrections for office furniture, $3,525, funded from that department’s 2025 budget (approved 3‑0).

- A payroll status form to reflect a state‑authorized 2.5% cost‑of‑living adjustment for an Atchison County Community Corrections employee, changing Catherine Sparks’s hourly rate from $40.51 to $41.53 (approved 3‑0).

- A motion to approve and file the May EMS report as presented by the EMS director (approved 3‑0).

- Adoption of the Ashland County Lake policy as presented by committee chair Ian Saxton (approved 3‑0).

All recorded motions in the meeting that reached a vote were passed unanimously by the three present commissioners. The meeting included other informational items and extended substantive discussion on a separate bridge/crossing issue; no stated votes on that item were taken on June 24.","Atchison County commissioners voted unanimously on routine agenda items June 24 including several purchase orders, a payroll status form, filing of an EMS report and adoption of a county lake policy.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6553446,"Atchison County commission debates repair plan, cost-sharing for county bridge serving one property",2932,538000,3470000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5067807-043f19af589bde04c41c4025bcf4b7ef&start=538&end=3470","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5067807-043f19af589bde04c41c4025bcf4b7ef/thumbnail_538000.jpg","/articles/6553446/Atchison-County/Kansas/Atchison-County-commission-debates-repair-plan-cost-sharing-for-county-bridge-serving-one-property","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553446-e76ce745a730410ea5a65fb0d34ad9c1/orig.mp4?Expires=1773639560&Signature=HqgjAbOV4rmo7xgYSFiMmNpLwWls2RQoCMdz7IHMH70wVPPtjNLgu6As1x17JDbU23QnIPzo0Vehm2mMKmx4K~F5nQ9ZX7WEJPy8suJayfNfvMXVd1kgM78nnJER1HWk9jxe35-daAFh3uscrP-lb0MFfD1GdMBSZDjjnOf-UoKUB16lV9ueP~dAfQEXhludN3BET68kYGLyg6blQmzUbrBcJKPgBqqZD66AuEWuE5ZgAub5wTstgqd3rEiClg9O1ksrq4yFJRN0Mns8ad0W3Z-1aiR9MmEICK7onwlW55IGxgclwH5cerEQYRR7E7Z0p0Qo1oykm-a-uK6SEiXRZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Atchison County commissioners and lawyers for the Fung family discussed options for Bridge 29.8‑C‑5 on June 24, focusing on whether to replace the wooden structure with a like‑kind bridge or to install culverts and how costs and long‑term ownership would be allocated.

The discussion centered on both legal obligations and practical tradeoffs. Mike Koppelman, who said he represents the Fung family and WLF Hills LLC, told the commission the land behind the crossing is nearly 500 acres and “if this bridge is removed, it completely lowers the value of that land. It will be a taking of the constitution.” Koppelman referenced “statute 68‑11‑26” and a 1921 Jefferson County case that he said supports the family’s view that the county has an obligation to proceed with repair or reconstruction.

Pat Henderson, county counselor, told the commission the statute requires the county to “commence at once the proceedings necessary” but argued the law does not force a specific outcome. “The statute does not say you must build a bridge,” Henderson said, adding that the proceedings can result in a decision not to build a like‑kind structure. Henderson said the legal question is unresolved and that the matter contains both legal and policy components.

Commissioners and the family’s representative repeatedly discussed culverts as a lower‑cost alternative to a full replacement. Commissioners noted engineering work and a county engineering study recommended culverts as a practical option that would improve the weight rating compared with the deteriorated wooden structure. One commissioner observed culverts are “cheaper and more functional” and described them as a likely “win‑win.” Koppelman said the family would accept a culvert solution if it allowed farm equipment and recreational visitors to access the property as before.

The county’s staff advised that removing the bridge from the county bridge inventory so a culvert is placed in a new alignment can make the crossing ineligible for future state or federal bridge funding and could transfer long‑term maintenance responsibility to the landowner. Henderson and road and bridge staff discussed the state program that pays counties to remove bridges from the inventory and said state funds, if awarded, cover part of a county’s cost-share for other bridge projects, not a payment that the county can hand directly to a landowner.

Commissioners said they are divided on precedent and countywide fairness. One commissioner said the county cannot assume responsibility for structures that benefit only a single parcel, while another warned that repeatedly refusing to replace or repair such crossings could lead to litigation and county liability to compensate landowners for lost access.

The commission asked staff to develop written proposals: (1) a cost estimate and formal RFP/specification for installing culverts at or adjacent to the current crossing, (2) a draft cost‑share agreement that would remove the crossing from county inventory if both parties agree, and (3) documentation of the legal research on K.S.A. 68‑11‑26 and related case law. Commissioners scheduled follow‑up talks and agreed staff would work with the family’s representative to produce a proposal for the commission to consider at a later meeting.

The commission did not vote on a final replacement plan at the June 24 meeting and made no formal commitment to fund a full bridge replacement at county expense.","County commissioners, a landowner representative and the county counselor debated whether to rebuild Bridge 29.8‑C‑5 or install culverts, and whether the county or the landowner should share costs or accept responsibility if the structure is removed from the county inventory.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Finance director outlines 2026 budget drivers; commissioners set timeline for R&R notice

Atchison County Lake committee policy adopted; committee outlines cleanup, revenue and outreach plans

Atchison County commissioners approve routine purchase orders, payroll changes and lake policy; multiple votes pass unanimously

Atchison County commission debates repair plan, cost-sharing for county bridge serving one property