[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6747173,"mediaKeyId","5455417-f7a7d109e0098a3c360dfe88e6583fea","parentId",5455417,"title","Residents urge Leavenworth County to reject Riverbend Heights RHID, citing taxes and infrastructure","audioSeconds",1272,"startMs",105000,"endMs",1377000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5455417-f7a7d109e0098a3c360dfe88e6583fea&start=105&end=1377","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5455417-f7a7d109e0098a3c360dfe88e6583fea/thumbnail_105000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6747173/Leavenworth-County/Kansas/Residents-urge-Leavenworth-County-to-reject-Riverbend-Heights-RHID-citing-taxes-and-infrastructure","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6747173-33277babdeb0b2267e8b0031d523595b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770592829&Signature=G1XbRQmYMbSfmF4YS~DAKYarpaMCAmKfg0nZxgTH1Lka21AvnAvow6hEgtWWNzLfScIqEDTZYAVNlfCd9f2jAUb4tTG-RVF5o4xlNOvubHCT1~gros~GaQMdONYN814OJ3FLeItH0INDEMjn3yVIA0lOh4SqvwcHUkjYoJ3-iM5AUSqvTVZKzcoVUWelGqp3aBne98MZapgUa9tTMc23WJ90uR9XX1H4TN4D1Goq~FK94sBo91COn00R5jCuAiatxZv~ggtjTm0TmcYr9fyDE8NzAVUGwpO5JOLFaHaXP-8noLpSyf1lazr5YASmYbvMiqEFLk~nRuiLG~m1O4iXeQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Leavenworth County, KS","date","2025-07-23T21:17:25.36Z","article","Multiple residents and neighborhood activists urged the Leavenworth County Board of Commissioners to oppose the proposed Riverbend Heights residential housing improvement district (RHID), a 146‑acre development proposed by Ad Astra that commenters said would encompass roughly 406 homes.

\"These houses won't be affordable to our local police, firefighters, and teachers,\" said Rebecca Mahan, a Lansing resident, who asked commissioners to \"vote down this RHID in Riverbend Heights.\" Mahan said the development would \"deplete our local resources and cause a heavier financial burden to your taxpayers.\"

April Cromer praised the board's April 23 decision to cap RHIDs at 15 years and said Lansing City Council unanimously denied the Riverbend Heights RHID on May 1. \"That should have been the end of the story,\" Cromer said, accusing the developer and members of the Leavenworth County Development Corporation of pressuring officials and seeking to \"rewrite the ending.\" She characterized the requested taxing district as \"deeply unethical\" and warned that the county would receive only a small share of captured tax revenue over the life of the RHID.

Paul Cromer told the commission that nearby development can occur without tax abatements and said the county would get only 6.67% of the captured tax revenue under the Riverbend Heights plan. John Bridal, another resident, called the project \"not a modest project\" and repeated figures included in the project's RHID materials about infrastructure costs and the number of homes proposed. Several speakers said the neighborhood historically consists of larger, 2.5‑acre lots and argued the proposed density (small lots and 406 houses) would change the character of the area.

Other public commenters raised traffic and safety concerns for McIntyre Road and K‑7, questioned school capacity and water infrastructure, and said the RHID package appeared to give outsized financial benefit to an out‑of‑town developer. \"Please do not allow us to be used as a cash cow for this developer,\" Mahan said.

No formal county action on the Riverbend Heights RHID was taken during the meeting. Commissioners did not vote on the RHID at this session; the remarks during public comment were recorded for the public record and for future consideration on the agenda.

Why it matters: Public commenters framed the RHID debate as a choice between short‑term developer incentives and long‑term tax and service obligations for county residents and schools. The county’s previous policy action capping RHIDs at 15 years and the Lansing City Council’s May 1 denial of the district were cited repeatedly by speakers advocating that the county stand with residents rather than the developer.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","BOCC Meeting for July 23, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Multiple residents and neighborhood activists urged the Leavenworth County Board of Commissioners to oppose the proposed Riverbend Heights residential housing improvement district (RHID), a 146‑acre development proposed by Ad Astra that commenters said would encompass roughly 406 homes.","taxTitle","Leavenworth County, Kansas","taxId",53898,"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},6747168,"Commission approves rate increases, construction contract and policy updates",399,2176000,2575000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5455417-f7a7d109e0098a3c360dfe88e6583fea&start=2176&end=2575","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5455417-f7a7d109e0098a3c360dfe88e6583fea/thumbnail_2176000.jpg","/articles/6747168/Leavenworth-County/Kansas/Commission-approves-rate-increases-construction-contract-and-policy-updates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6747168-388d74886001ff8c8aae96fa60e6684d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770592829&Signature=WSl8qjWlYufaIxS1BkVPnSDVOpsZBEbY-VsL2ajaXxy1l4G0xj8iUlMOjxVjjYuJvUJZ1FDuHN0o24IJ0s8yktniwGj3krhECDxP6O3Mzl~ysKolRu31xVdrxST-vdKdKxBrqogXyOZWi~mYgcLE3vLRnkDGOsA4oU7euaPqQFYmW6E8YioxifavtOUdn2R517JtVY0uYn2A6w571Is4Pbj1lTLiiUW1URiU~IGKOX5xHTUhHXOBldtzbM1UHCvZtGJMcUTk5zLNEozyg519ME7mkHZk~gY0pQUz-leQvnJt3JIV~0qKfZ29QKDZHN9kXMIC12cpZyJkmjdHG454EQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Leavenworth County Board of Commissioners approved a package of administrative measures and contracts during formal board action, including solid-waste fee increases, a gate‑rate adjustment, a construction contract and a public‑comment policy update.

Mark (County Administrator) explained that the county’s transfer-station hauler invoked a CPI increase in its contract and that the proposed changes would help the solid-waste enterprise fund remain self‑supporting. Commissioners approved a motion to raise the minimum charge for municipal solid waste collection from $5 to $10 and to raise the minimum for C&D from $13 to $20. The board also approved a $2 per ton increase to the gate rate to cover the hauler’s CPI adjustment; the motion presented at the meeting specified an effective date of 09/01/2025 in the motion text.

The board approved an amendment to the county health‑plan rate card that had been discussed in prior budget work sessions; the change formalizes earlier direction to limit pay‑period impacts for employees. The board also approved placement of multiple vehicles and equipment on Purple Wave for auction, including a non‑operational Freightliner that staff said it does not make financial sense to repair.

Commissioners approved a construction contract with Eberk Construction for the 230 Fifth Street project in the amount of $4,301,411.96 with a 7.5% contingency; staff said the contractor intends to begin work in October. The board also approved an updated public‑comment policy that staff had revised at the commissioners’ direction.

The board authorized a county counsel/board order (2025‑10) to allow the county counselor to take action to secure Leavenworth County’s share of multi‑party opioid settlements and to file required paperwork. County staff said the eventual settlement amounts depend on which jurisdictions participate and that the board needed to avoid missing procedural deadlines.

Votes at a glance:
- Consent agenda: approved (motion and second; recorded as three affirmative votes).
- MSW and C&D minimums: approved (motion by Commissioner Duff; second and recorded affirmative votes).
- Gate-rate increase ($2/ton): approved (motion and second; recorded affirmative votes).
- Health-plan rate-card amendment (2025–2026): approved (motion, second; recorded affirmative votes).
- Surplus equipment sale on Purple Wave: approved (motion, second; recorded affirmative votes).
- 230 Fifth Street contract with Eberk Construction ($4,301,411.96): approved with 7.5% contingency (motion, second; recorded affirmative votes).
- Updated public‑comment policy: approved (motion, second; recorded affirmative votes).
- Board order 2025‑10 (opioid settlements authorization): approved (motion, second; recorded affirmative votes).

Where it matters: The rate changes were framed as necessary to keep the solid‑waste enterprise fund self‑supporting after the contractor’s CPI adjustment. The contract approval advances a grant‑funded construction project for 230 Fifth Street while the opioid authorization preserves the county’s ability to accept settlement shares without missing legal deadlines.","The Leavenworth County Board of Commissioners approved a package of administrative measures including solid-waste fee increases, a gate‑rate adjustment, a construction contract and an updated public‑comment policy.",{"_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},6747163,"Commissioners ask staff for options to reduce Meals on Wheels wait list; agree to provisional $5,000 for Sparrow Women's Clinic",915,4095000,5010000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5455417-f7a7d109e0098a3c360dfe88e6583fea&start=4095&end=5010","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5455417-f7a7d109e0098a3c360dfe88e6583fea/thumbnail_4095000.jpg","/articles/6747163/Leavenworth-County/Kansas/Commissioners-ask-staff-for-options-to-reduce-Meals-on-Wheels-wait-list-agree-to-provisional-5000-for-Sparrow-Womens-Clinic","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6747163-2a531e4e33adb17b52a6f6c9979a271e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770592829&Signature=aESsTFjL-DVOZYCNB2O9GvQiYcqwrSK4WOhiAwaxnimxd1kuzyL4Z8K6rF-56BRSFwOGkZgG3oZIcbDwJgfQK~v68Zge4RIATcB-EQgOJ-4sJWuG7NxTpGgGx7cQVAHxqNt5X1NWEaO9lPaoh9ATZ-S9ZYcol6qbNTaghMCApSutgdB1Rg1MCD2LUMEvrzd7fpiwmWxArx-3hjIWU3tjyAUx7D5XMq6y9dbqBqFeRlzipUdqdRVmIAcw9G4XNtES8POGg9OAtoLlGyeQDbkQqJi5bB4lgyrxguqrHnyZ8avVeAtISMy~oTAKG-7NPW6fVFgneMI2i6cBBB2GPLb9-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners heard an extended briefing on the county’s Meals on Wheels program and asked staff to return with concrete policy options to reduce a modest wait list while preserving services for low‑income residents.

Connie, the program director, told the board that Meals on Wheels eligibility follows federal and state guidance (age 60+) and includes home‑delivered meals for seniors who are isolated, caregivers who need respite and households where a senior cares for a younger person with a disability. Connie said the program serves roughly 670 recipients and that the in‑meeting data showed a current wait list of 10. She said staff estimate the full cost to produce and deliver a meal at about $12 and that the county currently charges recipients $3 per meal; the county subsidizes the balance.

\"About 40% of our recipients fall at or below the poverty guideline and do not pay the full contribution,\" Connie said, explaining that donations and fundraising cover some of the gap. Commissioners asked practical questions about alternatives for higher‑income recipients (family support, hiring private home‑health aides, other delivery services) and noted the administrative complexity of adding routes or staff to clear the wait list.

Commissioners asked staff to return with a short menu of options, including: a sliding fee scale tied to federal poverty levels (examples discussed at the meeting included tiers up to 400% of the poverty level), a required contribution that more closely reflects the $12 per‑meal cost for higher‑income recipients, and a timeline for phased implementation that would give recipients notice to arrange alternatives. Several commissioners said they did not want to cut meals for people in genuine need but also raised concerns about subsidizing higher‑income households while other residents face financial strain.

On related budget questions about outside‑agency requests, commissioners reached provisional agreement to include $5,000 for Sparrow Women’s Clinic in the 2026 budget. Commissioners said that amount would be manageable within a projected quarter‑mill decrease in the mill levy, while larger additions would jeopardize the planned reduction.

Where it matters: Meals on Wheels is a cost‑subsidized, county‑administered service that functions as both a nutrition and welfare check for seniors. The county’s near‑term policy choices will determine whether the program expands capacity, tightens income eligibility, or shifts more program cost onto individual recipients.","Leavenworth County staff described Meals on Wheels eligibility, costs and a small wait list; commissioners asked staff to return with options (sliding scale, income caps, tiers) to address capacity. Separately the board provisionally agreed to add $5,000 for the Sparrow Women's Clinic to the 2026 budget.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Residents urge Leavenworth County to reject Riverbend Heights RHID, citing taxes and infrastructure

Commission approves rate increases, construction contract and policy updates

Commissioners ask staff for options to reduce Meals on Wheels wait list; agree to provisional $5,000 for Sparrow Women's Clinic