[{"_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",6478104,"mediaKeyId","5710264-2dfec64e8c9ddf7c176318d95bb33c56","parentId",5710264,"title","Developer outlines 199‑MW Wolf Creek battery project near Bonner Springs; officials ask about flood risk, decommissioning and community benefits","audioSeconds",1182,"startMs",4057000,"endMs",5239000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5710264-2dfec64e8c9ddf7c176318d95bb33c56&start=4057&end=5239","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5710264-2dfec64e8c9ddf7c176318d95bb33c56/thumbnail_4057000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6478104/Leavenworth-County/Kansas/Developer-outlines-199MW-Wolf-Creek-battery-project-near-Bonner-Springs-officials-ask-about-flood-risk-decommissioning-and-community-benefits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6478104-c5049896ab2b09296704284675c6dd76/orig.mp4?Expires=1773577554&Signature=SWq9bPXLlbo4SYC-MQq0SYbV0AWUDOR-d0gycZbNmgziKG64UDj2GeJZt4ZtZTutbLi7IeF2hFxVclih30O-Vmcb0KOgkjzYsLtfuQ1bcyLE~bjA9pel3lrnt4UskbUAq07KV3WbUeiV6tgw-uRWrCHj9ymGazm2mA331G4bzx9ACG9Z4S7sO5KMflNdIbwFM9vonx3z924rJfeCcIlc3XezInNOiWCDPqMBPHKSX-ll6TPWXE-sI1CgAuG4~1CJpicYL4mrK0dyitfLwe0yO5d1mNe88hAb7oQVuohFZqwXBVQxdJFY-xiBh6nlgs1kgxvsf1mJgmkL8IMiYMmEyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Leavenworth County, KS","date","2025-09-03T20:48:01.533Z","article","Accelergen Energy gave Leavenworth County Commissioners an overview of the proposed Wolf Creek Energy Storage Project, a utility‑scale battery energy storage system the developer says would tie into an Evergy substation about a mile northwest of Bonner Springs.

Project overview presented
Project developer Lauren Kapke explained the proposed facility would be approximately 199 megawatts with a four‑hour duration (about 796 megawatt‑hours of capacity) on roughly a 30‑acre portion of a privately owned parcel adjacent to an Evergy substation. The company said it has a purchase option on the parcel, would seek a county special‑use permit for private utilities in the parcel's current zoning, and aims for a commercial operation date no earlier than late 2028 if construction begins in 2027. The firm described a 20‑year project life.

Developer estimates and community benefits
Accelergen presented an estimate of a minimum $200 million local investment and projected roughly $19 million in property tax contributions over the 20‑year life of the project to county, school, township, library, and special districts. The company estimated about 115 construction jobs during build and two long‑term technical operations positions, said it would prioritize local hiring, and proposed an ongoing local scholarship fund and quarterly community donations during development and operations.

Safety, environmental and operational points discussed
Kapke said the project will use lithium iron phosphate battery chemistry (a lithium‑ion subtype the company described as less prone to thermal runaway than other chemistries), with monitoring, fire detection/suppression, HVAC, and a battery management system. The company said safety features would include 24/7 remote monitoring, local operations staff within a 20–30 minute response window, on‑site fire‑detection and suppression systems, and coordination with the Fairmount Township Fire Department on emergency response planning.

Commissioner questions and staff follow‑up requests
Commissioners and staff asked detailed follow‑up questions, including:
- Floodplain and stormwater: staff and commissioners noted the southern parcel area is mostly within the county floodplain and asked how the project would be sited and drained; the developer said the battery footprint would be on higher ground outside the floodplain and that grading and stormwater basins would be used to manage runoff.
- Decommissioning and bonding: the developer said a decommissioning cost estimate and bond or letter of credit would be developed to ensure the county would not be left with a derelict facility at end of life.
- Noise, lighting and visual impacts: the company said enclosed containers produce some fan and transformer noise and that lights would be downward‑facing and motion activated; a noise study would be completed for permit review.
- Emergency planning and hazardous materials: the developer said lithium iron phosphate chemistry was chosen for safety and that contingency and clean‑up procedures would be in the emergency plan; commissioners asked about potential leaks if containers were inundated and requested explicit mitigation strategies for water intrusion.
- Road impacts: the company said construction traffic would be significant during build and minimal during operations and that the developer would agree to a road‑use agreement and pre/post road condition studies where needed.

Next steps
Accelergen said it will begin neighborhood outreach and intends to invite neighbors to an information meeting later in the month, and that it hopes to file a special‑use permit application with the county before year end. Commissioners asked staff for additional data on floodplain mapping, traffic impacts, emergency response planning, and the proposed community benefit package for later review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","BOCC Meeting for September 3, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Accelergen Energy briefed Leavenworth County commissioners on the Wolf Creek Energy Storage Project, a proposed 199‑MW (4‑hour) battery energy storage facility near Bonner Springs that would connect to an adjacent Evergy substation.","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},6478109,"Leavenworth County commissioners split over Fairlane Townhomes Phase 2 RHID; developers, city and residents clash",1541,1696000,3237000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5710264-2dfec64e8c9ddf7c176318d95bb33c56&start=1696&end=3237","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5710264-2dfec64e8c9ddf7c176318d95bb33c56/thumbnail_1696000.jpg","/articles/6478109/Leavenworth-County/Kansas/Leavenworth-County-commissioners-split-over-Fairlane-Townhomes-Phase-2-RHID-developers-city-and-residents-clash","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6478109-481d9e3b6d5f57defda7337cf835cd84/orig.mp4?Expires=1773577554&Signature=W3aZARt9gTqycBwDizYfrrx6sg~BqXNLD9z9--9A~GBPvyVENbs7RK5npnT1Hd8mEa8WB2~TmDuj0l0qWMToaY4Y-ueVkSAPnpr2QE2Ig-ndZq1WU1CUUN9BBqacZLfvl7wH47eARehO5vqLuOpqCYnvqP8LHfy8fQBtYHYOMihOVDh3cAVfSbHdoqfqJ-lhH~I2nPiOwCW1OUOqbvpzDlRamYWTXnxNt83wCftWey0jrpQenA-wVGW9ReH3FZt7-OzKPgtf~vdr7dE753R2YtzzeozM70r5oxuRq5bU5b6YPze8UNiPPd9IQxmcnYV4FldfVbC67BlIPdjrlHZKIw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Leavenworth County Commissioners spent more than an hour debating a request from a Lansing developer to create a 20‑year Reinvestment Housing Incentive District (RHID) for Fairlane Townhomes Phase 2, a 21‑unit market‑rate rental project in the City of Lansing.

The developer, appearing with a City of Lansing representative, said the proposal meets Lansing and county RHID policy goals, would add market‑rate workforce housing, and would fund on‑site infrastructure improvements the project needs. The packet shows the RHID is capped at about $852,000 and the developer estimated the county would receive “almost $68,000” in additional county tax revenue over the RHID term; county staff provided a separate estimate showing a projected net positive impact to the county of $14,807 over the RHID term.

Why it matters: commissioners framed the debate as a choice between encouraging residential infill and protecting county tax revenue. Supporters argued the RHID will spur infill investment, improve drainage and roadway frontage, and supply workforce housing near employers. Opponents, and several members of the public, said the program shifts infrastructure cost and development risk from private developers to taxpayers and creates unfair advantages for developers who receive incentives.

Details of the proposal and proponents’ case
The applicant said the project would replicate the Phase 1 buildings and include 19 two‑bedroom units and two one‑bedroom units. The developer told commissioners the site requires significant off‑site and on‑site drainage work, curb and gutter improvements, and storm infrastructure; engineering estimates in the packet show substantial site infrastructure costs the applicant says make the project infeasible without RHID support. The developer said the project would start in the fall if approved and estimated a roughly 24‑month construction timetable.

City and school district approvals
City of Lansing staff told the commission the Lansing City Council approved the RHID unanimously and the local school district granted its approval in a separate vote (5‑2 as reported). Lansing’s representative said a traffic study was completed and that the RHID cap represents about 26% of total project cost, and that only new property tax revenue generated by the construction would be used to fund the RHID (i.e., the city and school portions of incremental taxes only).

Public comment and commissioner concerns
Multiple residents spoke during public comment opposing RHIDs for Lansing and Leavenworth County. Sarah George and Betty Kleindance told the commission they opposed using tax dollars to subsidize developers and said the county should protect taxpayers. John Redden criticized RHIDs generally, saying the original intent was rural housing development and that lobbying has expanded RHID use to suburban/urban areas.

Commissioner debate focused on several recurring issues: whether RHIDs shift risk or cost from developers to taxpayers; the fairness of granting incentives to some developers and not others; whether the county should defer to city and school district decisions; and state law design that requires approval from multiple taxing entities. One commissioner urged legislative change so that approval by one taxing entity would not require identical action by others; others said the county must act under current state statute.

Votes and legal steps
The packet and the public record contain multiple formal motions on this item. Commissioners first moved to approve the RHID for Fairlane Townhomes Phase 2; the record includes a roll‑call style outcome described in the transcript as 3‑2 in favor. Later in the meeting, staff advised the commission to reword the record because under statute the RHID could be approved by default unless the commission adopted a resolution finding an adverse effect. A separate motion was then made to adopt a resolution finding an adverse effect and to nullify the RHID (Resolution 2025‑31). The transcript records that motion was moved and seconded and was put to a vote; the transcript records vocal responses but does not contain a clear, unambiguous final roll‑call tally for the nullification motion in the text provided. The packet lists the developer’s stated RHID cap as approximately $852,000.

What remains unsettled / next steps
- The developer said the Phase 2 project “is not happening without RHID”; the transcript records the developer saying the pro forma shows negative cash flow for the first seven years and breakeven only much later. Commissioners asked for, and staff referenced, the county’s fiscal impact memo and the developer’s pro forma in the meeting packet.
- Commissioners debated statutory limits, whether the county should adopt a uniform approach for future RHIDs, and whether state law should be revised to allow partial approvals by taxing entities. Several commissioners said they want legislative changes; others said they will apply the statute as written.
- The city’s approvals and the applicant’s engineering materials and pro forma remain in the public packet.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this report are named as recorded in the meeting record and include the following.","Leavenworth County commissioners debated a developer request to create a 20‑year Reinvestment Housing Incentive District for Fairlane Townhomes Phase 2 in Lansing, with supporters citing workforce housing and infrastructure improvements and opponents saying the RHID shifts risk and tax dollars to county taxpayers.",{"_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},6478100,"Votes at a glance: Leavenworth County Commission actions include fund transfer, rezoning and RHID consideration",449,1419000,1868000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5710264-2dfec64e8c9ddf7c176318d95bb33c56&start=1419&end=1868","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5710264-2dfec64e8c9ddf7c176318d95bb33c56/thumbnail_1419000.jpg","/articles/6478100/Leavenworth-County/Kansas/Votes-at-a-glance-Leavenworth-County-Commission-actions-include-fund-transfer-rezoning-and-RHID-consideration","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6478100-0c83d9747415f9aa281b0935f16d3b2f/orig.mp4?Expires=1773577554&Signature=UYOmhKZAU3D8sTcOo-48dMsJtvApedYFWMOcysqov~vcdXyRtRDcQlKWxGgGaaKe6SsDjn2NwOz832FgvE0h4~HqaGtnQTMGyW3tIEW~pFTebaAcq7DgGThPT6EUFUQTiE7qS7PFdbLjf-lnrALW2WZ3wgJH6UUfrjAML7y4sL5Eu-Rpc1zd4c2YULr0vpAd~AqCiezyxf4NgHFA67Wr9vcd2P9Cm77lzG0cMIUMww7SIRHhNJ-dP0N1Z4frZQXFccsxUeeA3dSgTuLM61dOtFfbW2enmV-AXEyzMJU1wmkvYmdo~KsqqYZjBm2XJ0ow7c4Ied4Vkm91KlS3q9rGnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Key formal actions recorded during the Leavenworth County Commission meeting:

1) Board Order 2025‑11 — Register of Deeds tech fund transfer
- Motion: Approve Board Order 2025‑11 to transfer $92,000 from the Register of Deeds Tech Fund to the BOCC Equipment Fund.
- Purpose: $34,000 proposed for a scanning/digitization project (public works and planning & zoning) and $58,000 for the appraisers' aerial photography contract for the year, per the Register of Deeds presentation.
- Vote / outcome: Motion carried on roll call as recorded in the meeting packet and transcript.

2) Rezoning KHDEV2574 — Springdale Road parcels
- Motion: Approve rezoning KHDEV2574 (21443 Springdale Road) from RR‑5 to RR‑2.5 and adopt Resolution 2025‑30, consistent with the future land use map.
- Vote / outcome: Planning Commission recommended approval; the commission approved the rezoning by roll call per the transcript.

3) Fairlane Townhomes Phase 2 RHID — multiple motions
- Motion(s): Commissioners considered a developer request to create a 20‑year RHID for 21 rental units in Lansing. The commission debated and initially recorded a vote described in the transcript as 3‑2 in favor of creation. Later in the meeting staff noted the statutory default effect and advised rewording records; a subsequent motion was made (Resolution 2025‑31) to find an adverse effect and nullify the RHID. The transcript excerpted does not contain an unambiguous final roll‑call tally for that nullification motion; the minutes should be checked for the definitive recorded outcome.
- Key packet numbers: Developer‑stated RHID cap approximately $852,000; county staff memo estimated a net county positive of $14,807 over the RHID term; developer estimated the project would generate almost $68,000 in additional county taxes over the term (different projections are in the record).

What the public record shows and next steps
- The Register of Deeds fund transfer and the KHDEV2574 rezoning were approved on their motions and will be implemented by county departments per normal processes.
- Because of statutory timing and the mechanics of RHID approvals, county staff advised rephrasing the RHID motion/record to ensure the commission's intent was accurately captured; the transcript shows the reworded motion and a vote but the provided audio transcript excerpt lacks a clear final roll call for the nullification motion. The official minutes and the posted resolution text should be consulted for the final legal disposition of the Fairlane RHID item.

Speakers and sources for these actions are cited in the county packet and the meeting transcript.","At the meeting commissioners approved a Register of Deeds tech fund transfer and a rezoning request; the Reinvestment Housing Incentive District (Fairlane Townhomes Phase 2) generated extensive debate and multiple procedural motions and requires clarification in the official minutes for final disposition.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Developer outlines 199‑MW Wolf Creek battery project near Bonner Springs; officials ask about flood risk, decommissioning and community benefits

Leavenworth County commissioners split over Fairlane Townhomes Phase 2 RHID; developers, city and residents clash

Votes at a glance: Leavenworth County Commission actions include fund transfer, rezoning and RHID consideration