IamTHATguy

Follow

Comment history

Tonganoxie woman killed in U.S. 24-40 accident near Basehor

First, prayers for all those involved.
KDOT, the blood is on your hands for this one...
TWENTY MONTHS ago, you approved a traffic signal for this intersection (http://www.basehorinfo.com/news/2010/...). Should have been in place by now.
How many more have to die at this corner before something gets done?
Does it REALLY take 20 months to accomplish nothing? Oh yeah, I'm, sure you've been busy doing studies, and "engineering design". No rush, it's only people's lives at stake here...

August 12, 2012 at 6:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Chances of escapees remaining free are slim, past history shows

Little late with this story - They were caught last night...
http://kansascitykansan.com/blogs/nic...

November 17, 2011 at 7:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

County proposal would stick sewer district with bill of $1.93 million

The county commissioners chose to "upgrade" the line and routing for the benefit of future development, costing SD#3 several $100,000 additional. Those additional costs should be borne by the county at large, not just by the residents of Glenwood.
Also, the schools account for roughly 20% of the "need", and should pay their fair share of the cost, not the same cost as a single connection.
Nobody is asking for welfare - just fairness. The way this whole boondoggle was done is ridiculous - Build it, and THEN figure out what it costs????? Sounds like something Congress would do....

October 14, 2011 at 6:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

County proposal would stick sewer district with bill of $1.93 million

Look for KDHE to continue expanding connection mandates in the area. Here's why:

In 2000, Basehor built a treatment plant ($3 million & change) for 1500 connections, that was expandable in 4 phases of 1500 connections each. In 2008, it was time for the phase 2 expansion (~$2 million). Instead of doubling the plant to support 3000 connections (per the plan), Basehor made a HORRIBLE decision to build ALL remaining phases at once, giving them a plant to support 6000 connections (~22,000 people). That expansion cost ~$7 million dollars instead of the $2 million needed. They now have a HUGE plant that is running at 1/3 capacity, along with $10 MILLION dollars in loans - to KDHE. Those loans are set up on an escalating payment schedule - smaller payments at the beginning, stepping up in amount every 5 years. We're just seeing the tip of the iceberg here.

New construction is dead. If they had only done the phase 2 expansion, payments would be tight, but do-able with a few new connections each year. However, since they WAY overbuilt, the upcoming payments are huge, getting bigger, and will require at least 100 new connections per year, along with large rate increases. Basehor should be happy to have the $10,000 per month in new user fees and the $300,000 connection windfall that KDHE is giving them with Glenwood. Instead of accepting and encouraging new connections, SOME councilmembers have decided to wring every last dollar from anyone who comes along. Well, guess what - when potential future customers see how you treat your forced connections, your potential new connections will just build elsewhere. You are killing the future business you need to stay cost-effective.

Where osur351 and others should be concerned, is that Basehor owes all this money to KDHE, mostly due to THEIR (including several current members) BAD expansion decision in 2008 (which KDHE reviewed and approved). KDHE won't let Basehor default - they WILL force others to connect, and they WILL force Basehor to continue raising rates to support this oversize elephant they've all built. You people in Basehor (Elaine Bundy et al) who want to see SD #3 pay the maximum, just wait, because your rates will continue to go thru the roof without a LOT of new connections. Sewers operate on economy of scale - the more you treat, the lower the cost per unit. Since you are effectively discouraging more voluntary units, look for the operating costs to increase, along with ever-escalating debt payments.

There's no incentive for KDHE to help SD#3 with funding. They will get paid one way or the other, so why give away grant money to repay themself? With KDHE you have the worst combination possible - bureaucrats and engineers who are completely in control of the own destiny, at taxpayer expense. When they need more work/money, they get to decide who is or isn't compliant, and then define the projects required.

It's an ugly situation, and it's going to get even uglier.

October 13, 2011 at 12:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

County commission's proposed 2012 budget would raise mill levy by 2.5

Sorry, but that's STILL a 7.3% increase. I checked with MY boss, and I won't be getting a 7.3% increase in my pay this year. As YOUR boss, neither should you...

July 26, 2011 at 6:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

New Bonner hardware store set to open Friday

"Labor Day weekend, May 27-28"
Wouldn't that be Memorial Day weekend?

Nice store - went in Saturday to check it out!

May 9, 2011 at 1:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

City council weighs possible tax break offer to attract new Wolf Creek retailer

If you "help" businesses as much as you "helped" the people of Glenwood Estates, the city coffers should be overflowing in no time.

Let's tell big business that "We'll do everything we can to minimize the impact" (your words, not mine), then add a $1000 PREMIUM (on top of the normal rate) to their sewer connection. Let's prepare annexation letters for them that we never actually mail out. Then, when their monthly bills start, let's tack on ANOTHER 50% premium because they never signed the letter that we didn't send......

You do realize that Glenwood is only a few feet outside the imaginary urban boundary line? You COULD unilaterally annex us or petition the county commission to do so (or even MAIL the letters). Instead, you decided to do a money grab. People here buy gas in Basehor, go to the local restaurant (or at least used to...), volunteer in the community, and are active in the schools... And you (together with Leavenworth County and the State of Kansas) completely screwed us over .

Seriously, Basehor, tell me how you justify a $120 per month sewer bill for the $60 in water that I use? Really? (Glenwood residents reading this - the April bill you just received was only for 4 DAYS - multiply it by 7.5 to see YOUR monthly rate)

SURE, let's give tax breaks to businesses with no community roots, while we rob our friends and neighbors blind...

May 6, 2011 at 9:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Leavenworth County bridge work limits routes crossing I-70

"...leaving the county with just one paved road that crosses the interstate: County Road 1..."

Actually, CR #1 is the only NORTH-SOUTH paved road over I-70 currently open. However, there are 2 other paved roads that cross I-70 in Leavenworth county - Kansas Avenue on the east end, and K32 on the west end. But, we understood what you meant... ;)

February 24, 2011 at 6:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Glenwood Estates residents must pay full connection fee

Sorry - messed up the dates. First paragraph should read:
I did review the meeting agenda for JANUARY 17th on the City of Basehor website. Since the council took action at the DECEMBER 20th meeting (article linked above), rate approval was listed on the consent agenda.

February 23, 2011 at 1:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Glenwood Estates residents must pay full connection fee

BTW, I did review the meeting agenda for Feb 17th on the City of Basehor website. Since the council took action at the Jan 20th meeting (article linked above), rate approval was listed on the consent agenda. Link: http://www.cityofbasehor.org/elecoffi...

Apparently THIS council does not know how a consent agenda is used - if there was to be discussion on the agenda item, it should have been listed as a regular agenda item, not a consent item. You could have then solicited some input from all parties involved instead of leading people to believe that you were taking routine action on a "settled" item..

Here's some light reading for the city council on use of consent agendas:
http://bloch.umkc.edu/mwcnl/board%20r...

Please note the sentence:
" Consent agendas are not to be used to hide actions that will be controversial -- to do so breaches the trust of the board and undermines the value of this practice"

February 23, 2011 at 1:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous