Kan. Senate To Approve City Debt Bill

There are 5 comments on the WIBW-TV Topeka story from Mar 15, 2012, titled Kan. Senate To Approve City Debt Bill. In it, WIBW-TV Topeka reports that:

The measure would give the city an additional three years to reduce the ratio of outstanding debt to its total property valuation.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WIBW-TV Topeka.

what

Spring Hill, KS

#1 Mar 16, 2012
This is what the city intends to do with the extra debt limit time.
They are planning for another major anexation of county property and rural residential land to boost the city property value to offset the debt limit without paying any more on the debt than they are now. This time there are no petitions or new subdivisions, no one has sold off their land for development. This will mean no improvements to annexed land or roads unless petioned and paid for by annexed residents, but their taxes will go up.
The city has hundreds of acres of unimproved property as well as empty lots and roads blocked off to keep trash dumping down. The city staff freely admits that the water, storm sewers, sanitary sewers and many other facilities will need major improvements in a few years if not right away. All the while the leaders and staff are plotting and planning to shortcut while oppressing the residents close to the present city border. This is an un-needed action by the city except to manipulate the debt limit and burden county residents.
This is a low in our city government again in less than seven years. They didn't improve the areas annexed before and they can't even afford to mow their own property or clean snow off the streets, but they put our money and energy into parks, leaking ponds, and annexation that will surely end up in district court this time. Just figure how much their private lawyer Katie Logan will charge to sit in on every individual annexation in district court along with city staff as well. Does this sound like a smart move? Well, this is what they are planning. The difference this time is the people in these areas are ready to fight in court if necessary costing the city a fortune.
The names have changed in the Junction City government but the same kind of people are running it.
property owner

Junction City, KS

#2 Mar 16, 2012
Amen to that. You nailed it on the head. Maybe if we quit giving tax breaks to businesses moving across town we could pay off the debt.
jc resident

Junction City, KS

#3 Mar 16, 2012
where are you getting this information? Or is this another rumour that someone started to get people riled up. please tell me where this document is that specifically states that the city is going to annex specific property. meeting minutes? proclamation? newspaper?
county

Junction City, KS

#4 Mar 16, 2012
the city can't annex the land without the county's permission. If you don't like it, petition the county commissioners to not allow it.
what

Spring Hill, KS

#5 Mar 17, 2012
jc resident wrote:
where are you getting this information? Or is this another rumour that someone started to get people riled up. please tell me where this document is that specifically states that the city is going to annex specific property. meeting minutes? proclamation? newspaper?

There was a map printed in the union months ago as well as discussion in the city meeting. Mayor Landis based his campaign on the fact he was going to annex the county properties "benefiting" from the city improvements (yeah, right). Ask County Commissioner Ben Bennett and he will say "it will happen this year" so much for the county permission. As soon as they can get Yearout to figure out how to construct this annexation to appear legal, they will attempt to proceed. As far as meeting minutes, good luck, they don't record everthing they discuss but it may be there, I haven't looked. Their map in the paper showed many properties that could not be legally annexed but I know they will be trying to get them anyway. I hope the residents in these areas fight to stop this action. County residents didn't support going into the amount of debt the city has and should not be scooped up to help pay it off. The last major annexation was done with the reasoning to straighten the city border and it has. There isn't an emergency management, police, fire, sheriff, or road crew that doesn't know who or what land is in the city. There is no need to waste taxpayers money on annexing any more land. But if they will spend $150,000 to pump water in a leaking pond that wasn't done right to begin with (thank Kaw Valley for thay one) then this shouldn't be a big surprise.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sam Brownback Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Kansas smokers unhappy with proposal for cigare... Fri usherhollens 4
News States debate whether to tax income or consumption May 9 Tazo 1
News Missouri Senate votes to override veto of welfa... May 5 see the light 1
News Kansas, Texas to join Florida lawsuit against O... May 4 HumanSpirit 1
News Old battle lines drawn anew in Kansas May 1 Phister 3
News More Apr '15 grow up 1
News New Kansas Law Bans Spending Welfare Benefits A... Apr '15 Sterkfontein Swar... 1
More from around the web