From: Grandma Hoerners <gourmetstore@grandmahoerners.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 10:58 AM
To: mcre13@gmail.com <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: Thank you!
mcre Media
Tuesday, April 7, 2026
Re: Fw: Thank you!
Fw: Thank you!
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 10:58 AM
To: mcre13@gmail.com <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: Thank you!
Sunday, April 5, 2026
Check out this TikTok video
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
Saturday, April 4, 2026
Figs
Watch "10 Biblical Superfoods That Will Heal You Instantly" on YouTube
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
Dates
Friday, April 3, 2026
More studies
Local public commentary and records reference his total compensation in the range of approximately $187,000 base salary + ~$7,200 annual vehicle allowance. This is consistent with executive pay at similar mid-sized regional airports and is funded through MTAA's operating budget (mix of property taxes, grants, leases, and fees). Exact figures come from audited financials/budgets available on the MTAA site.
Eric M. Johnson is the current President and Director of Airports (top executive role) at the Metropolitan Topeka Airport Authority (MTAA), which operates Topeka Regional Airport (FOE) and Philip Billard Municipal Airport. He remains in this position as of April 2026, with no public announcements of resignation, termination, or board action to remove him.
Background and Tenure
Johnson has held the President/Director role since at least June 2008 — approximately 18 years as of April 2026. He is the public face of MTAA in media interviews, FAA communications, board meetings, and project updates. His responsibilities include:
- Aviation operations and air service development (e.g., ongoing (but repeatedly stalled) efforts to attract commercial/point-to-point flights).
- Maintenance, capital projects (runway/taxiway/hangar upgrades), fuel services (TOP Fuel Service at Philip Billard).
- Leasing, economic development coordination, and grant/FAA compliance.
- Serving as the primary spokesperson (media inquiries route through him).
Public bios are limited — he appears to be a long-term Topeka-based airport professional with deep institutional knowledge of the dual-airport setup and its unique governance (independent authority with tax levy support from the district).
Compensation (Publicly Reported)
Local public commentary and records reference his total compensation in the range of approximately $187,000 base salary + ~$7,200 annual vehicle allowance. This is consistent with executive pay at similar mid-sized regional airports and is funded through MTAA's operating budget (mix of property taxes, grants, leases, and fees). Exact figures come from audited financials/budgets available on the MTAA site.
The $1.8 Million Judgment and Related Concerns
The $1.8 million judgment you referenced was served on the MTAA as an entity on December 12, 2025 (not personally on Johnson). It has been publicly raised in local meetings (e.g., by resident Carol Marple at a February 2026 Shawnee County Commission session) alongside questions about:
- Who pays it (taxpayers via mill levy? Reserves?).
- Transparency around the case (reportedly tied to a contract/property/real-estate dispute).
- Broader spending (e.g., references to a holiday party and other line items).
This has fueled calls for “housecleaning” or greater accountability at MTAA. No public records show the judgment naming Johnson individually or alleging personal misconduct. MTAA’s board and staff (including Johnson) have not issued detailed public statements on the specifics in mainstream coverage, though board packets continue routine operations.
Older records show minor historical involvement in a 2010 vendor dispute (he provided an affidavit), but nothing recent or ongoing that directly implicates him personally.
Why Does He Still Have the Job?
This is the core of your question — and it’s a fair point many Topeka residents have raised publicly. Here’s the factual governance reality:
- Board Oversight, Not Automatic Removal: MTAA is governed by a 5-member Board of Directors (3 appointed by the Topeka Mayor, 2 by Shawnee County Commission). The board hires, evaluates, and can terminate the executive director under the terms of his employment contract. There have been no public votes, executive session outcomes, or news reports of the current board (Chair Samuel Sutton and members Carlos Cortez, Michael Odupitan, Michael Munson, Brian Armstrong) moving to end his tenure.
- Entity vs. Personal Liability: Lawsuits/judgments against the authority (a public body) do not automatically trigger firing the CEO unless there is proven personal negligence, misconduct, or policy violation. No such findings appear in public court/board records.
- Long Tenure as a Double-Edged Sword: 18 years of continuity is often cited internally as a strength for grant management and FAA relations. Critics (including in local Facebook groups and commentary) argue it has led to entrenched practices, stalled progress on commercial service, and insufficient accountability on spending/reserves.
- Credit Markets and Operations Separate: S&P Global still assigned an ‘AA’ rating with Stable Outlook to MTAA’s February 2026 GO bonds — driven primarily by the unlimited ad valorem tax pledge and low debt burden, not day-to-day management controversies.
- No Public Performance Crisis Trigger: Recent board packets (through December 2025) show Johnson continuing to deliver standard reports on projects, air service, maintenance, and fuel sales. Commercial air service remains a long-standing challenge (latest update: “indefinitely delayed” as of February 4, 2026), but this predates and spans his entire tenure.
In short: Public entities like MTAA operate under open-records laws and board governance. Without a board majority deciding there is cause for termination (or the contract expiring without renewal), the executive stays — even amid controversy or legal losses at the organizational level. Residents can influence this through public comment at board meetings, contacting appointees, or open records requests for contracts/performance reviews.
Bottom Line
Johnson is a long-serving career airport executive whose role is insulated by MTAA’s structure and the board’s apparent continued support. The $1.8M judgment has spotlighted governance and spending questions for many in Topeka (your blog and local commentary have been part of that), but it has not resulted in any visible change to his position as of April 2026.
If you’d like me to pull specific board minutes, the latest audited financials, compare his tenure/performance to peer Kansas airports, or help draft a neutral blog-style summary for mcrekansas.blogspot.com that lays out these facts, just say the word. For official details, the best sources remain mtaa-topeka.org (staff/board pages and packets) or public records requests to MTAA/Shawnee County. Let me know how else to help!
MTAA
- MTAA faced a legal judgment reportedly around $1.8 million.
- There are reports that the authority has not fully paid the judgment, leading to criticism about accountability and why no personnel changes occurred.
- The $2.7 million figure likely refers to funds set aside or reserved in MTAA's financials (possibly in operating funds, reserves, or as a contingency for this or related legal/financial exposure). Smaller regional airports like MTAA often maintain reserves for capital needs, grant compliance, or unexpected costs, and litigation can draw from or require additions to those.
- Primary Security — Unlimited property tax levy within the MTAA district. This is very strong protection for bondholders and often overrides operating or litigation issues unless the tax base itself is threatened.
- Debt Burden — MTAA's debt is relatively small and infrequent. The 2026 issuance is only ~$4.9 million, keeping overall leverage low compared to the taxable property in the district.
- Financial Operations — Airports like Topeka's typically run operating deficits offset by taxes, FAA grants, passenger facility charges, and leases. Liquidity and reserve levels matter.
- Management & Governance — This is where litigation can matter. Persistent non-payment of a judgment, lack of transparency, or repeated controversies could signal weaker oversight. Rating agencies review audits, board minutes, and news for "event risk" or governance red flags.
- Contingent Liabilities — A $1.8M judgment is notable for a small authority but not necessarily rating-altering if reserves (e.g., the referenced $2.7M) cover it, the amount is being appealed/negotiated, or it can be paid from non-tax sources without harming bond security.
- Viewed the exposure as manageable within reserves or the tax pledge.
- Considered it a one-off or isolated matter not indicative of broader financial weakness.
- Focused more on the tax-backed structure and low debt than on operating controversies.
- For bondholders (the 'AA' rating focus): Limited immediate concern due to the strong GO tax backing and small scale of the issuance. The rating reflects "very strong" capacity to pay debt service.
- For taxpayers / local oversight (your perspective): More valid concern. Questions about why the judgment isn't being paid, lack of accountability ("why does no one ever get fired?"), and use of public funds/reserves for litigation fallout highlight governance and efficiency issues that aren't directly captured in a high-level bond rating.
- MTAA's latest audited financial statements or board packets (available on mtaa-topeka.org under Financial Info).
- The Official Statement for the Series 2026 bonds (it should disclose material litigation).
- Recent board minutes discussing the judgment or reserves.
From your standpoint: Topeka isn't unusually aggressive on the base charge compared to peers, but the fixed-heavy model always stings during low-use months (winter, conservation, small household). If your usage stays consistently low, the base will dominate — that's the trade-off for reliable service without massive per-gallon spikes.
Here's a consumer-focused regional comparison of water base charges (the fixed "readiness-to-serve" or monthly meter fee) for a typical single-family residential customer with a standard 1" meter inside city limits. Your Topeka bill uses $21.94 for the 1" water base charge in 2026.
This fee covers infrastructure costs (pipes, plants, maintenance) regardless of how much water you use — which is why your low 1,699-gallon usage makes the bill feel top-heavy.
Regional Base Charge Comparison (2026 or Latest Available Rates)
Data drawn from city rate schedules, utility reports, and analyses for residential customers. Note: Many cities use 5/8" or 3/4" as the "standard" meter (cheaper base); 1" is common for some homes and slightly higher.
| Region / City | Base Charge (1" or Standard Meter) | Notes on Structure & "Hinkiness" for Low Users |
|---|---|---|
| Topeka, KS (your bill) | $21.94 | High fixed portion (~68% of your $32 water subtotal). Feels expensive at low usage but moderate volume rate ($7.75/1,000 gal single-family). |
| Wichita, KS | ~$15–$25 (est. for standard) | Generally lower fixed than Topeka; 2026 increases focused more on volume. Low users may feel less "hinky." |
| Lawrence, KS | Similar to Topeka or slightly lower | Tiered volume rates higher; base comparable but overall bill driven more by usage. |
| Kansas City, MO | Higher fixed portion (~$30–$50 combined water+sewer base est.) | Wastewater and stormwater add significantly; base feels heavier due to infrastructure mandates. |
| Other Midwest (e.g., Columbia MO, Springfield MO, Indianapolis area) | $12–$25 typical | Often lower-to-moderate bases; some shifting toward more consumption-based to ease low-user burden. |
| Northeast US | $30–$60+ (often higher) | Highest regional bases due to old infrastructure repairs; low users pay a lot for "availability." |
| West US (e.g., CA, OR, WA) | $30–$60+ (drought-driven) | Very high fixed + tiered penalties for high use; conservation pushes bases up. |
| South US | $15–$35 typical | Generally more affordable bases; lower overall regional bills. |
| National Average | $20–$40 (standard meter) | Varies widely; combined water+sewer fixed often $40–$80+. Topeka sits in the middle. |
Key Takeaways from a Consumer Viewpoint:
- Topeka's $21.94 base is not an outlier — it's right in the typical Midwest range and below many coastal or older Northeast/West cities where aging pipes and regulations drive fixed costs higher.
- The "hinky" feeling is common nationwide for low-usage households. Most utilities use this two-part system (big base + smaller per-gallon) because infrastructure is expensive to maintain 24/7, even if you use little water. Shifting more to volume charges would punish heavy users (or during droughts) and risk system shortfalls.
- In Kansas/Midwest, bases have risen steadily (Topeka's went from ~$15–$18 in prior years to $21.94 in 2026 as part of a planned schedule), but remain more moderate than national high-cost areas.
- Low users like you (under 2,000 gallons) get hit hardest percentage-wise everywhere. Cities with lower bases or more tiered/inclining blocks feel "fairer" to conservative households.
Nationally, average household water bills (including base + usage) run ~$40–$80/month depending on region and usage, with combined water+sewer often $100–$150. Northeast and West lead in higher costs due to infrastructure needs; Midwest and South tend to be lower.
From your standpoint: Topeka isn't unusually aggressive on the base charge compared to peers, but the fixed-heavy model always stings during low-use months (winter, conservation, small household). If your usage stays consistently low, the base will dominate — that's the trade-off for reliable service without massive per-gallon spikes.
Sponsors?
- Rep. Charlotte Esau
- Rep. Ricky James
- Rep. Bill Rhiley
- Rep. Kevin Schwertfeger
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2026 11:57 AM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Cc: jalcala3@cox.net <jalcala3@cox.net>; Patrick Schmidt <Patrick.Schmidt@Senate.ks.gov>; Rick66.kloos@gmail.com <Rick66.kloos@gmail.com>; Ty Masterson <Ty.Masterson@senate.ks.gov>; Ken Corbet <Ken.Corbet@house.ks.gov>
Subject: Re: MTAA
On Apr 3, 2026, at 11:09 AM, Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com> wrote:
John and Patrick
Please change the state law so we can elect the board @ MTAA
From: Council Assist <Councilassist@topeka.org>
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2026 8:46 AM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>; Molly Howey <Molly.Howey@topekapartnership.com>; Spencer Duncan <sduncan@topeka.org>; Kevin Cook <kevin.cook@snco.us>; countyclerk@snco.us <countyclerk@snco.us>; City Clerk <cclerk@Topeka.org>; MCRE Media <mcre1.9999@blogger.com>; Governing Body <governingbody@topeka.org>; Karen A. Hiller <khiller@Topeka.org>
Subject: RE: MTAAGood morning Mr. McClure,
Thank you for your message. This message serves as confirmation that your email has been received by the council members.
Tonya L. Bailey
Sr. Executive Assistant to the City Council
City of Topeka
215 SE 7th St. Rm 211
785-368-3710
"The preceding email message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges or that may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not listed as a recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful."
From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 4:31 PM
To: Molly Howey <molly.howey@topekapartnership.com>; Spencer Duncan <sduncan@topeka.org>; Kevin Cook <kevin.cook@snco.us>; countyclerk@snco.us; City Clerk <cclerk@topeka.org>; MCRE Media <mcre1.9999@blogger.com>; Governing Body <governingbody@topeka.org>; Karen A. Hiller <khiller@topeka.org>
Subject: MTAA
Notice: -----This message was sent by an external sender-----
Molly as leading NGO
What are you thoughts on MTAA

