https://share.google/aimode/yLQu0vdXw7GDF8C5z
Henry McClure
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
Tuesday, April 7, 2026
Re: Fw: Thank you!
Awesome will be using one a breakfast Thursday excited 😊
On Tue, Apr 7, 2026, 11:59 AM Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Grandma Hoerners <gourmetstore@grandmahoerners.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 10:58 AM
To: mcre13@gmail.com <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: Thank you!
Thank you for shopping with us!
We genuinely cherish each of our valued customers and are thrilled to express our gratitude for your support! If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact us—we're here to assist you with enthusiasm! Can't wait to serve you again!
Fw: Thank you!
From: Grandma Hoerners <gourmetstore@grandmahoerners.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 10:58 AM
To: mcre13@gmail.com <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: 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
Check out Tammy Fee's video! #TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTkkJfDG6/
Henry McClure
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
Saturday, April 4, 2026
Figs
Based on Dr. Steven Gundry's dietary principles, figs are considered a seasonal fruit that can be enjoyed in moderation, provided they are not excessively high in sugar. While he advises against many high-sugar fruits ("giving fruit the boot"), he advocates for eating lower-sugar, higher-polyphenol, and in-season fruits. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Considerations for Figs in the Gundry Diet:
• Seasonal Moderation: He often lists figs among fruits that are acceptable in season but warns that fruit should be treated as "nature's candy" and eaten sparingly to avoid spikes in blood sugar.
• Nutrient-Dense: He has noted on social media that figs are packed with nutrients that can support digestion and provide energy, often recommending them for a charcuterie board or in moderation.
• Avoid "Over-ripened" or "Dried": In general, Dr. Gundry advises against overly sweet, dried, or out-of-season fruit because the sugar content is too high.
• Context: While some sources discuss the wasp, the main concern for Dr. Gundry is the glycemic impact on gut health and metabolism. [1, 4, 6, 7, 8]
In summary, Dr. Gundry considers fresh figs in season acceptable, but they are not a "free" food to be eaten in high quantities, focusing more on lower-sugar options like berries. [1, 3, 4]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[7] https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1129625075974839&set=a.589628563307829&id=100067820706751
Watch "10 Biblical Superfoods That Will Heal You Instantly" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/KpjU9be5uRQ?si=esbDmrhw3FuRNgPM
Henry McClure
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
Dates
Dr. Steven Gundry generally classifies dates as a better-than-average sweetener alternative to refined sugar due to their fiber content, but advises caution because of their high sugar content. While they are not typically highlighted as a high-lectin risk, they should be eaten in strict moderation (1-2 a day).
• Sugar vs. Fiber: Unlike refined sugar, dates contain fiber. However, Dr. Gundry emphasizes focusing on low-sugar, high-fiber, and polyphenol-rich fruits for optimal health.
• Best Time to Eat: To aid with issues like constipation, some suggest eating 2-5 dates in the morning on an empty stomach, although this is a general health tip, not just a Gundry directive.
• Lectin Concerns: While not notorious for high lectins like other fruits (e.g., nightshades), they are not considered a "superfood" in the same vein as others he recommends. [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
Verdict: Use sparingly as a sweetener rather than a daily staple fruit. [10, 11]
AI responses may include mistakes.
Friday, April 3, 2026
More studies
Yes, there are numerous studies, case studies, technical papers, and engineering guidelines focused on the challenges of constructing buildings right next to (or adjacent to) existing structures. These are particularly relevant for **general contractors** in urban or dense environments, where space constraints often mean building on or near property lines, sharing party walls, or working in close proximity. The research emphasizes risks like **ground settlement**, **vibrations**, **excavation-induced movements**, **noise**, **structural damage** to neighbors, and mitigation strategies.
### Key Risks and Impacts Addressed in Studies
Common issues when building adjacent to existing structures include:
- **Excavation and foundation work**: Deep digs or dewatering can cause soil movement, leading to settlement, cracking, or tilting in neighboring buildings. Overlapping "stress bulbs" from new and existing foundations add extra load.
- **Vibrations from equipment**: Pile driving, compaction, demolition, or heavy machinery transmits ground vibrations that may annoy occupants or (rarely) cause cosmetic/structural damage. Older studies (e.g., U.S. Bureau of Mines from the 1930s–1970s) established thresholds like 0.5–0.75 inches per second for potential plaster cracks in homes, with modern criteria often more conservative for sensitive structures.
- **Other effects**: Changes in wind loads due to new neighboring buildings, altered water/snow patterns, noise/dust impacts on residents, and potential legal disputes over damage.
These risks are heightened in urban settings with increasing building density.
### Notable Studies and Resources
- **Case studies on adjacent construction effects**: Multiple papers document real-world examples of damage from proximity work, including foundation settlement, wall cracking, and operational disruptions to nearby silos, towers, or buildings. One 2015 study evaluated six proximity-related damage instances and analyzed contributing factors. Another 2018 paper presents three case studies on complications like non-uniform settlement when new buildings are built next to existing ones.
- **Vibration-specific research**: Engineering analyses cover construction equipment vibrations on nearby structures, human perception thresholds, and building response. Guidelines often recommend pre-construction surveys, vibration monitoring, and limits based on structure type (e.g., unreinforced masonry is more vulnerable).
- **Risk evaluation and mitigation**: Articles from firms like Wiss, Janney, Elstner (WJE) and Thornton Tomasetti outline steps for assessing risks from demolition, excavation, and new construction. They stress soil-structure interaction analyses, monitoring (vibration, movement), and communication with adjacent owners. Mitigation can include support of excavation systems, sequencing work carefully, or ground improvement techniques.
- **Urban and specific contexts**: Studies on shield tunneling, basement excavations, or high-rise projects in cities (e.g., China, Illinois) highlight safety evaluations for adjacent buildings, including in karst geology or dense areas. Legal aspects, like Illinois' Adjacent Landowner Excavation Protection Act (ALEPA), require notice and protection of lateral/subjacent support.
Professional organizations and journals (e.g., Structure Magazine, journals on engineering failure analysis) frequently publish these. Events like "The Building Next Door" symposium discuss practical strategies for owners, contractors, and engineers.
### Practical Guidance for General Contractors
- **Pre-construction**: Conduct condition surveys of adjacent buildings, peer reviews of designs, and risk assessments. Establish vibration/noise thresholds and monitoring plans.
- **During construction**: Use low-vibration methods where possible, sequence activities to minimize impacts (e.g., controlled excavation), and maintain open communication with neighbors to reduce complaints or lawsuits.
- **Codes and standards**: Many jurisdictions reference the International Building Code (IBC) or International Existing Building Code (IEBC) for protections, plus local rules on adjoining walls, underpinning, and stability. Special inspections may be required for operations affecting nearby structures.
- **Best practices**: Hire experienced teams for monitoring; consider insurance and indemnification clauses. Off-site/modular construction can sometimes reduce on-site disruption.
If you're a general contractor dealing with a specific project (e.g., in Denver or a similar urban area), local building departments, geotechnical engineers, or firms specializing in adjacent construction can provide tailored advice. Searching academic databases like ResearchGate or Google Scholar for terms like "adjacent construction effects case study" or "construction vibration on nearby buildings" yields many free PDFs.
For deeper dives, resources from WJE, Thornton Tomasetti, or the National Park Service (on protecting historic structures during adjacent work) are excellent starting points. Let me know more details about your project type or location if you'd like recommendations for specific guidelines!
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
Here's a direct and balanced response to your question about the Metropolitan Topeka Airport Authority (MTAA) credit rating in light of the $1.8 million lawsuit judgment and the $2.7 million set-aside (or related reserve/fund allocation) as of April 2026.
Short Answer
No, the recent S&P 'AA' rating (assigned February 3, 2026, with Stable Outlook) for MTAA's $4.9 million Series 2026 General Obligation Bonds does not appear to have been materially impacted by this specific litigation. S&P still viewed the credit as very strong, supported primarily by the unlimited ad valorem tax pledge (GO backing), modest overall debt levels relative to the tax base, and the authority's role in regional infrastructure.
That said, your concern is reasonable and worth examining — ongoing or contested litigation, especially if it involves non-payment of a judgment, can raise questions about management practices, financial governance, and contingent liabilities that rating agencies monitor.
What the Lawsuit and $2.7 Million Appear to Involve
From public discussion (including your own posts and local commentary in late 2025–early 2026):
- 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.
This appears tied to local disputes (possibly involving contracts, property, operations, or prior board decisions at Topeka Regional Airport / Forbes Field). It has been publicly labeled a "costly" issue and a "money pit" concern by some residents.
How This Fits into Credit Analysis
Rating agencies like S&P evaluate several layers for GO-backed airport authority debt:
- 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.
S&P assigned 'AA' / Stable in February 2026 despite this issue being in the public eye (your posts and local discussion were active around Dec 2025–Feb 2026). This suggests they either:
- 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.
However, if the non-payment drags on, leads to further legal costs, garnishment attempts, or damages the authority's reputation with tenants/grantors, it could pressure future ratings — especially if it affects liquidity or requires dipping deeper into reserves/tax levies.
Bottom Line on Concern Level
- 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.
Smaller authorities like MTAA can maintain solid ratings even with operational friction because the tax pledge acts as a backstop. But repeated issues can eventually lead to scrutiny, higher borrowing costs on future debt, or pressure from stakeholders (including the City of Topeka, Shawnee County, or state oversight).
Recommendations
If this is an active issue, the best sources for clarity are:
- 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.
Would you like help drafting an updated blog-style summary (similar to your Moody's/Topeka Water posts) that incorporates this litigation context alongside the 'AA' rating? Or would you prefer a comparison of how other small Kansas/Midwest airports have handled similar legal/financial issues in their ratings?
I'm here to dig further if you share more details from the blog post, court documents, or the specific $2.7 million reference. Transparency on these matters benefits everyone in Topeka. Let me know how to assist next!
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?
These people want more power for the people
The four members of the Kansas House of Representatives who voted Nay (did not support) on Senate Bill 104 (granting the Shawnee County Board of County Commissioners discretion to create a citizens commission on local government) during its emergency final action on March 19, 2025, were:
- Rep. Charlotte Esau
- Rep. Ricky James
- Rep. Bill Rhiley
- Rep. Kevin Schwertfeger
The bill passed the House by a vote of 119 Yea to 4 Nay (with 2 absent and not voting). It later received gubernatorial approval and became law.
For full context on the roll call, including all Yea voters and those absent, refer to the official Kansas Legislature vote record.
From: John Alcala <John.Alcala@house.ks.gov>
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
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
Don't disagree Henry here's a replied to all if it was up to me I'd dissolve the whole board, make all expenditures and budget go through the city council. I'm not saying that's a better way. At least we would have elected officials that are handling tax dollars with transparency and I'm not saying that would be better but it's better than MTA handling it and creating lawsuits with people's tax dollars.
I wouldn't run a Bill but I sure would cosign on it.
Thank you for your email.
John Alcala
Kansas House of Representatives
57th District
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)