PERRY’S PORK RINDS ANNOUNCES USDA FEDERAL INSPECTION EXPANSION, POSITIONING COMPANY FOR NATIONWIDE GROWTH
BRONSON, Kansas — Perry’s Pork Rinds, a family-owned food manufacturing company based in rural Southeast Kansas, announced a major milestone in its growth journey as the company moves forward with USDA Federal Inspection, paving the way for expanded wholesale distribution throughout the United States.
Founded in 2017 by husband-and-wife team Kelly and Thaddeus Perry, Perry’s Pork Rinds began with a simple idea, a few recipes, and the last $250 in the family’s savings account. What started as a small local venture has grown into one of Kansas’ fastest-growing handcrafted snack brands.
Today, Perry’s Pork Rinds products can be found in more than 200 retail locations across Kansas and are shipped directly to customers nationwide. The company has built a loyal following through its commitment to quality, bold flavors, customer service, and small-town values.
The transition to USDA Federal Inspection slated for July 2026 represents one of the most significant milestones in company history. Federal inspection will allow Perry’s Pork Rinds to wholesale products beyond Kansas state lines and pursue larger retail, distribution, and food service opportunities throughout the country.
“This is a dream that has been years in the making,” said Kelly Perry, co-owner of Perry’s Pork Rinds. “We’ve faced plenty of challenges along the way, including rapid growth, cash flow struggles, long hours, and moments where we weren’t sure how we were going to keep moving forward. But we’ve continued to invest in our business, our customers, and our vision. Federal inspection opens the door to opportunities we’ve been working toward since day one.”
The company currently produces ten flavors of handcrafted pork rinds and has become a familiar presence at farmers markets, fairs, festivals, sporting events, fundraisers, and retail stores throughout Kansas.
As part of its growth strategy, Perry’s Pork Rinds is investing in upgraded production equipment, enhanced packaging capabilities, expanded manufacturing systems, and increased distribution infrastructure designed to support long-term national growth.
“Our goal has never been to become the biggest,” said Thaddeus Perry, co-owner of Perry’s Pork Rinds. “Our goal has always been to build something we could be proud of, create jobs, support our community, and make a quality product people enjoy. We’re excited to show the rest of the country what our Kansas company can do.”
In addition to its business growth, Perry’s Pork Rinds remains heavily involved in community development efforts throughout Southeast Kansas. The company regularly supports local fundraisers, nonprofit organizations, schools, youth programs, and rural economic development initiatives.
The Perry family credits much of the company’s success to faith, perseverance, loyal customers, and the support of the communities that have rallied behind the business since its founding.
“Whether people remember us for our pork rinds or simply for our determination and faith, we hope they remember that we gave this everything we had,” Kelly Perry said. “We’re proud of how far we’ve come, and we’re even more excited about where we’re headed.”
For additional information, wholesale inquiries, retail opportunities, or media interviews, please contact:
Founded in 2017, Perry’s Pork Rinds is a family-owned food manufacturing company headquartered in Bronson, Kansas. Specializing in handcrafted pork rinds made in small batches, the company offers ten unique flavors and serves customers through retail partners, special events, fundraisers, and direct-to-consumer online sales. Perry’s Pork Rinds is committed to quality, customer service, community involvement, and creating opportunities in rural America. —
Commissioners Gregg Motley and Mika Milburn-Key in person, and Samuel Tran and Joe Allen via video chat attended the County Commission Meeting which lasted less than 6 minutes.
TUSA was removed from the agenda for lack of attendance at Sheriff Bill Martin’s request.
Approval of Minutes 05.11.26, Special 05.18.26, 05.18.26
Minutes were approved pending changes to attribution requested by Milburn-Key.
Approval of April 2026 Financials
Approved
Approval of Tax Corrections
Approved
Approval of Accounts Payable 5.22.26 $139,611.15, 5.29.26 $456,069.98
Approved, Tran abstaining.
Allen and Tran asked that Motley sign the AP checks in absence of Allen. Motion approved.
There were no Public Comments, Department Updates, Old Business, Future Agenda Topics, New Business, or Commissioner Comments.
The Regular Council Meeting on May 12, 2026 at Uniontown Community Center was called to order at 7:00PM by Mayor Jurgensen. Council members present were Mary Pemberton, Bradley Stewart and Kyle Knight. Also in attendance for all or part of the meeting was Joe George, Loretta George, Betty Dennis, Alicia Jackson, Sherriff Bill Martin, City Superintendent Bobby Rich, City Treasurer Sally Johnson and City Clerk Haley Arnold.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/PROJECTS
CITIZENS REQUEST
Betty Dennis shared details of an incident in which she was bitten by a dog on May 9th from residence 401 2nd St. She discussed the circumstances surrounding the event, her experience with the dogs involved, and the impact the incident had on her.
The council discussed the dogs’ vaccination status, prior complaints, and other reported incidents involving the animals.
Alicia Jackson addressed the council regarding her granddaughter being attacked by the same dogs on school property 3 weeks prior. She also stated that dogs remain on the property constantly.
Stewart asked Dennis and Jackson about how long the dogs had been seen in the area and their past demeanor. Dennis stated the dogs had been roaming the area for approximately a year and a half and had not shown aggressive behavior until recently.
Loretta George addressed the council regarding a previous dog bite incident involving dogs from a residence on 2nd Street. She stated that one of the dogs bit her on the arm while she was walking past the property and that attempts to resolve the matter with the owners were unsuccessful. George also stated that she carries pepper spray for protection from other dogs in the community while walking after this incident.
The council discussed the city ordinance regarding dog registration requirements. Mayor Jurgensen asked Sherriff Bill Martin about the counties regulations for vicious dog.
Sheriff Martin stated that the county no longer has a vicious dog resolution in place. The council also discussed quarantine requirements and procedures following a dog bite incident.
The council discussed the court process and emphasized its importance for future public safety.
FINANCIAL REPORT
Treasurer Johnson presented the April 2026 Treasurer’s Report. Beginning Checking Account Balance for all funds was $249,042.02, Receipts $37,238.88, Transfers Out $3,024.25, Expenditures $28,924.80, Checking Account Closing Balance $254,331.85. Bank Statement Balance $258,881.89, including Checking Account Interest of $52.59, Outstanding Deposits $0, Outstanding Checks $4,550.04, Reconciled Balance $254,331.85. Water Utilities Certificates of Deposit $43,462.65, Sewer Utilities Certificate of Deposit $24,422.45, Gas Utilities Certificates of Deposit $50,955.80, Total All Funds, including Certificates of Deposit $373,172.75. Year-to-Date Interest in Checking Acct is $196.57, and Utility CDs $693.91 for a Total Year-to-Date Interest of $890.48. Also included the status of the Projects Checking Account for the month of April 2026, Beginning Balance $0, Receipts $0, Expenditures $0, Ending Balance $0. April Transfers from Sewer Utility Fund to Sewer Revolving Loan $1,400.25; from Water Utility Fund to GO Water Bond & Interest $1,624.00, for Total Transfers of $3,024.25. Net income for the month of April $5,289.83, Year-to-Date Net Income $53,586.39. Budget vs Actual Gas Fund YTD Revenue $76,391.32 (59.0%), Expenditures $34,567.56 (26.2%); Sewer Fund YTD Revenue $13,156.07 (36.4%), Expenditures $11,100.99 (26.0%); Water Fund YTD Revenue $41,525.52 (33.4%), Expenditures $29,582.47 (20.7%); General Fund YTD Revenue $57,576.67 (39.1%), Expenditures $43,127.80 (18.4%); and Special Highway YTD Revenue $3,968.83 (54.4%), Expenditures $2,807.27 (25.1%). The May 2026 payables to date in the amount of $29,476.32.
CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Stewart, Second by Pemberton, Approved 3-0, to approve Consent Agenda:
Minutes of April 14, 2026 Regular Meeting
April Treasurer’s Report, Profit & Loss Report by Class & May Accounts Payables
DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Codes Officer Coyan was unable to attend the meeting. Clerk Arnold addressed property concerns previously brought to her attention, including 202 4th St., where a prior letter regarding yard conditions had resulted in some progress but not sufficient compliance; the council agreed a citation was necessary. 101 Washington was found to be in compliance. 303 Washington will be sent a certified letter regarding code violations.
Treasurer Johnson reported that the gas surcharge was complete.
Superintendent Rich reported that the citywide cleanup went well, and that the KCC audit began May 11 and concluded May 13. Possible violations identified during the audit were also discussed.
Clerk Arnold presented the 2026 audit contract from DBB Inc., and the cost of the audit was discussed.
Moved by Stewart, Second by Knight, Approved 3-0, to approve the 2026 audit contract from DBB Inc.
COUNCIL REPORT
Councilman Knight – Knight reported flooding issues following the recent heavy rain at 205 7th St., 606 Wall St., 402 2nd St., and 1279 75th St. The council discussed prior efforts to address flooding concerns and potential actions the city could take moving forward.
Councilwoman Kelly – absent
Councilwoman Pemberton – none
Councilwoman Pritchett – absent
Councilman Stewart – none
Mayor Jurgensen – Jurgensen asked Superintendent Rich to add gravel to the east and west culverts near 201 7th St. to help manage rainwater runoff.
Treasurer Johnson – Johnson reported that the west sidewalk near 302 Hill has settled and is impeding water flow. Superintendent Rich stated he would inspect the area to determine possible corrective action.
OLD BUSINESS
FEMA Flooding– Mayor Jurgensen stated he had not heard from Marbery Concrete Inc., but he hopes work will begin soon, weather permitting.
NEW BUSINESS
Moved by Pemberton, Second by Stewart, Approved 3-0, to adjourn at 8:46PM.
The petition Bourbon County Clerk Susan Walker filed to block the recall petition against her has seen a number of updates in the first week. When the case was filed on May 22, it named County Attorney James Crux and the three members of the recall committee as defendants (see: Bourbon County Clerk Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block Recall Petition). Since then, one recall committee member has hired a lawyer, Walker has narrowed her case, and the judge has already issued (and been asked to undo) an order. Read on for more details.
The biggest development is a motion filed by recall committee member Kevin Wagner under the Kansas Public Speech Protection Act (K.S.A. 60-5320), the state’s “anti-SLAPP” law. That law lets someone who is sued over protected speech or petition activity ask the court to throw the case out early. Filing the motion automatically freezes other motions in the case, and if the person who filed it prevails, the law can require the party who brought the lawsuit to pay their attorney fees.
In response, Walker amended her lawsuit to drop the three recall committee members (Kyle R. Parks, Kevin Wagner, and Lyle K. Owenby) and proceed only against County Attorney Crux. The judge granted Walker’s request to dismiss the committee members. Wagner then asked the court to reverse that dismissal saying he was not given the time to respond that the rules require. He claims that his anti-SLAPP claim (including the possibility of recovering attorney fees) does not disappear just because Walker dropped him as a defendant.
May 27 — Wagner, represented by Wichita attorney Patrick B. Hughes, entered the case and filed a Motion to Strike under K.S.A. 60-5320. He argues Walker’s suit targets his right to petition, speak, and associate in support of a recall, and notes that filing the motion triggers an automatic stay of other motions.
May 28 — Walker filed an Amended Verified Petition naming only County Attorney Crux as a defendant, along with a Motion to Dismiss the Recall Committee members from the case. That amended petition still asks the court to declare the recall petition legally insufficient and to block any recall election based on it.
May 29 (morning) — The Judge signed an Order dismissing the recall committee, finding that Walker was entitled to amend her petition and that the amended version removed the committee as defendants.
May 29 (afternoon) — Wagner filed a Motion to Set Aside that Order, and an Objection to the dismissal. He argues that he didn’t have time to respond and that the automatic stay from his anti-SLAPP motion would prevent Walker from making the motion to dismiss the recall committee from the case.
Wagner’s filing may seem counterintuitive: he says he would not object to the entire case being dismissed, but he does object to the recall committee being removed while the case continues against Crux. His reasons, as stated in his motion:
The court is being asked to decide whether the committee’s recall petition is valid. Wagner says the committee members have a direct interest in that question and a right to notice and a chance to be heard — which they lose if they are not parties.
Under K.S.A. 60-219, he argues the committee members are necessary parties, and that ruling without them could leave County Attorney Crux exposed to conflicting obligations later.
His anti-SLAPP claim — including the question of attorney fees and possible sanctions under K.S.A. 60-5320 — remains to be decided regardless of whether he is a named defendant.
As of now, the recall committee members have been dismissed from the lawsuit, but Wagner has asked the judge to reverse that. The case continues against County Attorney Crux. The central question raised in the original lawsuit — whether the recall petition meets the legal requirements to move forward — has not been decided. No hearing date had been set as of this writing.
Being named in a lawsuit is not a finding of wrongdoing, and the filings described here reflect each party’s arguments, not the court’s conclusions. FortScott.biz will continue to follow the case.
5. Approval of Minutes (Regular Meeting of May 11, 2026; Special Meeting of May 18, 2026; Regular Meeting of May 18, 2026) [Page 1]
6. Approval of April 2026 Financials [Page 1]
7. Approval of Tax Corrections [Page 1]
8. Approval of Accounts Payable (May 22, 2026: $139,611.15; May 29, 2026: $456,069.98) [Page 1]
9. Public Comments [Page 1]
10. Department Updates [Page 1]
11. TUSA — Bill Martin [Page 1]
12. Old Business [Page 1]
13. Future Agenda Topics [Page 1]
14. New Business [Page 1]
15. Commission Comments [Page 1]
16. Adjournment [Page 1]
II. Detailed Information Packet Summary
Meeting Minutes & Historical Approvals
Special Commission Meeting Minutes (May 18, 2026, 4:30 PM)
KOMA Training Presentation: The special session focused on Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA) training, which was delivered remotely via Webex by Matt Bingesser from the Kansas Attorney General’s Office. Commissioners Samuel Tran, Joe Allen, Greg Motley, and Mika Milburn-Kee were present along with the County Clerk. [Page 2]
Administrative Protocols: Chairman Tran opened the meeting by reminding attendees of standard protocol, including silencing cell phones, moving sidebar conversations to the hallway, filling out official cards for public comment, and avoiding gallery outbursts. [Page 3]
Minutes Corrections: Commissioner Allen noted a text correction regarding check-signing authority in a previous set of minutes, clarifying that a reference to Commissioner Tran being away in the coming weeks should have instead named Commissioner Allen. The board by consensus deferred the final approval of the May 11, 2026, minutes. [Page 4]
Legal Fees Discussion: During the review of accounts payable from May 15 ($363,496.33), Commissioner Motley voiced budget concerns regarding a bill from outside legal counsel Jacob totaling $4,500 for March. Combined with the prior month, outside legal expenditures had reached approximately $12,500. Motley pointed out that his own name and the names of private citizens appeared as billing subjects, questioning why this was processed without broader consensus. [Page 4]
Budget Planning Dialogue: A lengthy discussion occurred between the commissioners and Ben Hart from Baker Tilly regarding instructions sent to county department heads for the upcoming fiscal cycle. Commissioner Motley objected to guidelines mandating that personnel and commodity lines match 2026 levels exactly, warning it could effectively repeat the previous year’s freeze on employee raises and benefit cuts. Commissioner Milburn-Kee counterargued that the instructions were prepared professionally by Baker Tilly. Ultimately, Baker Tilly representative Matt Lawn agreed to resend clarified instructions confirming that 2026 numbers serve as a benchmark, but allowing department heads to log deviations and budget increases directly within the notes field. [Pages 5-6]
Health Department Report: Health Department Director Rebecca Johnson presented an agency update, highlighting that WIC funding is primarily federal (the county contributes approximately 6%). Staff achievements were recognized, including a nurse certified as a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner and a home visitor certified as a breastfeeding specialist. Johnson noted she had not been looped into Baker Tilly’s budget outreach, and the commission requested she coordinate directly with staff. [Page 7]
Public Comments Analysis: Local citizen Anne Dare raised formal concerns regarding the county’s third-party HR and payroll providers, alleging a lack of governmental experience. She noted that a draft handbook contained the name of an unrelated trash company on the front cover and questioned software upgrade expenses and IT technician travel costs from Joplin. Additionally, she called for a consistent standard when adding law firms to the approved county list versus seeking multiple competitive bids. [Page 8]
Public Works Surplus Operations: Public Works Director Eric Bailey and Director Joe Allen detailed clean-up operations, noting crews cleared substantial debris with assistance from EMS staff. Remaining items are largely porcelain (sinks and toilets). The commission approved a motion authorizing Commissioner Joe Allen to photograph and index these remaining items for submission to the state surplus auction portal (.gov). [Page 9]
Road Maintenance Incident: Director Allen reported that an individual illegally dumped the contents of a private burn barrel directly into the middle of a county road over the weekend, specifically near 145th and 105th, south of Range Road. Road crews cleared the debris. [Page 10]
Fireworks Licensing: The commission voted unanimously to approve a 2026 fireworks retail vendor permit for Hale Fireworks LLC, located at 2523 South Main Street near Peerless, noting all application fees were satisfied. [Page 10]
Annual Audit Engagement: Chairman Tran introduced the annual audit engagement letter. Commissioner Milburn-Kee noted that Jarred Gilmore Phillips has conducted the county’s annual audit for the past three years following a previous firm’s retirement, and recommended keeping them on schedule. [Page 10]
Accounts Payable & Public Transit: The board unanimously approved the May 8 accounts payable totaling $457,015.06 and the May 4 meeting minutes. During public comment, resident Michael Hoyt spoke regarding funding challenges at the Area Agency on Aging (AAA) based in Pittsburg, Kansas, emphasizing its critical role in maintaining local Meals on Wheels services. [Page 13]
Administrative Communication Breakdowns: County Treasurer Jennifer Hawkins addressed the commission regarding systemic communication issues between the board and other county offices. She cited a sudden policy shift or miscommunication by Commissioner Tran regarding check-signing authorization that resulted in county personnel receiving late payroll checks for two consecutive months. Treasurer Hawkins stated that her office was not given the payroll records in an editable Excel format broken down by cost center, preventing accurate general ledger posting. Commissioner Tran responded that reports were a work in progress and were being actively iterated with HR staff. [Pages 14-15]
Monthly Financial Position Reports
(Source Document: Pages 25-35)
The packet includes comprehensive budget-to-actual ledgers tracking revenues, expenditures, and fund balances across multiple county accounts through the end of Period 4 (April 30, 2026).
001 General Fund Revenues: Tracks fundamental revenue categories including the Current Tax Distribution (budgeted at $1,804,838.00 with $702,308.74 collected year-to-date), Motor Vehicle Tax allocations ($143,830.10 collected of a $177,986.00 budget), and auxiliary items such as firework permit collections ($300.00), candidate filing fees, and district court medical reimbursements. [Pages 25-26]
001 General Fund Expenditures: Outlines year-to-date administrative operational expenses against total department budgets:
County Clerk: Year-to-date expenditures of $95,066.22 out of a total $133,189.00 budget line. [Page 27]
County Treasurer: Wages account for $89,556.44 of the $127,786.00 line item, alongside contractual services and commodities. [Page 27]
County Attorney: Year-to-date attorney wages sit at $322,848.19 (out of a $412,518.00 budget) with contractual services tracking at $5,960.33. [Page 27]
District Court: Tracks overall programmatic costs, with year-to-date actual expenditures standing at $267,916.01 of a $348,900.00 budget allotment. [Page 28]
Emergency Preparedness: Outlines emergency coordinator wages ($35,276.31 spent of $37,584.00) and related contractual services. [Page 28]
Information Technology (IT): Reviews technical service line items, showing $174,232.64 utilized out of a $242,000.00 contractual service budget. [Page 28]
Elderly Services & Community Support: Documents a $4,050.00 periodic allocation ($32,400.00 year-to-date) out of a $48,600.00 annual appropriation for senior citizens. [Page 29]
Courthouse General Maintenance: Detail of broader capital and facility upkeep, utilizing $87,119.31 of a large $558,019.00 contractual service fund. [Page 29]
Specialized County Funds: Accounts for incoming and outgoing funds across restricted service categories:
014 Attorney Trust Fund: Tracks internal adjustments, showing a minor year-to-date balance of $7.41. [Page 30]
016 Appraiser’s Fund: Covers county appraisal operations, showing property tax distributions of $90,360.34 against a total projected budget of $232,015.00. [Page 31]
052 County Treasurer Motor Vehicle Fund: Monitors vehicle registration revenue transfers ($10,873.25 current action, $37,379.25 year-to-date) against internal staff wages ($24,719.85 year-to-date) and general office copier or data supplies. [Page 33]
056 Delinquent Personal Property Tax Fund: Logs collection pipelines for late tax payments, recording $1,320.59 in recent receipts. [Page 34]
In the week since Bourbon County Clerk Susan E. Walker filed suit to block the recall petition against her, the lawsuit has narrowed substantially. As of May 28, Walker has dismissed the three recall committee members as defendants, withdrawn her emergency request to stop signature-gathering, and re-cast the case as a narrower procedural challenge against the County Attorney. The recall petition continues to be circulated.
Who is still being sued. Only Bourbon County Attorney James Crux remains a defendant. The three recall committee members — Kyle R. Parks, Kevin Wagner, and Lyle K. Owenby — have been dropped.
What Walker is no longer asking for. She has withdrawn her request for a Temporary Restraining Order, the emergency court order she had been seeking to stop the petition from being circulated.
What Walker is still asking for. She still wants the court to declare the recall petition legally invalid (because, she says, the County Attorney never issued the written sufficiency determination required by K.S.A. 25-4322(b) for the version now being circulated), and to block any certification of signatures and any recall election based on the petition.
May 22 — Walker filed her original petition and an application for an ex parte temporary restraining order (an emergency order issued without first hearing from the other side) asking the court to halt signature-gathering immediately. The recall committee members were named as defendants alongside County Attorney Crux.
On or around May 26 — While no written order is shown on public site, it appears the court denied the original ex parte TRO request. The denial is referenced in Walker’s later filing. Her counsel writes that an email “notified Defendant Crux the Court rejected Plaintiff’s request for an ex parte TRO” and asked about scheduling a hearing.
May 26 — Walker filed an amended TRO application (25 pages, up from 17), expanding her irreparable-harm claims. The new filing alleges that “members of the public are photographing Plaintiff and her family to post online with untrue claims,” and that circulation of the petition “causes continuing irreparable harm to the Plaintiff’s ability to perform her duties as Bourbon County Clerk.”
May 27 — Attorney Patrick B. Hughes of Adams Jones Law Firm in Wichita entered an appearance for defendant Kevin Wagner.
May 27 — Wagner filed a motion to strike Walker’s entire petition under Kansas’s anti-SLAPP statute, K.S.A. 60-5320. Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws protect against lawsuits that target their protected speech, petitioning, or association on public issues. Notably the law shifts attorney fees to the losing plaintiff.
May 28 — Walker filed an amended petition (20 pages, down from 28) removing the three recall committee members as defendants. Only County Attorney Crux remains. The new filing drops the request to stop circulation of the recall petition. Instead it only asks the court to declare the petition invalid and block any steps that would occur after collecting signatures.
May 28 — Walker filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant Recall Committee formally dropping Parks, Wagner, and Owenby. The motion states plainly: “Plaintiff withdraws and will not argue its motions for a temporary restraining order restraining Defendant Recall Committee’s recall petition from being circulated.”
Where things stand:
The case is now significantly narrower and no longer names the people who filed the recall petition. Walker also no longer seeking to stop signature-gathering. What remains is a procedural dispute between the county clerk and the county attorney over whether the recall petition was properly approved for circulation in the first place.
Since Wagner’s anti-SLAPP motion was filed before Walker’s pivot, it isn’t clear if Wagner’s motion just goes away or if it still requires a ruling.
County Attorney Crux, the only remaining defendant, has yet to file any type of response.
Court filings cited above are public records. Descriptions of communications between counsel and individual defendants come from Walker’s own court filings and have not been independently confirmed. FortScott.biz will continue to follow the case.
The Fort Scott Area Chamber of Commerce invites members and guests to a Chamber Coffee this Thursday, May 21st at 8am hosted by Chamber members Heartland Rural Electric Cooperative and Heartland Propane. The coffee will take place at the Heartland Propane bulk plant and shop located at 2161 Osage Rd, just north of town on Old 69.
Guests traveling west on Highway 54 should turn north at Durossette’s onto 215th Street (Old 69 Highway), continue north for approximately two miles, then turn east onto Osage Road. The facility will be visible immediately after turning onto Osage Road and will be located on the left-hand side.
Coffee, juice, and light refreshments will be served along with a door prize drawing.
Guests will have the opportunity to learn more about Heartland Rural Electric Cooperative and Heartland Propane, their shared commitment to serving local communities, and the important role they play in providing dependable energy to homes, businesses, and rural areas across Southeast Kansas. Representatives will share information about how the electric grid works, how rural electric cooperatives fit into the larger energy network, and how Heartland Propane supports the cooperative’s mission by expanding reliable energy options for members and customers.
Heartland Propane recently reached an exciting milestone of 4,000 routed delivery customers, reflecting the company’s continued growth and service throughout the region. Heartland REC has served the area for decades with safe and reliable electric service, while Heartland Propane continues expanding dependable propane options for homes, farms, and businesses across Southeast Kansas.
Contact the Chamber of Commerce at (620) 223-3566 for more information. Visit the Events Calendar and category of Chamber Coffees on fortscott.com for upcoming locations.
Fort Scott, Kansas — Bourbon County Clerk Susan Walker filed a lawsuit in Bourbon County District Court on May 22, 2026, asking a judge to stop the recall petition currently being circulated against her. The case, Walker v. Crux et al. (BB-2026-CV-000048), names Bourbon County Attorney James Crux and the three members of the recall committee — Kyle R. Parks, Kevin Wagner, and Lyle K. Owenby — as defendants. Hon. Richard M. Fisher Jr. is assigned to the case.
Walker also filed an emergency motion asking the court to halt signature-gathering immediately while the case is decided.
The county attorney never officially signed off on the version of the petition being circulated. Under K.S.A. 25-4322(b), the county attorney has to review any recall petition and notify the official, the recall committee, and the county election officer in writing before signatures can be collected. Walker says Crux did that for the first draft (see his letter on April 27, 2026) but not for the amended version.
The reasons listed don’t legally qualify as grounds for a recall. Under K.S.A. 25-4302, a Kansas official can only be recalled for a felony conviction, “misconduct in office,” or “failure to perform duties prescribed by law.” Walker argues the petition is too vague to meet the standard Kansas courts have set in earlier recall cases.
What’s the recall about?
The recall traces back to an error on early-voting ballots for the November 4, 2025 general election. According to Walker, USD 235 (Uniontown school district) had not told the Clerk’s office which of three “voting plans” (A, B, or C, under K.S.A. 72-1083) it wanted to use for its school board race. The clerk’s office printed ballots under Plan C when the correct plan was Plan B. By the time the mistake was caught, 52 early voters had cast incorrect ballots. Walker laid out her account in a May 10 statement on FortScott.biz.
What both sides agree on
Both sides agree on the core error: the USD 235 early-voting ballots were wrong, and Walker’s office printed corrected ballots in time for Election Day. Walker’s lawsuit adds (and the recall side does’t dispute) that the election was then certified. No formal challenge was filed regarding the results of the election.
Where they disagree
When Walker found out — and how fast she responded. This is the heart of the recall. The previous no-confidence vote said the ballots were wrong “despite timely notifications from affected residents… while advance voting was actively underway,” and the recall petition echoes it almost word for word: the problem was “brought to her attention by multiple individuals during the early voting period.” Both imply Walker was aware of the issue and chose not to act for some time. Walker tells it differently. Her May 10 statement says the first notification was a call “before 12:00 PM on November 3” — the day before the election. Her lawsuit puts the first call at exactly 9:51 a.m. She says she began fixing the problem immediately, as K.S.A. 25-604(c) requires (“corrected without delay”). Neither the petition nor the no-confidence letter names dates, people, or specifies a timeline for the earlier complaints; Walker says she has a record of the November 3 call.
FortScott.biz contacted Bourbon County Republican party to see if they had any supporting information or evidence for the version of the timeline from the no confidence vote. The chairperson responded with this statement:
The issue that my precinct committeemen and women are focused on is that the wrong ballots were distributed.
(FortScott.biz also reached out to the households of Kyle R. Parks, Kevin Wagner, and Lyle K. Owenby via Facebook messenger asking if they had any information or evidence to support their statements in the recall petition that are disputed by the clerk. Mr. Owenby gave the query a thumbs up, but no other response was received before this article was published.)
Whether this legally counts as “failure to perform duties.” The petition says yes: Walker “caused to be printed and distributed incorrect ballots,” didn’t fix it quickly enough, and made statements “later contradicted by testimony from the school superintendent.” Walker says no: USD 235 failed to certify its voting plan, and she fixed the resulting ballot error as soon as she was notified they intended to use a different plan.
Whether the county attorney has signed off on the current petition. Walker says Crux’s April 27 letter only reviewed the first draft and that the amended version needs a new written determination. But that letter actually ruled on the two grounds separately finding “failure to perform duties” sufficient and “misconduct” insufficient. Crux told the committee, “Only the sufficient reasons for recall should be contained on the petition.” The amended petition does exactly that: it drops “misconduct” and keeps “failure to perform duties.” Whether Crux’s existing determination carries over as approval, or whether the amendment requires a fresh K.S.A. 25-4322(b) letter, is one of the questions for the court.
“K.S.A. Chapter 25 includes forty-seven separate articles with hundreds of statutes containing thousands of subsections. Defendant Recall Committee must be more specific in its petition if they wish to allege violating a statute as grounds for recall. They could, for instance, cite to specific statutes as Defendant Crux did in his letter evaluating the first proposed recall petition. … There, Defendant Crux says, K.S.A. §§ 25-604(a) and 25-2303(a) are duties of the County Election Officer. Such specificity is nowhere in the Recall Petition, as it must be.”
In other words, Walker argues the petition must meet the same specificity standard Crux himself applied when he reviewed it.
Whether “misconduct” is still being alleged. The first draft used the word “misconduct.” Crux’s April 27 letter found “nothing in the petition supports this allegation.” The amended petition drops the word but keeps the same allegations. Walker says the misconduct claim is therefore still being made, just relabeled.
What this lawsuit does and doesn’t decide
According to K.S.A. 25-4325, the recall committee and people circulating the petition swear, under penalty of perjury, that the claims are true, but the claims do not have to be proven true in court for a recall to move forward. The law leaves the truth of the allegations to the voters. The only way to stop a recall petition in court is to show that it is legally invalid — not to show that its accusations are false.
That is the kind of challenge Walker has brought. She disputes several of the petition’s factual claims, but her lawsuit does not ask the court to decide whether they are true. It argues the petition is procedurally and legally insufficient: that the county attorney never issued the determination K.S.A. 25-4322(b) requires for the circulating version, and that its grounds are too vague and too disconnected from her actual duties. Kansas courts have drawn this line clearly. In Baker v. Gibson (1995), the Court of Appeals held that “the truth or falsity of the grounds must still be determined by the electorate, not the county or district attorney” — the very sentence Crux quoted in his April 27 letter, where he wrote that he reviewed the petition “assuming the facts are true,” not checking whether they were. Cline v. Tittel (1995) drew the same distinction, holding that the county or district attorney decides a petition’s legal sufficiency but “does not determine whether the grounds asserted should subject the local officer to recall.”
What the county attorney does decide is legal sufficiency: whether the petition alleges one of the three statutory grounds, states it specifically enough for the official to answer, and follows the required steps. If the court sides with Walker on any of those, it could block the petition without ever ruling on what she knew, when she knew it, or how fast she acted.
Timeline
October–November 3, 2025 — Early voting underway. Walker says her first notification of the ballot problem came November 3; the recall side says residents notified her earlier.
November 3–4, 2025 — Corrected ballots printed overnight; election held November 4.
May 22, 2026 — Walker files her lawsuit and emergency motion.
What Walker is asking for
She wants the court to declare the amended petition invalid and block signature-gathering, any recall election, and certification of any results. Her emergency motion, filed under K.S.A. 60-903, argues the ongoing recall is doing harm to her reputation that can’t be undone later. Walker is represented by Jonathan L. Ehrlich, Joshua A. Ney, and Wyatt Hoagland of KN Law Group in Olathe. No defense attorneys had appeared as of filing.
What happens next
Three things are in motion at once:
The emergency motion. Judge Fisher can grant or deny it without first hearing from the defendants, but only if he finds Walker is being immediately harmed. This is the soonest milestone: if granted, signature collection stops while the case plays out; if denied, signatures keep being collected.
The main lawsuit. The four defendants have been served and typically have 21 days to respond. Expect motions to dismiss and a hearing schedule over the coming weeks.
The signature window. Under K.S.A. 25-4324, a recall committee has 90 days to gather the required signatures, and that clock starts when the committee receives the county attorney’s written notice that the grounds are sufficient. The only such notice in the record is Crux’s April 27 letter on the first petition, which would put the deadline on or about July 26, 2026. Walker’s lawsuit argues the amended petition now being circulated never received its own sufficiency notice, so when — or whether — a valid 90-day clock started is itself one of the disputed questions. Unless the court intervenes, signature-gathering continues.
Being named in a lawsuit is not a finding of wrongdoing; defendants may respond and contest the claims. FortScott.biz will continue to follow the case.
A bitcoin mining operation in rural northwest Bourbon County has been a recurring subject at county commission meetings since October 2025, prompting noise complaints from neighbors, two county moratoriums, a county-wide noise resolution, an unsuccessful proposal for a much broader business moratorium, several opinion pieces, and a private civil lawsuit. This is a chronological summary of the publicly documented events to date.
October 6, 2025 — First commission discussion of bitcoin mining noise
Resident Dereck Ranes brought noise complaints to the Bourbon County Commission about natural-gas generators powering a bitcoin mining operation near his property. Ranes asked the commission for a moratorium and a noise resolution. Neighbors Kimberly Sparks and Jill Franklin also addressed commissioners about noise and vibration. Sheriff Bill Martin said his department was investigating but that enforcement of any noise rule would require county-hired personnel, since the sheriff’s office is not a code-enforcement agency. The commission agreed to continue the discussion and work on a draft moratorium. (story)
October 14, 2025 — Commission unanimously passes a 12-month moratorium on cryptocurrency mining
At its October 14 meeting the commission voted unanimously to pass a 12-month moratorium specifically directed at cryptocurrency mining. Commissioner David Beerbower moved to adopt the resolution; Commissioner Samuel Tran questioned whether the regulation would expose the county to litigation but supported it after Beerbower clarified that the moratorium targeted cryptocurrency mining only, not natural-gas extraction. County Counselor Bob Johnson told the commission that a moratorium applies only to new activity (not existing operations) and that the typical purpose is to give the planning commission time to develop more comprehensive rules. The text was to be published and signed at the next meeting. (story)
October 20, 2025 — Continued discussion; “cease-and-desist” requested
At the October 20 meeting Dereck Ranes thanked the commission for the moratorium but asked for a cease-and-desist directed at the existing operation, saying the noise was causing headaches and ear pain. Commissioner Beerbower asked all commissioners to begin formulating parameters for a county noise resolution, separate from the cryptocurrency moratorium, that would address volume and duration without targeting any specific industry. The noise resolution was added to the November 10 agenda. (story)
October 23, 2025 — Special meeting; proposed noise ordinance presented
At a special commission meeting on October 23, 2025, a proposed noise ordinance was presented for the first time. The draft would establish decibel limits for different zoning areas, define noise violations, and assign enforcement to the sheriff’s department. Commissioners discussed decibel levels, exemptions for agricultural operations, and enforcement mechanisms, and agreed to bring the ordinance back at the next regular meeting after legal review. (special-meeting story · text of the proposed ordinance as presented)
October 27, 2025 — Commission continues noise resolution discussion
Commissioner David Beerbower read a prepared statement and recommended the matter be referred to the planning commission rather than handled by the county commission directly. Commissioners Mika Milburn-Kee and Samuel Tran agreed that the planning commission should formulate the ordinance, with Tran noting that the language in the current draft could be considered zoning, which is outside the commission’s direct authority. Derek Ranes spoke during public comment, describing the noise from the bitcoin mining generator as continuous and unlike intermittent noises. County Counselor Bob Johnson warned about the legal implications of enforcement and selective prosecution. Sheriff Bill Martin reiterated that his department cannot enforce a noise resolution and suggested that a code-enforcement officer would have to be hired. (story)
November 3, 2025 — Work session on the proposed noise ordinance
Commissioner Samuel Tran reported a decibel reading of 58 dB at the gate of the bitcoin mining property — lower than earlier readings — though Commissioner David Beerbower noted that the sheriff’s department recorded higher readings later. Tran raised concerns about enforceability and the potential breadth of the proposed resolution. Beerbower continued working on the resolution and said the planning commission could later repeal or amend it as needed. (story)
November 11, 2025 — Evotech representatives appear before commission
Attorney Ty Patton of Trip, Wolf and Garrison (Wichita) and Adam Couch, one of the owners of Evolution Technology, LLC (operating as Evotech), addressed the commission. They explained that the operation:
consists of two shipping containers of computers powered by an on-site natural-gas generator (not the electrical grid),
produces approximately 1 megawatt,
runs around the clock, and
registers 55–77 dB at the site entrance, according to readings the sheriff’s office had taken at different times of day.
Patton said Evotech had added noise-mitigation fencing and that further mitigation would cost between $75,000 and $100,000. Nearby residents Derek Ranes, David Ranes, and Charlotte O’Hara expressed concerns about noise, vibration, and the possibility that similar operations could be sited on other abandoned gas wells in the county. (story)
November 17, 2025 — Planning Commission’s broader moratorium proposal tabled
The agenda packet for the November 17 commission meeting included a recommendation from the Bourbon County Planning Commission for a moratorium that would have required all new non-agricultural commercial or industrial businesses in unincorporated areas of the county to obtain a special use permit from the commission before operating. The commission voted unanimously to table the recommendation. The narrower bitcoin-mining moratorium from October 14 remained the only moratorium on the books at that point.
December 15, 2025 — Commission adopts Resolution 50-25 (Noise Limitations); narrower industrial moratorium directed for drafting
On a 2-1 vote, the commission adopted Resolution 50-25, “Noise Limitations in Unincorporated Areas of Bourbon County, Kansas.” Commissioner Mika Milburn-Kee voted against. The resolution prohibits “loud, unnecessary, or unusual” noise near residences and adopts EPA guidelines for measurement. The thresholds it identifies are noise exceeding 70 dB for a 24-hour duration, 55 dB outdoors and 45 dB indoors between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 45 dB outdoors and 35 dB indoors between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. — measured within 75 feet of the source as prima facie evidence of a violation. The resolution assigns enforcement to the commission or its designee and sets a maximum fine of $500 per day per offense.
At the same meeting the commission directed the county counselor to draft a narrower moratorium covering utility-level power generation, energy storage, cryptocurrency mining, data centers, and waste disposal. (story · Resolution 50-25 (PDF))
At the January 5 meeting, County Counselor Bob Johnson presented a draft moratorium resolution. Chairman David Beerbower moved to approve Resolution 07-26, “providing for a temporary moratorium of utility scale power generation, crypto mining, data centers, and waste disposal operations in Bourbon County, Kansas.” Commissioner Samuel Tran seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The moratorium runs 180 days and specifically exempts the three solar energy projects previously approved under Resolution 41-25. It does not apply to commercial or industrial businesses generally — the broader moratorium recommended by the Planning Commission in November never advanced.
Ben Hall, a property owner at 80th and Willow Road, used public comment to describe a dispute with Evotech over a gas well on his property: he said Evotech had approached him in summer 2025 about leasing the well, that negotiations stalled over price, and that an Evotech contractor had later told a rural-water-district worker that Evotech had permission to access Hall’s property and could cut locks if needed. Hall said he had received no documentation supporting any access right and characterized Evotech’s actions as bullying and harassment. County Counselor Bob Johnson said the well dispute appeared to be a civil matter between private parties. (story)
February 13, 2026 — Civil lawsuit filed
Dereck Ranes, Cassie Ranes, David Ranes, and Verna Ranes filed a petition in Bourbon County District Court, case number BB-2026-CV-000013, against Evolution Technology, LLC and Charles Rees (the landowner of the site). The case is classified as “CV Other Tort” and is assigned to Judge Richard M. Fisher Jr.
The plaintiffs are represented by Rustin Kimmell of the Kimmell Law Firm LLC, Burlington, Kansas. Evolution Technology is represented by Matthew Hogan of Rasmussen, Dicky, Dioszeghy, Henry, Ijei in Kansas City, Missouri. Defendant Charles Rees is represented by Gary E. Thompson of Mound City, Kansas. The county is not a party to the lawsuit.
February 23, 2026 — Commission considers changes to the noise resolution; changes tabled (resolution remains in effect)
Commissioner Mika Milburn-Kee raised concerns about the complaint form and the process for handling noise complaints under Resolution 50-25, and said she wanted to review the form and the start-to-finish enforcement process with the county attorney. She cited prior difficulty completing enforcement on existing county sanitation codes as a reason to make sure the noise-resolution process would actually work. Commissioner Beerbower agreed. Changes to the resolution were tabled until the next meeting; Resolution 50-25 itself remained in effect. (story)
March 2, 2026 — County Attorney provides analysis of proposed amended resolution
At the March 2 regular meeting, County Attorney James Crux presented his analysis of the proposed amended noise resolution and identified several issues, according to the meeting minutes:
It was unclear whether the resolution was intended as a general nuisance statute or as specific decibel-based violations.
The listed decibel limits (55 dB during day, 45 dB at night) were characterized as “guidelines” rather than enforceable standards. Crux noted that 55 dB is approximately equivalent to light traffic or nearby conversation, and that 45 dB is comparable to a modern refrigerator.
Enforcement would require a county codes inspector with proper training in criminal law and search procedures.
Commissioner Beerbower noted the resolution was intended to address ongoing noise complaints, including in the Xenia area, with additional complaints pending the resolution’s adoption. Commissioner Tran asked Crux to visit the Xenia site to hear the noise firsthand. Commissioner Gregg Motley suggested that civil enforcement might be more effective than criminal enforcement; Crux noted his review found insufficient grounds for criminal public-nuisance charges. Both Crux and County Counselor Johnson indicated that either criminal or civil enforcement would likely involve lengthy, contested litigation. The consensus expressed in the minutes was that affected landowners pursuing individual civil action might be the most practical approach — an option the Ranes plaintiffs had already taken three weeks earlier with their February 13 petition.
March 16 to April 27, 2026 — Motion to dismiss, response, and hearing
Counsel for Evolution Technology entered an appearance and filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 16. The Ranes plaintiffs filed their Response in Opposition on April 6. Return of service on Charles Rees was completed on April 14, perfecting service on both defendants. Judge Fisher held a hearing on the motion to dismiss at 9:00 AM on April 27. The docket reflects “Hearing Held — Motion.”
May 18, 2026 — First Amended Petition filed
On May 18 the Ranes plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition — a five-page revision of the original four-page petition. The substantive changes are concentrated in newly added paragraphs 16–20 and a related argument throughout: between February 13 and May 18 the defendants temporarily stopped running the generators, and the amended petition invokes the voluntary cessation doctrine to argue that this tactical pause does not moot the case because the defendants retain full control of the equipment and have provided no legally binding assurance that the noise will not resume.
Key elements of the amended petition:
Two claims: Count I — Private Nuisance; Count II — Negligence, including negligence per se for alleged violation of Bourbon County sound ordinances (Resolution 50-25).
Alleged decibel levels: noise “in excess of 80 decibels (dB) and often exceeding 90 dB” on plaintiffs’ property, 24 hours a day.
Alleged health effects: sleep deprivation, tinnitus, and other physical discomforts.
Relief sought: a permanent injunction capping outdoor noise on plaintiffs’ land at 55 dB between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 45 dB between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (mirroring the decibel limits used in the county’s Resolution 50-25 discussions), $1.00 in nominal damages, and a jury trial.
Adopted December 15, 2025; remains in effect. Proposed amendments tabled February 24, 2026 and discussed March 2, 2026; no enforcement action taken to date.
Adopted unanimously January 5, 2026; expires approximately July 4, 2026 unless extended.
Planning Commission’s broader proposed moratorium on all new non-agricultural businesses
Tabled November 17, 2025; never enacted.
Evotech bitcoin mine
Continues to be located at 668 Willow Rd, Mapleton; per the amended petition, generators were temporarily stopped between February and May 2026.
Ranes v. Evolution Technology, LLC and Charles Rees (BB-2026-CV-000013)
Active. First Amended Petition filed May 18, 2026. Defendants’ response to the amended petition is the next scheduled action.
The dispute over the bitcoin mining operation has so far played out on three separate tracks: a county regulatory (the cryptocurrency moratorium, Resolution 50-25, and the broader industrial moratorium), a property-rights (the Ben Hall gas-well issue), and a private civil-tort lawsuit (the Ranes lawsuit). The county itself is not a party to the lawsuit.
FortScott.biz will continue to report on the lawsuit and related county actions as they develop.
