[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[4:19] I'd like to call this meeting, the Clay County Commission to Order. We will begin this evening's meeting with
[4:25] invocation from Reverend Till Appling. If you would come forward and give us our blessing. And I will
[4:32] tell Reverend This as well as everyone else. When you come up to speak, please make sure that you
[4:37] push the button and that the caller or the microphone is green. It speaks clearly in the microphone,
[4:43] I identify yourself, and then go forward with that, Reverend.
[4:46] It's your, your, your, your, your, your,
[4:52] your, let us pray.
[4:55] Almighty God, creator of all life and the architect of the universe.
[5:00] In humility, we recognize even the founders of this country acknowledged that we are
[5:05] depended on the grace and guidance of providence, that unseen hand, that has guided all of humanity
[5:11] from ages past.
[5:13] We acknowledge our responsibilities to this great land, our country, our state, and this county we call home, to do our very best as stewards of all that you have given us as a free people.
[5:28] We ask your providential guidance this night in the matters of this body that what is said and what is decided will be pleasing in your sight and a reflection of our best efforts for the people of this county.
[5:42] Consider Lord God our limitations of wisdom and knowledge, and in your grace and goodness
[5:48] inspire not only noble deeds and decisions, but fill our hearts with the spirit needed
[5:54] that all of the work of this body and all of the deliberations that must take place will be
[6:01] accomplished with charity and graciousness. This we pray in the op to the honor and glory of your name,
[6:08] Amen. Thank you. Please join me in the pledge.
[6:19] Thank
[6:27] you.
[6:35] Please call the roll.
[6:38] Commissioner Nulti. Commissioner Littington. Here. Commissioner Lawson. Here.
[6:42] Commissioner Wagner. Here. Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Thompson. Here. Commissioner Johnson.
[6:52] That brings us to approval of the seedlings agenda is a motion related to approval of the agenda.
[6:57] A move to approve times agenda. Motion has been made for the approval of the
[7:02] seedings agenda as published. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Lawson?
[7:07] Yes, I would like to change item 7 Senate Bill 190 to after the public comments 7.
[7:21] If we could please.
[7:22] Well,
[7:25] Mr. Councillor, are we going to need to do that in a form of motion?
[7:28] Now, there's at least one other change.
[7:29] Do we want to roll them into one?
[7:33] Very well.
[7:36] Also, it's my understanding and administrator that we have another change on our agenda.
[7:41] Yes, thank you, Commissioner.
[7:42] Staff would like to withdraw 2023-325, which is approving an application for group insurance
[7:49] with standard insurance. We'd like to bring this back before the commission next week so we'd
[7:55] like that pulled this evening please. Okay. Just for the second, getting it through,
[8:02] Commissioner Lawson is okay. We just roll both those into one motion and just have you make that
[8:06] motion. I need to make another one. I would roll that into yours. I don't know. We really need to, but
[8:12] the agenda, the two remove the other agenda, I'm just going to just have one vote. I can do it if you
[8:18] I move to adjust tonight's agenda to show item number 10 discussion items moved to the item after public comments and the removal of 2023-325 from the regular agenda.
[8:33] Motion been made to alter our agenda as just outline discussion.
[8:39] Commissioner Johnson.
[8:41] I just want to clarify, I still don't understand what's going on.
[8:44] We're moving this discussion item for Senate Bill 190 up several places so that the
[8:49] people that are here in the audience can be heard and hear this sooner than later and
[8:53] probably get home and time for the football game.
[8:58] Yes, I believe that's a commission of Austin's intent.
[9:00] That's what I'm doing.
[9:03] Further questions or discussion?
[9:05] Seeing none, you'll recognize to close.
[9:07] Please call the roll.
[9:08] Commissioner Wagner, Commissioner Whittington.
[9:13] Commissioner Lawson.
[9:15] Commissioner Carpenter.
[9:16] Commissioner Thompson.
[9:19] Motion passes 60.
[9:24] The brings us to ceremonial matters.
[9:26] I believe we want to have one item under that heading administrator.
[9:32] Yes.
[9:33] I believe Commissioner Lawson has presented a resolution really of support for the
[9:41] individuals in Israel and certainly supporting peace in that area of the world and then I would
[9:48] defer to her to add any other comments.
[9:51] Thank you very much before I do this I just want to say thank you Diana thank you Brandi
[9:58] for getting this all written up for me one quick thing if I may years ago was a teenager I had
[10:08] talk to my dad who had been in the Second World War and was one of the soldiers that came
[10:15] through Germany, and Stoffers, and the atrocities.
[10:20] And my dad was Gorilla, and he was tough as a boot, and it was the first time I saw my father
[10:30] cry.
[10:31] It just was so impactful on me and he explained what the people look like and how horrible
[10:38] they were in and all of that. It kind of stuck with me and it has continued to as we hear
[10:47] things that go on any kind of prejudice of any nature whether it's for the Jewish community
[10:55] or anybody is unforgivable. This particular attack was brutal and so I just wanted to do this
[11:05] Just kind of as a remembrance to what these people have been through and how whether it's
[11:14] here or any place sells, this is a clay county issue, it's a humanity issue.
[11:21] And so I wanted to go ahead and do this, so with your indulgence.
[11:26] Whereas clay county is standing with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war
[11:31] launched by Hamas and other terrorists.
[11:34] And whereas on October the 7th, Hamas terrorists launched a massive, unprovoked war on Israel
[11:41] by air, land and sea, including firing thousands of rockets, and whereas Hamas terrorists
[11:50] crossed the land border and began slaughtering Israelis, abducting hostages, entouns
[11:56] and southern Israel, including children and the elderly.
[11:59] And whereas, since November the 7th, Hamas has launched over 4,500, 4,500 rockets into southern and central Israel.
[12:12] And whereas, since October the 7th, 2023, 23 Hamas, October the 7th, 2023, Hamas, terrorists have killed over 900 Israelis and injured more than 2,600 others.
[12:28] And we're as at least 11 now up to 26 United States citizens in Israel among those killed by
[12:36] Hamas since October 7th of 2023.
[12:41] Now therefore be it resolved that the Clay County Board of Commissioners and citizens
[12:46] do hereby support Israel and pray for peace.
[12:50] And our governor also issued a statement of this nature, our governor of Missouri.
[12:56] So, with that, thank you very much.
[13:01] Thank you, Commissioner Lawson.
[13:03] I think for the discussion,
[13:07] Mr. Carpenter.
[13:08] Yeah, I just wanted to suggest,
[13:11] you and you updated the numbers.
[13:13] What I've seen most recently,
[13:14] 27 at least Americans that in at least 1200 is really
[13:19] died in the terrorist effect.
[13:21] So, to the extent that we can update the numbers and the reasons
[13:24] and I think that might be a good thing to do.
[13:27] Just want to join you in limiting the terrible terrorist attacks that took place in the
[13:34] loss of life, a lot of atrocities took place, and there's no excuse for it.
[13:43] Obviously, it's a complicated situation in that area and has been for centuries, and it's
[13:52] I sincerely hope that, at some point, humanity finds a way to move in a real peaceful direction
[14:00] there and across the world and move on from these kinds of despicable acts.
[14:06] Thank you.
[14:08] I certainly share the sentiments that Commissioner Carpenter, Commissioner Lawson have just
[14:11] expressed.
[14:13] What we're doing here this evening with this particular action is highly unusual.
[14:19] It's not something we do all the time and it's not something I expect us to be doing on a regular basis
[14:24] But I think we're looking at a situation that is unfortunately of historic proportions
[14:29] So this is and should be an unusual step and that's what makes this
[14:35] I think particularly important is because it is out of the ordinary because the circumstances are so out of the ordinary
[14:42] that it requires something outside of our usual way of conducting business here that I think
[14:50] it is appropriate in this particular case. With that, I'm sending further comments. We will
[14:56] move on to public comment.
[15:02] Do we need to, we need to vote on that? Because it's, yeah, okay, yeah, we're looking at me like I may forgotten something. All right, very good.
[15:11] So this is a point where anybody from the public can come up to make comments of any sort that they would wish.
[15:18] It would be great to keep them brief, but please, we do want to hear your opinions. A couple of things, as I just mentioned when the Reverend came up, if you would like to make a comment on a subject of importance to
[15:29] you, if you could queue up, if a number of you want to speak, so that we have a line,
[15:35] make sure the light is on on the stem of the microphone, state your name and speak clearly
[15:42] into the microphone. One of the things that I do want to make mention of is this, we are
[15:49] obviously bound by sunshine law here in the, as elected officials, we do want to hear your
[15:55] views, but because this is not a subject that has been noticed up under the Missouri sun shine
[16:01] law, we cannot necessarily respond to you right now at this moment. I can tell you that
[16:07] all of us are very interested in hearing what people have to say and continuing the conversation.
[16:13] It's just in this particular circumstance we are not able to carry on a discussion in this
[16:18] particular format this moment. So I didn't want you to think that it reflected a lack of interest
[16:23] or concern on the part of any of the members of this commission and perhaps in the future
[16:29] this will be put on the agenda so that we can have a more interactive discussion on this
[16:35] matter but I did want to make sure that you understood the circumstances of how we proceed.
[16:41] With that, if there are any citizens who would like to come forward and make a comment of
[16:47] interest to them, please feel free to do so just come up to the podium here.
[16:57] My name is Lee Molenex, I live in the northern part of Clay County.
[17:02] I've been up there for 30 years, built a new house up there, a few years back.
[17:08] The roads go into my house off of a 33 highway, which is 184-street landcaster
[17:14] and 190-street.
[17:17] Since I've been up there, have not been a good road at all, period.
[17:21] They have come out and tried to fix it, but lack of knowledge or whatever it is, they have
[17:30] not fixed that road.
[17:33] They come back, they've tried to patch it, the road is beyond patching to repair and my question
[17:40] which I'm not going to get answered tonight, which is okay.
[17:42] They asked fault paved a couple of years ago, all of the roads on the west side of 33
[17:49] highway, 184 street down all through Carriage, they went right down landcaster to 190 street
[17:57] when across the bridge on I-35 and they asked fault paved everything to Excel's just
[18:01] springs.
[18:02] My question is, why, why didn't they do that road too?
[18:07] Well, that road is atrocious.
[18:08] If anybody would like to cool up and drive down that road, I would advise you to do it.
[18:16] We'd like to have something done to this road other than trying to patch it, because
[18:20] it's patching it is not feasible.
[18:24] It needs to be asphalt paved, like the rest of them got done, and I'd like to know why
[18:30] it didn't start with.
[18:32] So that's my complaint.
[18:33] is the Rhodes. Who is Carl's? There's not discussions with what I think I say. Carl is our deputy administrator in charge of highways and roads.
[18:49] Okay. And in Terry, is that under him? Yes. Okay. He's either one of them here tonight.
[18:58] Yes, but once again, you know, we as elected officials, I understand, I just want to who he is.
[19:05] I've talked to Terry before, I've never talked to Carl.
[19:09] Terry is a female as a lady.
[19:13] All right.
[19:14] Well, okay.
[19:15] Thank you.
[19:17] Administrative.
[19:17] Did you have something to add?
[19:19] I'd just like to say, I spoke to Mr. Moll next earlier today.
[19:22] We have this contact information.
[19:24] So we don't have his answers today,
[19:25] but he did express his concerns to me and staff will be in touch to give you some of those answers
[19:31] that you've asked to see.
[19:33] I appreciate that.
[19:35] And I'd also like to say to all the people that I brought with me, I wish your opinion.
[19:42] Thank you.
[19:43] Thank you very much.
[19:44] Would anyone else wish to come forward and express an opinion or a view?
[19:56] My name is Alex Blakely.
[19:57] I live on landcaster.
[19:59] When we bought 10 years ago, we bought in Clay County, one for the schools, but two
[20:04] is I didn't want to live on gravel, and we could have bought a lot more for a lot less
[20:09] and paid a lot less taxes if I would have moved up into Clinton County, because we are right
[20:13] there on that border, and yeah, the road has always been bad, they re-did the chipping seal
[20:20] wants, and it was gravel for months, and I made it complaint then, I'm like, I didn't pay,
[20:25] I don't pay this much to live on grab.
[20:27] This was done on purpose.
[20:29] So yeah, I would appreciate it if our roads got addressed
[20:32] because it, the potholes are terrible.
[20:35] You just, you play dodgeball going up the road every day
[20:39] to our kind of status potholes.
[20:40] I know people have had tire issues from them as well
[20:42] because if you just, you forget it's there
[20:45] and you hit it, you're gonna know it.
[20:48] So I know there's a lot of people
[20:50] getting card damage from it.
[20:52] So I appreciate your time.
[20:54] Thank you, sir.
[21:04] Is on the east side of I-35, it runs from P.P. all the way down to Boggs Farm.
[21:11] They just chipped and sealed it.
[21:14] Now I don't know if the county chipped and sealed it, or if they had a contractor chip
[21:18] and sealed it, but it's a terrible, terrible job.
[21:23] They went south of 190th, all the way down, and there's four houses on that road down to
[21:31] Boggsfront.
[21:32] I live on West Outer Road, which is all gravel.
[21:36] Well, if they can ship and seal the road, this basically, do East to me.
[21:42] Why can't they do something with my road?
[21:44] We've had issues, cold or issues, other things, had to call accounting three or four times
[21:49] to get him to come out and grade the road.
[21:52] It was getting in bad shape.
[21:54] I'd like somebody to look into that basically,
[21:57] just drive down stock road and see what a terrible job
[22:00] is done.
[22:01] And I sure hope when you repair a hundred and nine
[22:04] yes, landcaster at 184, you just don't come out
[22:09] and ship and seal it and walk away
[22:11] because there's a heavy volume of traffic on there.
[22:14] That's all I have to say.
[22:17] Mr. Chair, my name is Martin Schmeltz. I live on West Island, one eight five time West
[22:24] Island,
[22:27] West Island, just one. I think something I like to say is if it is administrative
[22:32] you seem to be gathering names and contact information. So when you get up to speak, if
[22:36] you would like to be on that list of people contacting, please make sure that you talk to
[22:40] the administrator and give them your information commissioner and Johnson.
[22:45] Thanks, sir. Marty, have you talked with anybody from a hiring department yet about this?
[22:50] I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We can't engage. Yes, we can. This is not a sunshine biologist.
[22:56] Commissioner, excuse me. Council, what is your call on this?
[23:02] We can use your mic.
[23:05] If it's not on or agenda, we're not supposed to be talking about something that would be a violation of the sunshine law.
[23:10] Yeah, I mean, I tried to stay on the right side of it, but I did not give it an impact on your nation.
[23:14] So we've got a meeting posted with topics, right?
[23:18] We can talk about those topics because that's a bit of, to have a substance discussion of something not on that.
[23:25] Right, we're not having a substance discussion.
[23:27] I'm just curious if he's talking about hard department. Sure. That's all.
[23:30] No, I've called the maintenance department numerous times,
[23:33] County maintenance roads, but that's as far as I've gone with it.
[23:37] Okay. And how many people are here because of the roads?
[23:41] Okay, this is ridiculous that these many people have to come to a commission meeting to talk about this.
[23:46] There should be someone from the highway department should be meeting with these people
[23:49] and taking care of these problems.
[23:52] I don't fix roads.
[23:54] The highway department does that.
[23:56] And there's a problem.
[23:56] There's many people are coming to the commission to talk about their roads.
[24:02] In my opinion, there's probably just some miscommunication going on.
[24:05] There has to be some better communication with our citizens of what's going on,
[24:08] why the roads aren't done or when they're going to be done to those kinds of things.
[24:11] And one of the, if they've been opting for either Terry or Kindle Carl things off, but for
[24:16] Terry or someone from a hard part to sit down with these good folks and just say, hey, listen, this
[24:19] we're out with these things.
[24:22] This is what we're going to do.
[24:23] This is our schedule.
[24:24] This is going to get to years when we're going to get it done.
[24:26] I mean, administrative.
[24:27] Can you comment on that at all?
[24:28] No, no.
[24:29] I think so.
[24:29] I think we are getting into a substantive discussion.
[24:33] Now, I think to me, the idea would be to notify, notice it up for our next meeting.
[24:38] and to have this discussion. I think it's a good discussion I have, but there are laws that
[24:45] we are bound by. Citizens are not bound by, by the way, you are not bound by sunshine law.
[24:50] We are bound by sunshine law.
[24:53] Understood. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it if you'd look into it. Commissioner, I'm sorry,
[25:00] Commissioner Johnson, you did, I was trying to express that, you still have the floor,
[25:05] or so, if you, did you want to speak any of it?
[25:08] Well, I think it sounds like I've been talking to you.
[25:09] There's going to be a panel this for me.
[25:11] But I will make a point here at clarification.
[25:14] I would like to see the law that says we cannot respond
[25:15] to citizens when they ask this, of course.
[25:17] It's, I've read the sunshine.
[25:19] And if you can put it out to me, I'd love to see it.
[25:22] And then, once again, I have to depend on County Council,
[25:25] Mr. Councillor.
[25:27] Yeah, my view, my reading the law is that if we have a sub-sub discussion
[25:31] of something that hasn't been noticed
[25:32] for the public, it's a violation. The public has an opportunity or it has the right to know
[25:39] when public business is going to be discussed. If we want to have a discussion about 189
[25:45] street, 184 street, that's certainly appropriate. It just should be published so that the public
[25:52] has a awareness of it.
[25:58] If you want to inquire about the council, please go right ahead.
[26:02] Oh, I'm sorry.
[26:03] I didn't realize it went off.
[26:05] There you go.
[26:05] So my understanding is it is reasonable for us to notice it.
[26:09] There would be certain things that we don't get to notice.
[26:10] So we can't notice.
[26:11] We certainly can't notice when somebody comes up here last minute and ask a question.
[26:14] Now, if I wasn't sitting up here and I was down there and there asked me the question.
[26:17] I can answer it.
[26:18] But to say that because I'm sitting up here, I can answer it.
[26:21] That's ridiculous.
[26:21] The sunshine law just tells us we have to have reasonable notice and there's no one in the sunshine law
[26:27] Then I'm not trying to challenge our counselor on this, but this is discussion we need to have
[26:31] There's no because it frustrates me. I've seen it other places to you where people assistance come up to the podium and ask a simple question
[26:36] And we hide behind the sunshine law that we can answer your question. No, we can't we're responsible for this can we're responsible for these potholes
[26:43] If they have a question we need to be able to explain why they haven't been filled or where to go to get those answers
[26:48] And I'm going to even have a full discussion, I'm just saying, hey, we need to have our
[26:51] highway department talk with these people and take care of these problems.
[26:54] That's not a discussion.
[26:55] That's just some direction.
[26:57] But there's nowhere in the sunshine, well, this says, we cannot answer a question, although
[27:01] we can't even have a discussion with someone who comes to the podium.
[27:03] It doesn't clearly say that in the sunshine.
[27:06] If it does, I would love to see that.
[27:07] Because it makes our job a lot easier if we're going to have to answer questions of anybody.
[27:10] But I don't think that's why we're here.
[27:12] And it just frustrates me if I was on the other side.
[27:14] And I took time out to come to a meeting on Thursday night to ask a question about my commission because nobody else can get the job done after all the commission to say, hey,
[27:23] can someone phone my potables and for them to say, sorry, such on law, I can answer your question, that's ridiculous.
[27:29] That's not what governments about, but that's my two
[27:34] -commissioner within, can I believe you are seeking where a condition?
[27:38] Yeah, so I think, Diana, I mean, there's 30 people here that want to have a conversation about roads.
[27:43] I've been a broken record on our roads.
[27:46] Our roads are an embarrassment.
[27:47] The highway department needs to step their game up and do a better job.
[27:51] I've been a broken record also in asking for a 10-year road plan.
[27:54] This is exactly why.
[27:56] We should be able to tell these folks when their roads are going to be upgraded and improved.
[27:59] I think we need to have a serious conversation.
[28:01] And I'm going to renew my request that a 10-year road plan
[28:04] be submitted with this year's capital budget request from the highway.
[28:07] Commissioner, once again, this is a time for...
[28:11] That's fine.
[28:11] There you go.
[28:12] This is what I want to say.
[28:13] Excuse me.
[28:14] Well, I try not to interrupt you because I'm trying to give you
[28:20] some man now speak.
[28:22] Thank you.
[28:23] What I'm trying to say is, first off, this is a time for public discussion.
[28:28] We sitting up here are not public.
[28:30] This is a time for them to express their views.
[28:34] We should engage in a discussion and there is a lawful and a prescribed way for us to
[28:38] do it.
[28:44] I can't answer for what conversation you may have had outside of my presence.
[28:52] That's right, so in the next week or so, yes, that would be absolutely fine.
[28:59] Commissioner Lawson.
[29:02] I don't want to get into a big fight. The only thing I wanted to say was that since April,
[29:10] I have been trying to get that road fixed.
[29:15] Mr. Molinix and I have talked more than my husband and me have talked.
[29:21] But, and I would ask, I would get promises made.
[29:28] But what the ones you have got?
[29:30] Bottom line is, yes.
[29:32] We need to get this squared away.
[29:34] This is something that if I would like to ask our counselor that he do a little bit of research on this issue and see if there's a loophole or something that in the future when people make this time to come down here that we're and I see where you're coming from Jerry I you're I know
[30:00] All right, as the way this is set up, but we need to make sure, then, certain sure, that with the new government that we have, whatever, that there isn't a way that we can work around that and be able to address people's issues when they take the time to come down.
[30:19] And the method for doing that is forced to notice it up under discussion, otherwise, one of the reasons for this law to be in place is so that other commissioners are not blindsided and so the public is not blindsided.
[30:32] It is one thing if we disagree with the law, that's fine, but we are, but we are, but we are bound by the law, and so I'm going to ask commissioners to please stay in compliance with sunshine all.
[30:48] Commissioner.
[30:49] Yes, Councillor.
[30:51] May I go.
[30:51] The question's been asked.
[30:52] I'll just read from 610-020.020.
[30:56] Do you owe it a little more near microphone there?
[30:58] Thank you.
[30:59] All public governmental bodies shall give notice of the time date in place of each meeting and it's
[31:04] tentative agenda.
[31:05] And here's what I believe to be the role of the park.
[31:08] In a manner reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered.
[31:13] And that's the role goal of the Sunshine Law is that public business happens and the public
[31:18] gets snow when that happens.
[31:20] As opposed to, you know, people show up and you have a free fall discussion, but the rest
[31:26] of the public who might want to have input into that discussion have no opportunity to be put
[31:31] on notice of that discussion.
[31:34] So that's how we've always done it.
[31:36] That's why I think a fair reading of the statute in the Sunshine Law.
[31:41] Thank you, because there have been a number of times before this body, not this particular
[31:47] iteration of the body, where we have had issues come up out of the blue and discussed
[31:52] in violation, and that is not fair to the public or other commissioners.
[31:58] There is obviously time later on, our agenda when it comes to comments for commissioners,
[32:02] those comments would then be in order.
[32:05] But once again, I would ask commissioners to stay in compliance with state statute, you may proceed.
[32:17] Thank you.
[32:17] And thank you all for considering this topic.
[32:19] My name is Christina Drucker.
[32:20] I also live on 190th Street.
[32:23] I will say in regards to talking about when POTC can get filled.
[32:28] There were actually people there today filling some, but why also I'm not a road person.
[32:33] It's quite laughable how they were getting fixed.
[32:37] That work from home so I can see all the traffic that goes by and I could watch them and it was just, you know, traveling
[32:43] asphalt out, maybe spreading it a little bit, but no tamping it down or anything, so I mean, hopefully that's something that with discussions with the highway department if that's the direction that's used to go, that could also be addressed as if the people doing the work are trained properly.
[32:58] Thank you.
[32:59] Thank you very much.
[33:01] What do anyone else have to come up and make comment?
[33:10] Hi, my name is Zach Lonestein. I live on a 190th street. First off, I appreciate those of you who share some concern.
[33:19] I understand you guys have procedures to follow, but definitely appreciate you guys. I mean, you guys are elected officials, so
[33:26] I appreciate you guys here and us. I can't say too much that hasn't been said already.
[33:32] The road is pretty laughable and needs attention. We pay a lot of taxes in this county.
[33:37] I think somebody else mentioned, we could go live somewhere else for a heck of a lot less, but we've all chosen to play county.
[33:44] So we'd appreciate you guys giving some attention to this.
[33:46] Thank you.
[33:47] Thank you.
[33:49] Zayne, when else we'd like to come forward to make comment.
[33:57] A little bit of west out of road, and it is gravel.
[34:00] And I believe it's pretty dangerous when you, when you re-grabble the road, they put dust on it.
[34:05] And when you're driving down, it's right next to 35, and all that dust blows over to 35.
[34:10] And you see the traffic on the highway slowing down and that causes for danger. So I do I'd like to see that get chip and sealed
[34:19] Just for that alone
[34:20] Not to mention it's it's time to update the road there on west out of road
[34:26] That's all I thank you
[34:28] Thank you very much
[34:34] Anyone else like to comment
[34:40] oh, I'm
[34:45] sorry you certainly you can come up and talk about any issue you want on the as far as the property tax issue goes
[34:50] we're going to be taking that up next so if you would like to make comment at that time
[34:54] you talk about the Senate Bill 190 that will be our next item so that would you can
[35:00] either when you care to comment on it. We can respond to you on the other when the
[35:05] man 90 further discussion or excuse me for the comments from the public. Okay, seeing none
[35:12] that brings us to our discussion item as we did alter our order of our agenda administrator
[35:23] Thank you, so there has been a lot of discussion at the Commission level and also a committee that's been put together that has been facilitated by Commissioner Lawson.
[35:36] And so the request was to have this on the agenda for the Commission to discuss and give an update on what the committee was progressing.
[35:46] and I believe there's sort of a draft ordinance to kind of as a starting point for discussion
[35:52] purposes. There was also in your packet a letter because one of the things and I don't
[35:58] mean take your thunder but one of the things the committee had talked about was the commission
[36:02] considering a letter to be sent to all the legislators from Clay County in Jefferson City about
[36:09] some items that possibly they might take up for clarification during this next session starting
[36:15] the January of 2024. So we have that there also that the commission may want to talk about and discuss and see if that's an
[36:24] action that you wanted to do. And so with that I would turn it over to Commissioner Lawson to maybe give an update on the committee and
[36:31] and what discussion you have.
[36:33] Commissioner Lawson, if you'd like to start the discussion.
[36:37] Okay, thank you very much. Just wanted to say that for the citizens especially that are here.
[36:45] We have been working on this bill since before the governor actually signed it.
[36:52] And we formed a committee and I just so that you know how involved everyone was.
[36:59] We had my self, we had Commissioner Nolty and Commissioner Johnson because we can only
[37:06] have three commissioners in a room together without breaking the sunshine law.
[37:10] I think otherwise everybody would have been involved, but we had those three individuals that were working on it.
[37:17] Along with, we had our assessor.
[37:22] We had our auditor.
[37:25] We had the assessor's lawyer.
[37:28] Mr. Lucas Wallingford.
[37:32] We had our collector Barbara O'Reilly.
[37:35] We had her second in command, Randy McIntosh, who was, is it brilliant?
[37:43] We had a treasure of Bob Nance, our administrator, Diana Wright, and our counselor Kevin
[37:50] Graham.
[37:51] So it was a, I hate to put that in my own words, but it was a really intelligent group.
[37:59] And we really went after this to make it as good as we possibly could for the citizens.
[38:07] The bill was a little wonky in the aspect that there was some some language that wasn't as clear as it could have been.
[38:19] And this is what Diane is talking about. We're trying to get those individuals at Jefferson City
[38:27] to look at some of those great areas, make them exact, so then we can go ahead and get this in forced.
[38:37] Last week, Jay Johnson made a great suggestion, and he asked that our auditor go ahead and formulate this ordinance for us.
[38:48] And so he did, and he did it in one day.
[38:52] Commissioner, Commissioner Worthington, jokingly said to him,
[38:56] well, can you have that ready by tomorrow?
[38:59] And he did, he had it ready the next day.
[39:02] Everybody here has had it in their possession for a while.
[39:08] So kind of what I'd like to see us do
[39:11] is to talk a little bit about the bill, areas
[39:14] that you have concerns about,
[39:16] that we need to let our staff know so we can make the changes and
[39:23] then further it helps Jerry when he goes to Jeff City to clarify everything with the people there.
[39:30] So I'm going to step back and anybody that wants to
[39:34] bring that forward then let's do it and get it discussed.
[39:38] Commissioner, I'm going to leave your mic on please.
[39:42] Could you just go through some of the high points?
[39:45] because not everyone has a copy of it in front of them.
[39:47] So if you could kind of go through the point,
[39:50] then we'll go ahead and I think then everybody
[39:51] will be able to hear more.
[39:53] That's why you're presiding.
[39:55] One of the main things, and this is the key,
[40:00] you're 62, and in the bill it says Social Security eligible.
[40:06] Now does that mean you take Social Security
[40:08] or you could if you wanted?
[40:10] That's one of the gray areas.
[40:12] But the key is 62, you own your home, it is your primary residence.
[40:21] Those are key issues, because some folks may have a home that, you know, vacation home or something of that nature.
[40:27] Doesn't count, it's your primary residence.
[40:30] So those are some of the key issues.
[40:33] Something I do want to mention, I'm glad you gave me another moment.
[40:38] Commissioner Note and our auditor and myself met with the school districts and we met with all the school districts at one time.
[40:51] We had Smithville, and Carnie, and North Casey, and Lawson, and I don't know...
[40:58] Excel's here? Excel's here. We had all of them there together, and we went over the bill,
[41:06] and we also went over how little it will impact the school districts, because that's something we think about too.
[41:14] We don't want to do anything to harm the education, but we also feel that people that have
[41:20] their taxes, all their life deserved a break. So we did give them the bottom line information.
[41:29] They had some questions, but all in all, I felt as though they were fairly willing to work
[41:36] with us on the bill. So that made me feel a lot better. But that's the high point. You've
[41:43] to be 62 and you've got to become 62 in the year that this all takes place. So you can't
[41:52] be 59 and say, well, I'm going to be 62. You've got to be 62 in that year. So anyway,
[42:00] with that, go ahead.
[42:02] Mission away, I think, don't I believe you start recognition?
[42:05] Yeah, maybe Commissioner Johnson or Lawson or staff, have we, have we figured out the,
[42:11] the, oh, the collector was going to have to get some kind of new software.
[42:15] Have the vendors done their update?
[42:18] So staff has been in conversation with our current software vendor and what it would take,
[42:22] because this does take a lot of change in calculation and making sure we get it correct.
[42:27] We have also been interviewing other software vendors,
[42:31] to see what products are out there and what's available.
[42:35] So those discussions are going on.
[42:37] We know their may or may not be a cost with this.
[42:40] It depends.
[42:41] Our current vendor is looking at that because it is legislative driven.
[42:45] They may be required under our contract to make the necessary changes
[42:49] without the or not we don't know.
[42:53] So there's still lots of conversations that are going on.
[42:55] But yes, we are pursuing that.
[42:57] Okay, also section 30806 section C says property tax credit.
[43:07] An eligible tax payer is authorized to receive a property tax credit upon the submission
[43:12] and approval of an annual application by eligible tax payer.
[43:17] Why are we asking the taxpayers to do an annual application when they're not getting any younger?
[43:24] So, some people might like to be getting younger, so the thought process on that is, the first application will be a very thorough application to ensure eligibility, right?
[43:36] But we are going to ask that there is an annual renewal, because in essence what an annual renewal will be, will be an affidavit that I am the senior I'm swearing.
[43:46] That is still my primary residence being.
[43:48] I haven't gone to live with my sister in California and I've moved my kids in.
[43:53] So they're really going to be certifying and notarizing.
[43:56] I still live there, you know, it's still my primary residence.
[43:59] So the renewal will be much easier and simpler on the applicant than the initial application.
[44:06] Okay. And so Commissioner Lawson and Johnson,
[44:09] do you guys feel that we are at a place where we can pass this year?
[44:18] I'd like to see you get done sooner rather than later. I know we've, you guys have put a lot of work into this, so, you know, I'd like to move forward with this and my, my proposal would be, or, you know, my, I know this is just a discussion, but would be to get this on next week's agenda for a group. That's where I'm in.
[44:43] Hold on a second. There you are, Commissioner.
[44:46] All right, thank you, sir.
[44:48] Yes, so this was kind of a draft and I don't think it's been through the whole committee yet.
[44:55] And I don't know if it's been vetted completely by legal yet.
[44:57] So if it's ready for a game time yet.
[45:00] I think it's a good product to start with, and I think we can expedite getting through those things through the committee just to, so what I think we need to do is look for loopholes.
[45:10] And we're some things that number one will keep the strong legally, so I hope any legal challenges,
[45:16] but also, okay, there's people out there being going to find loopholes in this, going to find some way to either the challenges or to make a mockery of it.
[45:23] So by having some more eyes, have a look at this, there's some experts have a look at this, we can maybe fine tune a little more, if we need to,
[45:30] and then bring it back is what I would think we would do for, as soon as we could, for approval from this body.
[45:36] Yeah, I'd like to make sure we can get this done, you know, by the end of the year, because I know, you know, SB190 says it takes effect January 124, so I'd like to, I'd like to get this done by the end of the year.
[45:51] By the way, I'd like to point out that I've had discussions with the number of people from the legislature, including the Bill Sponsor, and there will be certainly an efforts made to alter this.
[46:03] Well, I do think we should be moving ahead reasonably quickly.
[46:07] I think we need to make sure also that we are taking into account of what those changes may be.
[46:12] And we may well have to end up rewriting this, depending on what those changes are.
[46:16] The principle being our Commissioner Lawson had outlined that is age 62.
[46:22] The law, in fact, as Ritten talks about Social Security eligibility.
[46:27] One of the things that obviously we've talked about, not just within the task force,
[46:31] but in the body as a whole is that not everybody is so security eligible under the way
[46:38] the statute is written, it could certainly be easily construed to not include retired teachers,
[46:44] to not include retired railway workers. We need to have clarification and we need to make sure
[46:50] that that everybody is included and they're not excluded by virtue of the fact that they engage
[46:59] one of those two professions and therefore might not be eligible. So we definitely need to be
[47:04] to have clarification. So while I think moving ahead as quickly as possible is important,
[47:11] I think we cannot ignore the fact that there will be change. The only thing that will not,
[47:18] the one reason it would not change next year is if the legislature was unable to
[47:23] to reach that level of functionality, I guess is one way to put it, but it is absolutely
[47:28] the intention of the sponsor to make that 62 not social security eligible, that changes
[47:36] things, that changes things dramatically.
[47:39] So I think we need to be working as we have been with our delegation, Jefferson City, to
[47:44] not only implement those changes that we believe should be made, but also to make sure that
[47:49] what we write is going to be in compliance because it's important that we are in compliance with the law as passed.
[47:57] Can I finish now, sir?
[48:00] That was, I wasn't done.
[48:01] Well, you were certainly, you know, yes.
[48:03] So, all right, so that helps, Jake, because I would like to see us pass this by the end of the year.
[48:08] You know, we've been accounting for 200 years.
[48:10] This wouldn't be the first time that we've passed something and had to make an amendment to it.
[48:14] So I'd like to see as passive as the law currently states and then if the legislature makes
[48:20] any changes, Mr. Lawson, Commissioner Johnson, you know, then we can come back and we
[48:25] can make some amendments and change it as needed.
[48:28] So.
[48:28] Man, I can't imply our view of commissioner.
[48:29] We think because you said you wanted to pass this, so it is compliant with the state statute.
[48:33] So are you saying not doing the 62-year-old, so I want to pass what we have, 62, and then
[48:41] there's any changes that we need to make, we can come back and amending.
[48:46] So I'd like, I'd like what we have right here and then we can make any changes if the
[48:50] legislature makes any changes, we can make changes then.
[48:54] So that's where I'm at.
[48:56] Commissioner Wagner, I believe you are up the queue next then Commissioner Lawson, hold on a second.
[49:06] There you go, there we go.
[49:07] Green means go.
[49:08] All right.
[49:08] I do have a few questions and give me the high sign when kickoff is and I'll stop.
[49:16] So a few things first, this was the reassessment, you're correct.
[49:24] Yes.
[49:25] Okay.
[49:25] Our ears are reassessment, so people's assessed valuations, they will see that increase
[49:32] this November on their tax base.
[49:35] So it's every odd year.
[49:36] Well, that's what I thought, and that's why I just call attention to one could take action
[49:43] with respect to 2024, but I really wouldn't matter because your assessment doesn't happen
[49:48] until 25.
[49:50] And so that's all to suggest a few different ways one could go with this one could pass something
[49:57] with it.
[49:57] It's effective date at a later point.
[50:00] You could wait and see what the legislature does, but I guess I would be remiss if
[50:06] I didn't at least point out that the lower tax burden doesn't come into effect for a bit,
[50:13] which then allows opportunity to, I don't necessarily say slam on the brakes, but you
[50:19] can coast a little bit to see what happens otherwise.
[50:23] Or again, take some action that doesn't actually take effect until later time frame.
[50:28] So, but I didn't want to make sure that I had my years right on that.
[50:32] I do have some concern that the
[50:36] Designing Commissioners brought up,
[50:39] and maybe this fits in the same category as the 62,
[50:42] but clearly, so the way I've always learned it,
[50:45] kind of counselor can correct me,
[50:48] is you cannot do something
[50:50] that the state has not,
[50:53] or has expressly said yes or no,
[50:57] you can go beyond,
[50:59] but you can't be in conflict.
[51:01] with. And so the issue raised concerning the teachers, the railroad workers, and I guess we're
[51:08] going to go into is it, I can't remember if the state statute is either silent or specific
[51:16] in what they say to those folks, but there is a little bit of that fairness in me that says,
[51:22] you know, if you're going to do it for everyone except these folks, then there's an issue
[51:28] there and I, you know, not to say it's a good issue or bad issue, just there's an issue.
[51:33] And if you're looking for that or I can have the answer and what this, I just bring it
[51:38] up and believe it at that for the moment.
[51:41] Under E1 where it says the completion and it suggests that the form required is to, to the
[51:50] county clerk honor before September 30th, I do find that to be a pretty tight date to
[51:58] to be able to then execute against that with the others.
[52:02] Thank you very much.
[52:04] Against the juristic, so I'm no, that's correct.
[52:07] We, we'd stand to have conversations at the committee level,
[52:10] looking at process and timing.
[52:12] So what we are envisioning is whatever year this would go into effect,
[52:17] that from a January through March,
[52:19] would be the application process.
[52:21] Especially those first few years,
[52:23] because we expect to receive a number of applications
[52:27] for every video that is eligible, right?
[52:29] From year going forward after the first two or three years,
[52:33] we would expect it will be those individuals
[52:35] that move into Clay County or Bata Home or Term 62, right?
[52:40] And so the number each year will be more manageable.
[52:44] So, but still once we get it and we get it verified,
[52:47] there's still work that we have to do
[52:48] to get into the system to make sure it calculates correctly.
[52:52] So we do not believe September 30th,
[52:54] That's too late of a date for us to get it in, get it vetted, get it checked to ensure that
[53:00] it's calculating correctly before the bills are printed and mailed the first to know
[53:04] that.
[53:05] So we're looking at an earlier date.
[53:07] Yeah, to that point.
[53:08] I mean, we just said our love is a couple of weeks ago, right, and so that's when, if you know
[53:17] what you are going to have to send back rebate or whatever, that may have a very important
[53:22] determination of how you will set your levy. So having the ability to sit under, stand that,
[53:28] an estimate off of that way beforehand, I would think.
[53:32] My understanding of where the statute is written, it won't come into play because to set
[53:38] the mill levy and to deal with Hancock, we will treat all properties at their current assessed
[53:43] valuation regardless of whether they're that particular property is eligible for tax credit.
[53:50] No, that part I understand is just, you know, things don't keep getting cheap.
[53:55] They keep getting more expensive.
[53:57] And as we were dealing our question that we were talking about here was, do you keep
[54:01] the same level?
[54:02] Yeah, 0% or do you raise it to what you can at 5%, maybe those numbers at the end of the
[54:08] day are very tiny, but it just seems to me that anyone who is studying their level is kind
[54:12] of what needs to know, what's the effect of, you know, what this would do.
[54:17] So I'll just leave it at that.
[54:21] You won't have an answer to this, but at least throw it out there because the next two points are kind of together.
[54:28] Do I guess we have some estimate that the auditor is already made as to what may be removed, redirected, or whatever.
[54:38] But I guess understanding, and maybe you've had this conversation with the other taxing jurisdictions.
[54:44] I mean, does everyone have a feeling of what the impact financially for each of them would be?
[54:55] And if they don't, they're good information to know, I don't know if it's been estimated, but just...
[55:00] Well, I do know that the auditor in the assessor when this first was discussed and looked at really just pulled information off a census data and just really did some very rough calculations of percentages and the auditors.
[55:12] So he can probably give the card to me.
[55:15] I do.
[55:15] I sort of say that.
[55:16] I can just say that.
[55:17] I will say that in just having conversations with municipalities, which I have had about this,
[55:23] they have asked whether the county is going to be able to provide an economic impact
[55:28] of this to them.
[55:29] And my comment was, don't know who that thought will get right.
[55:33] And I guess that's the central question.
[55:35] Can we provide some guidance?
[55:37] I mean, they'll probably create their own guidance, but do we have guidance?
[55:41] so we can provide those jurisdictions on what that fiscal impact might be.
[55:46] Yeah, Victor Robert, Clay County Otter, all right there.
[55:51] We have, you know, since the initial fiscal impact we looked at some time ago, used the same
[55:56] methodology and approach as legislative research on the fiscal note for the official fiscal
[56:01] note on SB1990, as a minister said, essentially taking sense of information, and both
[56:06] looking at what is your population over 62 years old, but also looking at what is it as a residential real estate property taxpayers,
[56:17] so because currently we don't collect age on property taxpayers, so we're making an estimate based on the adult population,
[56:24] the senior population of the adult population, and then you're looking at the homeowner occupancy rate in the county,
[56:32] So you factor that in, so in Clay County Countywide it's 15% senior population, you know, 67.5% owner rate.
[56:44] And then you also have to consider what is the percentage of your total property tax revenues or collections that comes from residential real estate.
[56:51] So countywide that 60%, but it is going to vary to your point by every single jurisdiction,
[56:57] every single taxing jurisdiction.
[56:59] And I have run individual figures for those taxing jurisdictions upon requests, all the school districts,
[57:07] as Commissioner mentioned.
[57:08] We looked at census information for their school districts, so it varies for all those factors.
[57:14] But by doing that, the bottom line countywide is we got to arrange from assessment data,
[57:19] looking at the American community survey of how many actual residential parcels that is from
[57:26] everything I just told you of a threshold to essentially nine to twelve percent of total
[57:31] assess valuation would be frozen as to the growth to the minister's point, you know, up to
[57:37] five percent a year. So, and you're basically, as we had that discussion for, you know, through
[57:43] three million dollars on currently five hundred and ten million dollars total
[57:47] collections. But that's going to increase five percent every year. It's going to
[57:51] compound five percent every year that two to three million dollar fiscal impact of
[57:55] less growth. And so that's essentially the assessment and again it, you know,
[58:02] of that two to three million every tax and jurisdiction has a portion of that. That's right.
[58:07] And so it's, you know, factored out that way. I might, I might add jump into the conversation
[58:12] or since I did put together that ordinance and immediately it was rather quick but it was also using
[58:18] the assessor's council's template having a conversation with county council being on the subcommittee.
[58:26] I did take all that into account and I think I'll just throw in that in adding the 62-year-old,
[58:34] again, St. Charles County did this, 62-year-olds are older,
[58:39] in County did that. So as to the question of if it's legal or not, I guess I would say,
[58:46] do we think they're wrong? And if that's the case and we could not have that expanded
[58:52] eligibility, but I'll just put that into the conversation.
[58:57] Sure. I'm sorry I got three more. I appreciate your indulgence. And actually, you might be able
[59:04] also a chime in on this, a Mr. Auditor, so from time to time jurisdictions vote to add certain
[59:13] property taxes in order to pay for stuff. How is that treated? So just for example, you know,
[59:21] there's a general obligation bond, property tax gets it, people vote for it, how is that treated
[59:26] than under this, is that is that also frozen or the fact that it was a voted on bond, does
[59:34] that still stay on the tax?
[59:36] It's our interpretation.
[59:37] Conant the administrator.
[59:38] We've had a lot of discussion about this in the subcommittee, because that is a gray area in
[59:42] the law.
[59:43] It's not specifically defined, right?
[59:46] At least in the statute, that was written of 137-1050.
[59:49] But we do look at that section four, where it does talk about, like a minister,
[59:53] talk about and calculating annual revenues under the Hancock Amendment, it's, you know, my
[59:58] belief that the same same thing.
[1:00:00] And principal would apply. So if you have a new levy, you're still going to calculate based on total revenues, even if you don't get it because of the credit.
[1:00:08] So I mean, you could theoretically add the new tax amount, but there would still be a credit to get you to the credit amount in the eligible year.
[1:00:18] So it'd be my opinion that they could, you know, you know, they would, you would add the new
[1:00:26] levy, but just want to get the revenue for those who received the credit.
[1:00:31] Interesting. Okay. And then how does, I recall the summer when we had the initial presentation
[1:00:41] from staff, one of the areas that was gray and I'm not sure I see the solution here was
[1:00:48] You know, not all spouses are all the same age, right?
[1:00:53] My wife's younger, my parents are five years apart.
[1:00:59] When you have difference in age, how is that treated?
[1:01:03] And I guess more importantly, to me, for the younger,
[1:01:07] is if they have not reached that 60-year-old threshold,
[1:01:10] their spouse did, but they have passed,
[1:01:13] how then do we treat that here?
[1:01:16] Or is that contemplated?
[1:01:17] Well, so I mean, again, you know, my thought on it is, and we've had a lot of discussion
[1:01:21] again to give about this gray area, big area in the wall, that we're trying to define.
[1:01:26] I think this is our opportunity as a county, you know, with an enabling statute to craft
[1:01:31] our ordinance as we see fit.
[1:01:33] So I think if the commission wants to, you know, define, because I've added few restrictions
[1:01:37] that I could think of.
[1:01:39] Right?
[1:01:39] If we're looking at geo bonded and deadness, that's a big component for public tax and jurisdictions.
[1:01:47] the blind pension fund, the retroactive refund component.
[1:01:52] So, you know, if we want to add more, you know, as to that situation, I mean, my initial
[1:01:59] font, just looking at how it flows, especially if we set 62 of eligibility, known in the
[1:02:05] household of 62, and to give in tax here, then there's no longer eligible.
[1:02:08] I mean, that's my initial font.
[1:02:09] I'm just a final question, maybe more for Diana, have we figured out what it would take to staff the execution of this?
[1:02:23] No, we do know that we will need to have some additional staff to do the eligibility to kind of help the process, especially those first few years.
[1:02:32] So we're having some discussion about, you know, because the intent is the application would come to the clerk's office and then would be reviewed for eligibility and then there's a list that's presented and then goes to the collector and then it's calculated.
[1:02:48] And so, you know, do we share staff, right? So there's a person that's there in the clerk's office during the application period to help with that and the review.
[1:02:57] and then goes and helps the collectors office during the time the bills go out and we're actually collecting revenue.
[1:03:04] We looked at that, we're looking into that, we're also looking into there are companies that we use that verify employees, right? E-verification.
[1:03:13] So we're also looking to say, well, all their companies out there that could also do the qualification verification of eligibility for us
[1:03:22] and pay a vendor to do that, then we wouldn't ask to staff for that, so we're going to explore all those options,
[1:03:28] but at this point in time, I cannot give you a cost analysis of what the implementation of this program is going to cost the county.
[1:03:35] I'll just make this comment.
[1:03:37] I understand the desire to try to get something passed to show that we've done something.
[1:03:42] I understand that and understand those reasons, but because the reassessments won't come again until a couple of years,
[1:03:52] I would certainly err on the side of it.
[1:03:54] If you want to pass something fine,
[1:03:56] but make it effective later so that you can see
[1:04:00] where all the lawsuits come.
[1:04:02] And you have to make changes because of what may happen
[1:04:06] in a different county.
[1:04:07] But I appreciate the answers to the question
[1:04:08] and I appreciate your indulgence in letting me ask so many.
[1:04:11] Thank you.
[1:04:13] Commissioner Carpenter, I believe you'd like to enjoy
[1:04:15] the conversation.
[1:04:16] Thank you, Commissioner.
[1:04:17] Yeah, thanks.
[1:04:18] I've just got a couple of quick questions
[1:04:19] and then a few comments that could Mr. Auditor if I could just ask a quick question on the revenue per year number.
[1:04:33] The sort of $2 to $3 million dollar figure is your one.
[1:04:40] Do we have obviously, you know, as the freeze continues to hold over time,
[1:04:47] That number will go up quite a bit and then we'll plateau at some point. That's just sort of a nature of
[1:04:54] You know the math on this situation of doing a property tax freeze for seniors
[1:04:59] So do you have like a year 10 estimate of what the total
[1:05:05] taxing
[1:05:07] Sure
[1:05:09] Victor Herbert click on the order. I went out to 2026, but I can easily you know do that. So
[1:05:16] You know, in the looking at the lower threshold of 9% of the set's valuation, so by 2026,
[1:05:22] you know, it's started at 2.1 million based on 222 numbers and 226 would go up to 2.6 million.
[1:05:30] Okay, can I just stop here to just real quick there? So when you say 2.6 and 2026, those numbers are adding on top of each other each year, right?
[1:05:38] No, that's per year.
[1:05:39] So, I mean, the total from over a five-year time period would have been $12 million.
[1:05:45] But at the same time, you have to think of, so currently we're at $510 million, you know,
[1:05:51] that would essentially still go to $616 million even with the credit in place.
[1:05:57] So you're saying by your five, that the total reduction in revenue would only be $2.6 million?
[1:06:03] No, that's an annual impact.
[1:06:06] Yeah, but I'm talking compared to if we were to not ask if we were to do nothing and so and so by year five each of those two millions has added on top of each other, right?
[1:06:19] Yeah, so by year five we're for going 12 million cumulatively. Yeah, no 12 million per year at that point
[1:06:30] No, no, it'd be, again, the same percentage on that year's assessment evaluation.
[1:06:37] So, starting at the base year of 2023, we're going to forego 2 to 3 million in year 1.
[1:06:44] And year 2, we're going to add a slightly larger number to that.
[1:06:48] And it's going to come 4 to 6 million.
[1:06:50] And then it's going to come.
[1:06:52] So, I'm looking at it.
[1:06:53] It might be miscommunication.
[1:06:55] And I'm happy to show you, you know, kind of my the thought process went into it, but essentially like I'm looking at it from an annual revenue perspective.
[1:07:06] It's currently 510 million, you know, next year it's projected 535 million.
[1:07:12] I'm not going to tell you that total collections are, you know, 1.5 billion, or, you know, I'm going to tell you that it's going to be 535 million.
[1:07:22] So I'm looking at the annual impacts.
[1:07:24] Well, I can give you a cumulative impacts.
[1:07:25] Yeah, I'm certain about that.
[1:07:26] So to be clear, I don't mean cumulative in the sense
[1:07:28] of adding each year's foregone revenue to each other.
[1:07:32] I'm saying comparing 50-year-five years from now to your channel
[1:07:36] and comparing that to the base year
[1:07:38] and subtracting the difference and seeing
[1:07:40] what the total number is at that point.
[1:07:45] So by my math, by the time you get to year five,
[1:07:48] you are up into the 10 to 15 million dollar range,
[1:07:52] just that year. And by year 10, you're going to be more than double that because as you
[1:07:58] continue to have the numbers, you've got cumulative increase happening at the same time.
[1:08:04] So it doesn't work like a, you know, property taxes aren't investment. You know, it's not like
[1:08:11] it's not compounding in that manner. You know, yeah, that's not, yeah. So I think what we need
[1:08:20] What we're already on with regard to those numbers is, by your 10, what would the difference be
[1:08:27] then if we were to take no action? In your 10, I'm not saying that up, years one through nine,
[1:08:34] and then that up your 10. Just your 10, what would the difference be between tax revenue generated
[1:08:40] in your 10 versus in the base year this year? If we were to take no action versus if we were to implement the program?
[1:08:49] And the reason I want to get to the bottom of that is because I think it matters whether that
[1:08:54] number is, as you say, something like 3 million or by year 10, I think indeed we'll
[1:09:02] be into the tens of millions by year 10 is what we'll be for going for year, which may
[1:09:07] well still be a good public policy choice and not saying that should disqualify us from
[1:09:11] before, but I do think to Commissioner Wagner's point, we need to have a lot of clarity
[1:09:16] on, on exactly what numbers we're talking about. Because if we're talking about hundreds of
[1:09:23] millions of dollars in total property tax revenue per year and you're going to freeze
[1:09:29] 15 to 20 percent of it and you have about a 5 percent per year increase, 5 percent increase
[1:09:37] on 500 million per year and then you only do, let's say 20 percent of it, that's 100 million,
[1:09:42] so that would be about 5 million per year. I know we've agreed that it would actually be a
[1:09:46] less that's where you come up with the 2 to 3 but that's per year that that 5% increase keeps
[1:09:51] happening every year and freeze holds in place and so it's 3 million in year 1 but it's the
[1:10:00] 5% increase in property values happens in year 2 it happens in year 3 all the way up through year 10
[1:10:08] I guess if you've had a freeze in place that whole time I can't imagine how we're calculating
[1:10:12] in the number would be anything like 3 million by your 10 or the 3.5, and then you're going
[1:10:17] to be like 30 million, right?
[1:10:19] So I guess what I'm saying is that, you know, the senior population doesn't come out.
[1:10:24] You know, if that would have happened, I would agree with you.
[1:10:28] You know, respectfully, I'm not trying to, you know, I'm trying to do this in a, in a
[1:10:42] It's very grateful for all the work you do for the candidates.
[1:10:46] I just, let's in the next week or two, let's try to get the bottom of if we're talking
[1:10:51] about a year 10 revenue for going of the way it seems to be being portrayed as you would
[1:10:59] suggest maybe by then it would be like three and a half million or something like that.
[1:11:03] My suspect the numbers indeed much, much higher closer to in the range of 30 million.
[1:11:09] And both those numbers obviously can't be correct.
[1:11:11] So if we can try to drill down on which of those would be the case by year 10, I just think
[1:11:19] that would be a helpful piece of information for us.
[1:11:22] Yeah, I mean, I compared my approach to St. Louiscom, which, you know, to, you know,
[1:11:30] other similar counties and it followed proportionally by our population by our stats.
[1:11:36] Yeah.
[1:11:36] Well, let me try and phrase it this way.
[1:11:37] So let's say we have about 80 million in residential property that is in Domestock by a senior in which it's the primary residence.
[1:11:46] Is that about where we're at figure wise about 80 million?
[1:11:50] No, I want to think so.
[1:11:52] I mean, you're talking about property revenues or you're talking about a system value.
[1:11:55] Oh, I think that the revenues we get.
[1:11:57] Yeah, okay.
[1:12:00] Then that could be closed.
[1:12:03] Yeah, because 10% is roughly 50.
[1:12:06] Yeah.
[1:12:06] So if we do a 5% expected increase in revenue for a year, that's about a $4 million per year and new revenue on that property, right?
[1:12:18] If we expect revenue to go up about 5% on 80 million?
[1:12:22] Yeah, that's not 5.
[1:12:24] and be more, like, you know, forward.
[1:12:27] But formally, that's what I said, yeah.
[1:12:29] So my point is that it's not just 4 million.
[1:12:32] It's 4 million in year one of a new reassessment.
[1:12:36] But as the 5% on that 80 million continues to happen every year,
[1:12:40] which is our projection of what's happened to real estate values
[1:12:44] and the generated revenue from, we're going to forego that 4 million,
[1:12:49] or let's say it's three or two to three, anywhere in there,
[1:12:52] we're going to forego that.
[1:12:53] over and over and over again. So what's the what's 5% of 4 million that is the
[1:13:03] change each year. You're not adding 80 million a year or you know 4 million
[1:13:10] each year it's 5% of 4 million. Right so if we're generating about 80 million
[1:13:14] that's the revenue generated right that would be the revenue side the assessment
[1:13:20] And it's much higher.
[1:13:21] Yeah, it's much higher.
[1:13:22] Because it's a credit.
[1:13:23] It's not a reduction.
[1:13:27] So as we get more property tax revenue per year, it's often, we're often going
[1:13:32] up by tens of millions of dollars per year and property tax, right?
[1:13:36] Increase the secure.
[1:13:37] Yeah.
[1:13:39] So if we're, if we're experiencing tens of millions of dollars in growth per year and
[1:13:42] property tax and you freeze 20% of that per year, where 18% of it per year, which
[1:13:50] be the seniors. 15 percent is fine. If you freeze anywhere close to that, the tens of millions
[1:13:58] of dollars increase per year, if you freeze one-fifth of that or one-sixth of that.
[1:14:03] But you're not freezing that much, respectively. You're freezing five percent of your
[1:14:07] figure. Because that's the only growth you can get. It's not the entire amount.
[1:14:14] That's
[1:14:15] the fiscal impact.
[1:14:15] Let's talk offline. I look forward to having some conversations. Just try to get some clarity
[1:14:19] on this because my read of the situation is that we go up in property tax revenue, not just
[1:14:25] the assessments, the actual revenue generated, on the order of tens of millions of
[1:14:29] dollars per year, is the average increase.
[1:14:31] Yeah, it's going to be great.
[1:14:33] And if you freeze about 20 percent of that, then each year, you're going to forego about 20 percent
[1:14:39] of that tens of millions of dollars of increase.
[1:14:42] No, you're for going the growth on the relevant senior population proportion, which we're
[1:14:48] is only 9%. So 5% or 9%. That's what you're for going.
[1:14:57] Let's talk about. I appreciate the discussion.
[1:14:59] Thank you.
[1:15:00] I don't know, I'm sorry, like I've got one more question and then some comments.
[1:15:04] Those of you who met with the school districts today, you mentioned that you had the meeting, did they have any input or suggestions or changes or anything that they communicated to us?
[1:15:15] Mr. Laws, I'll not go ahead and go to Commissioner Lawson for the response to this. You will queue up next to make comment, followed by Commissioner Johnson.
[1:15:25] but I've noticed we've been losing a few people.
[1:15:27] So what I'd like to do is once Commissioner Carpenter has had his information, his inquiry,
[1:15:33] if you would like to open it up to the public, and then we will come back and pick it up
[1:15:37] with Commissioner Lawson and then Commissioner Johnson.
[1:15:39] But I don't want to see citizens leaving not have the opportunity to speak.
[1:15:43] So please proceed.
[1:15:46] Go ahead and hit your button.
[1:15:48] I'll put you over there.
[1:15:51] You were on and off.
[1:15:52] Okay, do it.
[1:15:53] There you are.
[1:15:54] There you are.
[1:15:54] You know to the senior citizens here or up here or whatever. I thought this was going to be simple.
[1:16:03] I thought, oh my God, we're going to give the people 62 and over that it pay taxes all in our life a break.
[1:16:12] I didn't know it was going to get quite so involved, but nevertheless, I'm pushing forward to get it done.
[1:16:19] that's the main thing. A couple of things. I thought that we had agreed at one point that
[1:16:27] say I'm 57. I wish and my husband is 70 and he passes away. Then that following year when
[1:16:39] I get my thing from the county I will say I'm 58 and for a couple of years I won't get
[1:16:49] break. And then, as I hit 62, and you send out my form again, then I fill it out now I'm 62
[1:16:57] and I can start taking the break. I don't that's something I'd like to see as we don't have to
[1:17:03] get into it, but I'd like to see as do that, talk about that a little bit down the road.
[1:17:11] The other thing on the millions and millions and all of that stuff, this county is growing by leaps
[1:17:17] bounds. I get the point that we're looking at about 15 percent of the population being seniors.
[1:17:28] So if we are 510 million this year, we go up to 535 next year. That same percentage of people
[1:17:38] are going to get a break and they're going to start, yeah, it's going to reduce that to some degree.
[1:17:44] But the degree of reduction is minimal compared to the amount of tax that comes into this county.
[1:17:57] These people are still going to be paying the same amount of money that they've been paying.
[1:18:02] They're going to continue to pay their taxes until we're gone.
[1:18:07] And then whoever takes the house after that, the wife or whatever going to continue on.
[1:18:12] And as those people go away, somebody's going to buy that house, they're going to be
[1:18:19] 40, and they're going to start paying full taxes right away on that property.
[1:18:25] It's been now, it's been assessed at a way higher value as properties always do.
[1:18:31] So, as the population passes on, the new owners are going to be somebody that's going to pay
[1:18:37] how of a lot, that faster.
[1:18:42] No, I was going, I was going to let you finish.
[1:18:44] Please, please, keep your mind calm,
[1:18:46] because I was going to ask Commissioner Carpenter
[1:18:48] if he had further inquiries.
[1:18:50] So if you finish your point, I'll go.
[1:18:52] Well, the only thing I'm saying is I agree with Commissioner
[1:18:58] Livington, I want to see this darn thing be done.
[1:19:02] In whatever form we bring it, it is something that many other counties have already passed.
[1:19:14] Counties that are lesser counties than we.
[1:19:17] And it's a darn shame if we can't do this for our seniors and get it done.
[1:19:22] I don't want to rush it right away and I think we need to get everything formulated.
[1:19:28] get you the figures you'd like to have in-depth. And I think that the one of the things that the
[1:19:34] auditor was going to do was to give the school districts a little bit more fact on that. I did
[1:19:42] feel that they were by the time you were done. Now maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.
[1:19:49] But I felt as though they were more accepting of it than they were when we first walked
[1:19:55] the door. So that was a great deal of gratification for me.
[1:20:02] But but the bottom line on this I'd
[1:20:04] like to see us look towards trying to get this thing passed with some minor changes. And then we can't
[1:20:19] I don't think we can wait for the state, but once the state makes their changes, if they
[1:20:26] ever do, we can make our addendums and change it and then go forward.
[1:20:33] The thing I don't want to have happen is that staff is scrambling, you know, and we're changing
[1:20:39] this, then they change everything, and then it changes again, and they change everything,
[1:20:44] cost more money or whatever. So, you know, I want to be diligent in what we do, but some
[1:20:52] minor changes that we think are going to happen. We need to be planning for them and just
[1:20:59] go ahead and get this darn thing done. That's all I got.
[1:21:02] We should be careful if you want to further inquire. Thank you. Thank you. So first of all, I know
[1:21:06] look, I'm probably kind of on an island here on this issue and I know hard feelings, you
[1:21:14] before us.
[1:21:16] On the numbers piece, I do just want us to have sort of clarity on, you know, because obviously
[1:21:19] there's a difference between three or four million and 30 million.
[1:21:21] So I'm just seeking clarity on that piece of it.
[1:21:25] In terms of the question I asked about the school districts, I had gratified to hear that
[1:21:29] it was a good meeting and that perhaps people came away a little more informed and good
[1:21:35] with it.
[1:21:36] I'm just wondering if they had any specific asks or requests.
[1:21:41] Yes.
[1:21:42] Did you want?
[1:21:42] Oh, did you want to hear?
[1:21:44] That's okay.
[1:21:46] You know, they wanted those figures from the opportunity.
[1:21:50] I would agree, since you're part of both, I was that, yes, it's substantially the way
[1:21:56] Commissioner Rae Lawson has put it.
[1:22:00] I think one of the issues that they want to make clear in fairness to this school districts
[1:22:05] is that they were not in opposition in principle with tax breaks for seniors.
[1:22:11] I think that's fair to say they wanted to be very clear on that point.
[1:22:16] Again, I hesitate to speak for someone, but the field I got for it was that they were
[1:22:21] concerned about the impact on their entities, but they were in sympathy with the goal.
[1:22:26] One of the issues that was brought up and it was one that we had already brought up within
[1:22:30] our group, I had to do with debt bonds to where if there is something that is issue that
[1:22:37] was debt, could we then actually freeze that? Because that would be a, it was in some question.
[1:22:46] What that would mean was technically could we then totally freeze? I don't know. That's
[1:22:52] something else that we have to, I would like further clarity on before we go forward because
[1:22:58] If we're going to give a freeze, I would like it to be an absolute total freeze if we're going to sell it.
[1:23:05] If we're going to present it in that light, we should, I think, make sure we deliver it in that light.
[1:23:09] If there are some mitigating circumstances, we need to advise the public that there are these issues,
[1:23:16] which we do not have authority over in the course of putting this ordinance together.
[1:23:21] So does that, that kind of, so, um, does that happen?
[1:23:27] It does, thank you. Yeah, no, I appreciate the information.
[1:23:29] I just, you know, obviously there are a biggest tax interest
[1:23:31] section, so just getting, you know, some, so I didn't put from them is, is, is a, is helpful.
[1:23:36] So I'll make some brief, as brief as I can comment, so if I could talk about this issue
[1:23:40] for hours and hours, but I know we've got some folks who want to, want to, want to share
[1:23:43] their thoughts and also we've got the two schemes.
[1:23:45] So I'll, I'll go as quick as I can, uh, you know, serve big years in the state legislature,
[1:23:51] regularly supported the notion of expanding property tax relief to low income seniors and seniors living on a fixed income to make sure that we're not taxing folks out of their home as they age.
[1:24:07] firmly and strongly believe in that. The state has long had a program that does just that. It's
[1:24:13] called the circuit breaker program. It has pretty tight income eligibility to where most seniors
[1:24:20] can't qualify unless they're pretty low income. What the state legislature could have done is
[1:24:25] expanded the eligibility. It allows you to earn more income to get the property tax relief.
[1:24:32] And I would have been a strong proponent of such a change to help out seniors living on a fixed income,
[1:24:41] make sure they can stay in their homes.
[1:24:45] What they did instead was pass a cart launch freeze, which would apply to all seniors,
[1:24:54] and not all seniors equally, either.
[1:24:57] So, not only does it not target the benefit to fixed income or low income seniors as the current option does.
[1:25:09] It applies it across the board and unevenly.
[1:25:12] So, for example, a senior living in a $100,000 home and a senior living in a $2 million home.
[1:25:22] The senior living in a $2 million home is not only going to get the benefit
[1:25:25] But, too, they're going to get it at 20 times the value, as this senior living in a $100,000
[1:25:33] home.
[1:25:35] Making by far the biggest winners that the folks who own the most expensive photons
[1:25:39] in Clay County, and across the state, that's my issue with the way this thing has been
[1:25:47] drafted.
[1:25:48] It's not that I'm opposed to, like I said, making sure that fixed-and-conceneers can get property tax relief they should.
[1:26:00] But I'm not over-linked about the idea of giving a 20 times bigger tax break to somebody in a 2 million dollar home.
[1:26:05] So that's my concern, would be happy to support doing this if we attached a
[1:26:17] some form of limit on the assessed value of homes in terms of who would get the benefit.
[1:26:27] My sense of faith is that I may sort of be outnumbered in regard to wanting that attached to it.
[1:26:35] And I understand that and respect that, but if folks want to come around and join me in pursuing adding a provision like that into this, that would certainly make me a lot more excited about implementing it.
[1:26:51] And final point is when we do a tax cut on one targeted group of people, by definition,
[1:27:05] what's going to happen.
[1:27:06] The school districts, for example, there's still going to need to employ the same number
[1:27:11] of teachers.
[1:27:12] They've still got the same number of buildings to maintain, and indeed, as population
[1:27:15] grow as in Clay County, they will have to expand those services in their expenses as well
[1:27:20] as spent. By definition, what will happen is that over time, the tax burden, as it's lifted,
[1:27:28] off of one group, will be transferred onto the rest of the taxpayers whose property taxes are
[1:27:45] that the biggest beneficiaries of this will be folks in the most expensive homes,
[1:27:52] that every
[1:27:53] dollar less than they pay, is going to be transferred onto the tax burden of everybody
[1:28:00] whose property taxes weren't for us.
[1:28:04] And that includes a lot of young families with kids who are struggling to make ends meet already.
[1:28:10] I think there's a way to avoid that outcome and that would be putting an upper limit on eligibility here.
[1:28:21] But those are my concerns, appreciate you all here in me, and look forward to future discussions on some of the numbers and drilling down on that a bit.
[1:28:30] Thank you. With that are there any citizens who would like? Yes. Hold on. Let me let me open your mic first.
[1:28:39] I'm sorry. I know it. We've had a lot and you're pretty much in your turn. Right now you are up next.
[1:28:47] And then Commissioner Lawson Commissioner Lawson was being was being inquired of.
[1:28:51] But we've also got citizens here and I've noticed some of them leaving that.
[1:28:55] have been seen as long. So I mean if you could do something really quick because we really
[1:29:02] do need to get to the folks. Thank you. Here's the way I feel and it'll be over my dead
[1:29:08] body that we make a change on that and the reason is this, those individuals who live in a
[1:29:15] million dollar home, God bless them that they were able to live in a million dollar home. Bottom
[1:29:22] here for those people as yeah they're going to get a break but by God for all these years they've
[1:29:29] been paying huge amounts of money in taxes and so why can't they get the same kind of break if I
[1:29:37] live in a hundred thousand dollar home that break that I get is going to mean a great deal to me
[1:29:43] the guy in the million dollar home it's going to be a big deal to him too but all these years he's
[1:29:50] carry in the burden. And so I think it's about time he got the break. John and I had this conversation
[1:29:58] the other day off the road.
[1:30:00] So to speak. And just in talking, I told him about a couple that I knew that came from nothing. They were dirt 40. The husband and the wife both poor.
[1:30:13] And they worked, went to college, paid for it by working, and twice as long to get through. He got a great job. He worked his fanny off.
[1:30:23] And today, that man is filthy rich, they live in a very nice home, but they didn't get it with a handout.
[1:30:31] They got it through clean, hard work.
[1:30:34] This is America for God's sake.
[1:30:37] It's the American dream that you make as much as you can make, and God bless you when you do.
[1:30:44] And so I do not want to see somebody penalized just because they worked.
[1:30:50] They, yeah, there's going to be the few that were given wealth, but let's look at the
[1:30:57] majority that really deserve it.
[1:30:59] And there's not that many seniors, if you look at Clay County, I'd like to go out and
[1:31:06] find out, and I think I'll talk to the, to the assessor about this, how many homes in Clay
[1:31:12] county are over $800,000 to $2 million and of those homes how many seniors own them.
[1:31:23] And if those few people get a break, I say it's good for them to get it.
[1:31:27] That's all I got to say.
[1:31:29] Let you guys call.
[1:31:34] We need to, we all I think appreciate the applause.
[1:31:39] The enthusiasm, however it is getting late and I want to allow citizens to come up and
[1:31:43] weeks, so let's, I would rather not have any delays to allowing citizens to speak from shows
[1:31:49] of emotion, but please come forward, and it's the same as when you came up for comments
[1:31:55] from the public, yes,
[1:31:58] sir. You had a chance. This gentleman has not had a chance. You haven't
[1:32:02] spoken on this issue?
[1:32:07] Very well. If you'd like to go before them, go right ahead, Commissioner
[1:32:09] Johnson, if you insist. You're a wrecking. I do insist. Thank you. Just for a couple of
[1:32:13] clarification, sorry. So you're, you're next. First, I want to clarify a couple of things.
[1:32:18] Commissioner, Wagner brought it up.
[1:32:21] Whether we vote this in next month or next year, it will not have an impact on anybody's
[1:32:25] tax until 2025 until you're 25 payment.
[1:32:30] Just know that.
[1:32:31] It doesn't have an impact until 2025.
[1:32:33] No matter when we vote it in, however, I know that voting in it in sooner will make people
[1:32:37] feel a lot more eddies when they're living paycheck to paycheck.
[1:32:41] So, I understand that.
[1:32:41] Number one, number two, one of the issues we're talking about is who's eligible.
[1:32:44] The current state bill, Senate bill, that it's been approved, it's very vague.
[1:32:50] It just says that you're eligible, if you're eligible for source security time at benefits.
[1:32:55] What does that mean to you get source security time at benefits, or you just eligible for them?
[1:32:59] And the problem is, there's many people who will never be eligible for source security benefits,
[1:33:03] because there are on another retirement system that didn't pay to it.
[1:33:06] Talk about, and it teachers are one, rare roads, or if you come from out of state like I do,
[1:33:10] I never paid in source security, I'll never be eligible for source security,
[1:33:13] because I have a separate public pension, it's not part of so security.
[1:33:18] So what this does, it includes everybody
[1:33:19] based on over 62, it gets rid of a transfer of who's who.
[1:33:24] Last couple, thanks to Commissioner Carpenter's comments.
[1:33:28] Number one, nobody will be whether it's the school districts
[1:33:31] or it's a county, will not be having a reduction in revenue coming in.
[1:33:35] And I know he knows this.
[1:33:36] It's not a reduction in revenue.
[1:33:38] We'll still be making more taxes each year because the assessments,
[1:33:42] the school district will still be getting more money each year.
[1:33:45] It just won't be as much as it could have made because there's going to be a little bit of reduction for the seniors.
[1:33:50] And when you talk about the analogy that the Commissioner Carpenter said about,
[1:33:53] you know, $100,000 home versus a $2 million home.
[1:33:56] And it's a big benefit to those person owns a $2 million home.
[1:34:00] Well, bottom line, here's the facts.
[1:34:02] Let's say it's just for even a number. It's a 1% tax.
[1:34:05] If you own a $100,000 home, you're going to be frozen at $1,000 a year you have to pay.
[1:34:10] If you own a $200 million home, you can be frozen at $20,000 a year, you have to pay.
[1:34:17] So $2,000, you pay $20,000 a year at this 1% scenario I'm given, $20,000 a year, $100,000
[1:34:24] home, you're paying a thousand a year.
[1:34:26] You're paying 20 times as much because you have a bigger house and more expensive house.
[1:34:30] I don't see any need to punish those people anymore.
[1:34:32] That's why we have a tax system that's based on percentage.
[1:34:35] The rich ER, the more you're going to pay, no matter what.
[1:34:38] And by not giving them the same credit, you just, you just, in my opinion, it's just, it's just an unburnt, it's just, it's not fair, and they're going to be paying more, just like the, the rich pay more now, when you look at how much taxes are paid. So, so I agree with, with Commissioner Lawson, we just, just across the board, it applies to everybody, forget the, the values and, and you're income, that kind of stuff. I think just 62 and above, I think it's a great idea, you know, you're on a fixed income, whether I just sixth grade. Anyways, that's it.
[1:35:07] Yes sir please and just to review if you can you obviously have the microphone on
[1:35:13] stage your name and then speak clearly and obviously since this is a
[1:35:16] noticed item we can interact with you as much as we need to.
[1:35:20] Thank you Mr. Chairman, Dave Langston, 1920 Carter Court, Liberty Missouri, let's see my family
[1:35:30] moved here in 64, so I've been in the Clay County quite a while.
[1:35:35] And we're talking about, and I believe you made this pretty clear.
[1:35:40] Commissioner Johnson, we're talking about attacks freeze.
[1:35:42] We're not talking about tax reduction, as I understand the program.
[1:35:46] So if there was some talk about attacks reduction, it's attacks freeze.
[1:35:49] It amounts to reduction over time.
[1:35:51] That's why you look at it, but it's attacks freeze.
[1:35:54] And I didn't really hear anything mentioned about farmers to speak of.
[1:35:58] I just farmers that live on their land, their whole farm, would be frozen farmers that don't live on their land.
[1:36:05] Do you want to be frozen?
[1:36:05] That's an issue that has been under discussion.
[1:36:08] I don't know if we've quite come to our conclusions on that because just because it's a complicated issue.
[1:36:15] Commissioner Lawson, I would defer to you to make an explanation that you'd care to.
[1:36:19] It's your, I go ahead and hit your mic and I'm activated.
[1:36:25] There you go.
[1:36:26] David, I don't have an answer on that.
[1:36:28] Yeah, we are getting the answer, I would assume, and it's just an assumption.
[1:36:35] If you have a farm and you have your primary residence on that farm, you know, it's a
[1:36:42] 100 acre farm and your house, then you would get your break if you were 62 or older.
[1:36:50] Now, say that you've got 500 acres in the next five blocks away, or five acres away, or something, all of a sudden, that's all yours too.
[1:37:03] That's not your primary residence.
[1:37:05] So I'm thinking it's your house, the land that goes with that, right in that house.
[1:37:11] And right now we need to get that clarified to make dead certain sure.
[1:37:17] That sounds reasonable. Thank you.
[1:37:19] I was going to, sounds like most of the commissioners are leaning this way of trying to help
[1:37:25] seniors out.
[1:37:27] You know, there was a big deal about social security, I'm kind of an old guy, a big deal
[1:37:30] about social security, but the country decided they owed that to people, because they had made
[1:37:35] the contribution to the country, and the country, first of all, we're really into that.
[1:37:40] Now, back then, they went into it, because nobody paid in to pay those people so security.
[1:37:45] my grandfather was going to and you know there's a little bit of consideration there that
[1:37:51] maybe we owe these old people. You can call me an old person but there's some people in the county
[1:37:56] they're really old and I'll just give you kind of a short example. There's a couple let's say four
[1:38:02] blocks over here I know where they're at exactly but they've been married over 50 years and they got
[1:38:13] years and for them to pay those property tax, they're going to the market every week and
[1:38:20] they're buying always safe and they're on the hot dog diet because they got to save up a
[1:38:26] December didn't have a month for them, you know they got to pay those property taxes killing them
[1:38:31] and they'd like to stay in that home until they die or have to go to the nursing home or something
[1:38:37] But the taxes are a big consideration for, and there I can give you other examples, but I don't want to take up too much time here.
[1:38:47] But they're, you know, they need the help.
[1:38:50] I like hot dogs too, but once they were 60 days, they're on the regular diet, because they're going to save that money.
[1:38:59] So we need to get them a break.
[1:39:00] I'd appreciate it if you can make that happen, and I'd appreciate it if you can do it sooner than later.
[1:39:05] I appreciate every commissioner, everything you've said, all the considerations, I don't necessarily
[1:39:10] agree with everything, but I don't have to, you know, rest all agree that'd be amazing.
[1:39:15] But if we can get a general consensus to agree on something that'll help these old folks
[1:39:18] I'd be great.
[1:39:20] I appreciate it.
[1:39:20] Thank you.
[1:39:23] Is there any other citizen who'd wish to address this issue?
[1:39:28] I don't know anything about how this thing works, but I'm going to waste two eleven
[1:39:32] I've lived in Liberty since 1975, I'm almost 70 years old when my husband and I we had no children
[1:39:42] but we paid school taxes right along. We were happy to do it. He's been deceased now from almost 15 years.
[1:39:49] I live on a widow's social security benefit. How many of you people are living on less than a thousand dollars a month trying to pay taxes?
[1:39:57] I'm a little person. I'd like to stay in my house until I die. I'm not the only one who feels that way.
[1:40:04] I've talked to my neighbors.
[1:40:07] I just heard Social Security. We're going to need a big 3.2% raise. Big Whop!
[1:40:14] That doesn't cover my food. It doesn't cover my gas.
[1:40:17] I'm still working part-time to supplement my income.
[1:40:21] I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I hope something will get passed to help us. Thank you.
[1:40:27] And the other citizen wishing to address this issue.
[1:40:36] I'm Sharon Crony. I live in Lawson.
[1:40:43] I read over this. I printed it off today and I read this draft.
[1:40:47] And so you have addressed one of my questions already, Mr. Johnson,
[1:40:54] that this actually isn't going to take effect the way it is written until 2025.
[1:41:01] Because all of us that are over 62 already will become eligible in 2024 if you started on January 1st.
[1:41:11] But then you have to have a baseline tax rate to give your credit against.
[1:41:16] And so that won't happen until 2025.
[1:41:20] You know, some of these other people and I'm in the same boat.
[1:41:25] you're saying, sir, that you don't want to, you want to wait and not do it. I believe the intent
[1:41:31] of the state was to provide a benefit for senior citizens that were struggling. And we all know
[1:41:40] a lot that are struggling. But I'm, I'm a widow. It takes me one whole month's check to pay
[1:41:49] your taxes. And it's not going to get better this year because my assessment went up 15%.
[1:41:57] So I'm expecting a bigger bill this year than last. So that means it's going to be more.
[1:42:03] And if you wait until 2024 to make my baseline, that's going to be a really hard baseline
[1:42:10] for me to hit. You all are acting like we're going to get it free. Some of you that
[1:42:17] saying, oh, we're going to lose all this money. I don't read it that way. Maybe I'm mistaken.
[1:42:22] I don't think we're getting it free. We're just going to freeze it at the current high level,
[1:42:29] which is still going to be difficult for all of us that are struggling.
[1:42:34] So my one suggestion to you is, if you want to make a small amendment to this,
[1:42:42] that would actually help if that is your intent, and to go along with the state, that you
[1:42:49] would write it,
[1:42:53] Section B, number one, the eligible credit amount, don't say the year that
[1:43:01] the taxpayer became eligible. Make it say the year prior to when the taxpayer became
[1:43:09] eligible. It seems reasonable and fair and right to me that the year the taxpayer becomes
[1:43:17] eligible that they should receive a credit.
[1:43:22] And this won't affect anybody that's just
[1:43:24] starting in 24 because if you just say make it 23 taxes to freeze,
[1:43:31] that's not going to give
[1:43:32] anybody upper hand or anything else. Everybody's going to be on the same page in 2024. But
[1:43:40] that would very much help the people that are already right now struggling to not have to wait
[1:43:47] two more years and come up with two more years high taxes. That's all I have to say thank you very much.
[1:43:54] You can stay right there for a moment. I mentioned our loss and I believe you were seeking recognition.
[1:43:59] Yeah, I want to explain something. When they say you're the eligible, they hear your eligible. They don't
[1:44:06] means the tax here, they mean the year you turn 62, but I'm talking about all the people
[1:44:12] who are already 62 of which I am right and that's right, but what I'm saying is, when they
[1:44:19] do that, when we do this, say we don't do it until 25, we're going to charge the taxes that
[1:44:27] your tax charge two day. We're not going to wait until they go back up in 25 and then hit
[1:44:35] with them. We're what your pants this time is what you'll pay next year and this will go into
[1:44:44] effect before taxes go up. So you won't see, you won't see an increase. Well that's not clear in
[1:44:53] But that is what exactly what they mean.
[1:45:00] It's been because it's going to go up in 25, we're already saying it is what it is right now.
[1:45:07] We're not going to charge you in what the 25 right might be. It will be right now.
[1:45:14] But the baseline, where are you going to put the baseline? Is that going to be 24 sexes or 23 sexes?
[1:45:20] 24. Yeah, but 24 will be the same as 23 correct Diana correct 24 is not a reassessment
[1:45:27] Yeah, so you're a little dilatation. Yeah, you guys keep saying that, but you know
[1:45:32] No, I'm telling you that sure it was not a reassessment you're either in my Texas win up 11% last year
[1:45:38] So I don't know how you can say it doesn't go up. It wasn't a reassessment here and
[1:45:44] Somewhere in here about limited to 5% that's not 12 or so here's the
[1:45:50] The only thing that this is going to do is it is going to be on your primary residence.
[1:46:00] So if taxes went up, say like your car or something else, but the house tax, if you will,
[1:46:09] Yes. That's going to be frozen in essence as of 24, which is the same as 23. So I'm promising
[1:46:20] you. I'm not flim-flamming you because I'm going to get that credit too and I want to see
[1:46:25] that it's done the right way. It is going to happen in 25 but it will be at the current rate.
[1:46:33] So you will not get hit again with another raise on your primary residence, if that makes sense.
[1:46:41] It makes sense.
[1:46:42] I'd love to see it happen.
[1:46:44] Oh man.
[1:46:44] Could you pause for just a minute because we have another inquiry.
[1:46:48] By the way, something more for a general point and that is what we are discussing tonight
[1:46:53] is, in fact, a draft version.
[1:46:56] So I want to make sure that I emphasize all citizens that changes are certainly, we have the ability
[1:47:02] to make those right now, it's still a work in progress, so your observations, yours and
[1:47:07] other citizens are absolutely welcome not only in this particular form, but through any
[1:47:13] other means that you want to contact us with that commissioner, Carpenter, I believe you
[1:47:17] start recognition.
[1:47:18] Thank you.
[1:47:19] I just want to thank you for coming and sharing and saying to the last couple of folks who
[1:47:25] spoke.
[1:47:25] I just want to make sure that for all three of you and anybody who's listening,
[1:47:31] in terms of the current circuit breaker property tax relief, I just want to make sure everybody knows about it because not everybody does.
[1:47:38] I don't qualify. I've tried.
[1:47:40] Okay.
[1:47:40] I've gotten it once since my husband passed away seven years ago.
[1:47:44] I've gotten it once.
[1:47:45] And I'm sorry that you don't, and so to the other folks too, and again anybody listening, if you at least check, see if you qualify for the current circuit breaker,
[1:47:54] It's a state program that sends you a state tax credit to help lessen your property tax burden.
[1:48:01] The state should absolutely expand eligibility so that folks like you, you know, the story you just shared makes it clear that you want to qualify for the circuit breaker.
[1:48:11] And with the circuit breaker too, it's an even better benefit because to your point, this is just freezing the current tax rate.
[1:48:18] So you don't get to stop paying property tax
[1:48:21] with the circuit breaker program.
[1:48:22] You get an actual cash back against the amount
[1:48:26] that you had to pay in property tax.
[1:48:28] This state will send you money back
[1:48:32] to help lessen your property tax obligation.
[1:48:36] And it's actually a much better benefit
[1:48:38] than simply freezing tax rates where they are right now.
[1:48:43] And I really wish, and I hope, you know,
[1:48:44] the legislative talk about what we can communicate
[1:48:46] to the legislature.
[1:48:47] One of the things we can communicate is that we think they ought to expand eligibility so that folks like you can qualify.
[1:48:55] You know, I think your government ought to do a lot more to help low-income seniors who are struggling make ends meet.
[1:49:03] I'm sorry that they don't. I hope that we're able to do something with this and I hope the circuit breaker which would do even more can be expanded.
[1:49:11] I hope they expand, so security benefits at the federal level at some point,
[1:49:15] to talk about for years, it's time to do it.
[1:49:18] But most I just want to say I appreciate you all for sharing your stories.
[1:49:22] I hear you in terms of the hardship that's out there.
[1:49:25] There's a lot of it.
[1:49:26] And you're not alone.
[1:49:27] And I hope that we can do something to help you.
[1:49:29] Thank you.
[1:49:30] Thank you, man.
[1:49:31] Thank you.
[1:49:33] Any other citizen wishing to comment?
[1:49:37] Please come forward.
[1:49:40] And I'd make sure the light is on for your microphone so you can hear you fine.
[1:49:46] There you go.
[1:49:47] Sorry, thank you.
[1:49:48] Commissals my first time.
[1:49:49] It's honored to be here tonight.
[1:49:52] Name is Charles Don Morris.
[1:49:54] Lifetime resident here at Clay County.
[1:49:56] I live on the corner of H.I.
[1:49:57] Wayne Lancaster.
[1:49:59] Name after my grandfather.
[1:50:01] Charles Wright Morris, first class sergeant.
[1:50:04] I just recently lost my grandmother a few years ago.
[1:50:08] She had left me five acres and my home out there and I guess my thing is I'm just trying to I'm kind of coming on a different aspect with this
[1:50:20] I just was kind of wondering because I've lived out through my entire life. I'm 30 years old
[1:50:25] My questions are kind of
[1:50:28] For the winner coming on every year out there since I've been a kid
[1:50:31] And every time we've had snow, anything like that, I just lived just a little bit outside
[1:50:38] the city limits, just a little bit east past Wayne Jewel.
[1:50:42] Once the sea line ends, there's no, it seems like everything for Clay County, everything
[1:50:49] just happens for the city of Liberty, and not we don't seem to get a lot of resources out there.
[1:50:54] Like snow removal, I've been trying to submit about getting some just a few street lights
[1:50:59] put on corners due to the fact that all while a lot of our wildlife gets oblivious
[1:51:05] out there, all year, deer's, foxes, all kind of animals has been so dark out there.
[1:51:14] I kind of have a whole lot of stuff to go around.
[1:51:16] I didn't really, this was kind of more about the seniors tonight.
[1:51:19] I wasn't really trying to, I just kind of wanted to introduce myself to you guys and let
[1:51:24] you guys know that I'm going to be a lifetime member here, I'm going to spend the rest of
[1:51:28] My family moved here in 1974, we're first sellers from Dubuque, Iowa.
[1:51:34] We owned about 400, some makers up there, me and my father, American pools, we built
[1:51:39] in-ground swimming pools for 11 here, a big time member at St. Stephen's Lutheran Church,
[1:51:46] Pastor Del Rodriguez up there.
[1:51:50] I guess my question is, I feel like the Clay County, we are so proud, I feel like Clay
[1:51:56] been the most prosperous county, as far as revenue, business, from East West, North and South.
[1:52:05] I personally, and I inherited my home, and I personally had to pay, where our property
[1:52:11] tax was about almost three grand last year. I guess I'm just asking, because I'm only 33 years old,
[1:52:19] I got a long ways to go. I have a lot of things to try to accomplish here for the county. I'm just
[1:52:23] on to ask maybe if there's any roles available in the county that I could possibly apply for
[1:52:31] or to see anything I could do to help, man, my name is Charles Amores and that's all I got.
[1:52:37] Thank you.
[1:52:37] Thank you.
[1:52:37] It was certainly condolences for your loss.
[1:52:42] Would you give your contact information to the administrator and maybe right now or later on
[1:52:50] every is convenient along with some of the issues that you raise because there were a couple
[1:52:54] of them there and we don't want to just address one issue that you're interested in.
[1:52:58] We want to make sure that where responsive is possible.
[1:53:01] Yes, I understand.
[1:53:02] Thank you.
[1:53:02] Thank you.
[1:53:03] God bless.
[1:53:05] There are any other citizens wishing to come forward and speak.
[1:53:09] All right.
[1:53:10] Seeing none.
[1:53:11] We didn't write a thing maybe round this off a little bit.
[1:53:15] I want to just mention a couple of things that occurred to me.
[1:53:18] One was Commissioner Carpenter brought up the Circuit Breaker Act and that is something that has been in place in Missouri for some time.
[1:53:27] It is generally for people of lower income, so it's difficult sometimes for people to be able to qualify.
[1:53:36] Prior to Brown 2010 or somewhere in that area there was something called the Homestead Preservation Act which was designed for people who are of the next level up.
[1:53:45] Unfortunately, the House, at that time, I served in the House of Representatives, was able
[1:53:51] to renew that.
[1:53:52] It was sunseted, unfortunately, the Senate did not extend it, which kind of took the place
[1:53:59] of some of the relief that was extended to seniors for their property taxes.
[1:54:05] At the time, I tried to put together legislation that would limit the increase of seniors' property
[1:54:12] taxes to the rate of social security increases. At that time, Social Security
[1:54:18] benefit increases with zero. The rationale that I employed was if the government
[1:54:24] thinks that seniors can live on zero percent increase, maybe the government
[1:54:29] should live on zero percent increase for the ones and how they fare. That being
[1:54:33] said, we do want to make sure that we hear the voices of our citizens and on this
[1:54:39] you particularly the seniors that are affected by this. We will no doubt be discussing this further
[1:54:44] as we go along. We do really want you to give us your input. You can certainly email us directly.
[1:54:52] You could send your comments to the administrator who will then distribute them if that would be your
[1:54:56] preference. But by all means we want to make sure that you take every opportunity to contact us,
[1:55:03] to express your thoughts on it and also to inquire of us of any information that might
[1:55:09] inform you more as far as what you
[1:55:11] what your thoughts are on this particular ordinance that we are considering.
[1:55:17] So we did one of the things that is that we do take some time with and that is to make sure
[1:55:21] that we hear from you the citizens because
[1:55:24] it's your government and we want to be responsive.
[1:55:27] With that commissioner Lawson, this was your discussion item.
[1:55:31] If you would like to
[1:55:33] conclude it, I see no one else seeking recognition.
[1:55:37] Why don't you go ahead and just carry it on home?
[1:55:43] Oh, I'm sorry.
[1:55:44] Let me get you over there.
[1:55:46] No.
[1:55:46] I have nothing else to say other than, you know, we do want to get this done.
[1:55:50] We want to do it properly.
[1:55:53] And so, you know, if anybody has questions like Commissioner Nulti said,
[1:55:59] you can reach any of us.
[1:56:00] Call here to the courthouse and they'll put you through to our office
[1:56:05] and we'll be happy to talk to you.
[1:56:07] So with that, let's hopefully we can work forward on this and get it done in a good time frame even if it isn't tomorrow.
[1:56:18] The hour is getting rather late and we've been at this for two hours now.
[1:56:23] I think what I'd like to do is to stand at these for a short period of time and then roll through what we have left on our agenda which is not inconsiderable.
[1:56:32] So let's take a break and tell a little bit after eight o'clock and then we will start rolling through this.
[1:56:39] Obviously any citizens who have attended and we're here specifically for the senior issue.
[1:56:44] You're always more than welcome to stay for any and all of our public meetings and whatever comments when issues come up that you see fit.
[1:56:52] With that we will stand at ease for five or six minutes.
[1:56:56] Thank you.
[2:06:37] If we can all start to get to our seats, we'll go ahead and reconvene and take up our agenda where we left off.
[2:08:31] Okay,
[2:08:38] as was pointed out, a factor of three seems to have been pretty accurate as far as my estimate on time, so I appreciate the accuracy expressed.
[2:08:49] We are now returned from standing at ease. Next is the consent agenda.
[2:08:56] The consent agenda allows the Commission to act upon items considered to be routine and approved in one motion.
[2:09:03] These may include items that have been reviewed by the Commission in a prior session.
[2:09:07] There will be no separate discussion unless the Commissioner requests that an item be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately.
[2:09:14] There is one item on tonight's consent agenda.
[2:09:17] Resolution 2023-323, approving invoice payments for Clay County from September 22,
[2:09:23] to October 6, there are 367 invoices, totaling 551,185 dollars and 23 cents.
[2:09:35] Mr. Wagner, I think you move to approve tonight's consent agenda.
[2:09:38] Motion's been paid for the approval of tonight's consent agenda.
[2:09:41] Is there any discussion?
[2:09:43] Seeing none, you're recognized to close.
[2:09:44] I suppose, please call the roll.
[2:09:47] Commissioner Wagner, Commissioner Wilmington.
[2:09:49] Yes.
[2:09:49] Commissioner Lawson. Yes.
[2:09:51] Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Thompson.
[2:09:53] Yes.
[2:09:54] Mr. Johnson.
[2:09:55] Motion passes 60.
[2:09:58] Bring this to our regular agenda.
[2:10:00] First item on regular agenda is 2023-2324 Administrator.
[2:10:04] Resolution 2023-324 is consideration of invoice payments for the Clay County Prosecutor's Office from September 22nd through October 6.
[2:10:14] There are six invoices totaling $876.
[2:10:17] and 32 cents.
[2:10:20] Commissioner Wagner.
[2:10:21] Thank you.
[2:10:22] We have to approve 2023-324.
[2:10:24] Motion's been made approval of 2023-324 discussion.
[2:10:27] Seeing none, you are recognized to close.
[2:10:29] I close.
[2:10:30] Please call the roll.
[2:10:32] Commissioner Wagner.
[2:10:33] Commissioner Wittington.
[2:10:34] Yes.
[2:10:35] Commissioner Lawson.
[2:10:35] Yes.
[2:10:36] Commissioner Carpenter.
[2:10:37] Commissioner Thompson.
[2:10:39] Commissioner Johnson.
[2:10:41] Motion passes.
[2:10:42] Five in favor.
[2:10:44] I'm 2023-325 has been deleted from our agenda so that brings us to 2023-ordance-36
[2:10:52] administrator.
[2:10:53] 2023-ordance-36 is an ordinance re-appropriating and revising the adopted
[2:10:59] budget for the current year in the amount of $186666 and this is in relationship to grants
[2:11:09] proceed for domestic violence court. Dr. Hargrave is here if the Commission has any questions
[2:11:15] about this. Are there any questions?
[2:11:20] Seeing none, is there motion Commissioner Wagner?
[2:11:23] Thank you. I move to approve 2023 ordinance 36. Motion has been made approval of 2023 ordinance
[2:11:29] 36 for the discussion. Seeing none, you are recognized to close. I suppose these call the role.
[2:11:35] Commissioner Wagner. Commissioner Wagner. Yes. Yes.
[2:11:41] Yes. Yes. Yes, sir. Yes. Motion passes 60. Thank you. That brings us to I am 2023-326
[2:11:51] Administrator. Resolution 2023-326 is approving our
[2:11:56] befending for the Justice Center Replacement Project. This was discussed several weeks
[2:12:03] ago when we talked about the ARPA project. It's in the amount of $440,000 from
[2:12:08] law's revenue category of ARPA funds and Director Cunes is here.
[2:12:13] If you have any questions, sorry, Deputy County Administrator, sorry.
[2:12:18] Are there any questions?
[2:12:21] Seeing none is our motion, Commissioner Wagner.
[2:12:24] Thank you.
[2:12:24] Move to approve 2023-2326.
[2:12:26] Motion has been made for the approval of 2020.
[2:12:29] She's made 2023-23-2326, I need to slow it a bit.
[2:12:35] For the discussion, seeing none, you're recognized to close.
[2:12:37] I suppose at least all the role.
[2:12:40] Commissioner Wagner, Commissioner Withington,
[2:12:42] Commissioner Lawson, yes.
[2:12:44] Commissioner Carpenter, Commissioner Thompson,
[2:12:47] Commissioner Johnson, motion passes 60.
[2:12:50] That brings us to the final item on the
[2:12:52] evening's regular agenda, and that would be
[2:12:55] a proving conditions for resolution 2023-322,
[2:13:00] administrator.
[2:13:00] Resolution 2023-322 is considering the approving
[2:13:06] the conditions within the conditional use permit for the exotic, dangerous, wild, animal
[2:13:12] facility under the conditional use permit. This item was discussed with the Commission
[2:13:18] last week during your meeting. You did approve the conditional use permit, and it was discussed
[2:13:23] that the conditions of the CUP would be back to the Commission tonight for consideration,
[2:13:29] and I'll turn the discussion over on the conditions to County Councilor Graham.
[2:13:35] Thank you, so Mr. Jones and I went through this over the last few weeks since the vote, the conditions that you have now in front of you are right. I believe reflect the conditions in the direction we were given.
[2:13:47] I'm happy to answer any specific questions or go over them if you'd like but but I think they comport with exactly the direction we were given.
[2:13:55] Commissioner withington.
[2:13:57] Yeah, so I want to I want to give people the opportunity to talk but I want to make a motion that we approve resolution 20233.
[2:14:04] 1.2332.
[2:14:06] Motion has been made for the approval of the conditions.
[2:14:11] Let's see.
[2:14:12] It's got a number attached to it.
[2:14:14] It does.
[2:14:15] It does.
[2:14:16] Just go ahead and limit.
[2:14:17] Because we already passed it.
[2:14:18] I want to make sure I was using the correct terminology.
[2:14:22] Motion has been made for the approval of 2023322.
[2:14:26] Discussion Commissioner Lawson.
[2:14:29] I just had a question for the attorney or perhaps for the young lady.
[2:14:33] get owns it, however. So y'all have read these? Yes ma'am. Okay. And then I would like to
[2:14:42] ask the young lady to come up just for a second please.
[2:14:50] If you could go ahead and identify
[2:14:51] yourself for the audience. Jennifer Castro.
[2:14:55] Okay. Yeah. So here's the only question I have.
[2:15:00] All these, correct? And you agree with them, completely, correct? Okay. If something happens and these are, for some reason, something goes right and you don't complete some of these, will you abide in that you're going to, the conditional use permit will go away and you will not file a lawsuit against the county again.
[2:15:28] Will you meet these requirements and if you don't, will you file a lawsuit because you haven't met them?
[2:15:34] Like it has been in the past. It's my only question.
[2:15:39] I can't advise my client never to go to court or avail herself of due process.
[2:15:45] If there is a replication proceeding, she does have a right to go to court.
[2:15:50] But she understands she has to comply with everything.
[2:15:53] And if there is a substantiated reason to revoke it, she won't lose her license.
[2:16:00] She does understand.
[2:16:01] Okay.
[2:16:05] That's all I have.
[2:16:06] Thank you.
[2:16:08] Any other questions or comments?
[2:16:11] Would the applicant like to make any kind of statement before we conclude the debate?
[2:16:16] I appreciate all of you guys this time with this.
[2:16:18] I know it's taken time.
[2:16:19] You're all of that and appreciate your thoroughness of looking through everything and listening
[2:16:24] And you're time with it. Thank you.
[2:16:28] Mr. Mayor Wagner.
[2:16:29] Thank you, and I apologize.
[2:16:31] I am perhaps the county councillor to direct me.
[2:16:36] Where do I find the changes that we have made?
[2:16:43] So, from what you saw, you mean from the first draft you saw this week, the small changes that happened in just a...
[2:16:49] Or the decisions that we talked about last,
[2:16:52] we have the substantive changes that we've made
[2:16:54] sure last week into that.
[2:16:56] What does this appear?
[2:16:57] So be sure.
[2:16:58] So number six has some changes regarding screening.
[2:17:03] Make sure there's more screening and it has to be
[2:17:06] it has to be up to Mr. Jones's specifications.
[2:17:09] Number nine has fencing requirements.
[2:17:12] There's some language in there that would allow
[2:17:14] some time to fix it of a problem.
[2:17:19] 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 are all new.
[2:17:26] Basically, again, in line with what I believe
[2:17:28] the directional as we were saved,
[2:17:30] about the, you know, the cats, particularly.
[2:17:36] 15, we kind of embraced a concept of animal units
[2:17:40] and three animal units, which would allow for some flexibility
[2:17:44] up or down on the animals and
[2:17:51] 17 would require notification every time an animal is added
[2:17:57] or removed, I don't think we made any changes to 18 and 21 I think was in there last
[2:18:08] time but I know that was certainly one that I wanted to make sure we had very good and thank
[2:18:12] you and I apologize for the one non-cheaps fan
[2:18:16] who's probably watching from home,
[2:18:18] or for their benefit, but I was trying to swim through
[2:18:21] all this as well.
[2:18:22] So thank you, and if Council doesn't mind,
[2:18:29] I'll re-ass the question a little bit differently
[2:18:31] than my colleague did, is there anything in here
[2:18:36] that there is disagreement on or that there is any hesitation
[2:18:39] it on from either you or your client related to this.
[2:18:44] No, we negotiate it.
[2:18:46] I've worked with Mr. Graham.
[2:18:48] We agree to this.
[2:18:49] She will abide by it.
[2:18:51] Very well, and the last question is, as it is my impression
[2:18:54] that there is something, if I carry this correctly,
[2:19:03] there is currently something in the appellate court related
[2:19:05] to this case.
[2:19:06] There is in circuit court with the approval of this, I've spoken with Mr. Graham, tomorrow morning I'm going to follow a file of voluntary dismissal.
[2:19:17] If the CEP is granted.
[2:19:19] Very well. Thank you very much.
[2:19:20] Thanks. Thank you.
[2:19:22] For the questions or discussion.
[2:19:26] Seeing none of the same one else wishing to speak, seeing none.
[2:19:28] Commissioner Whithington, this is your motion so you're recognized to close.
[2:19:33] I close.
[2:19:35] Right, well, please call the roll.
[2:19:38] Commissioner Wittington.
[2:19:40] Commissioner Lawson.
[2:19:42] Commissioner Wagner.
[2:19:43] Aye.
[2:19:44] Commissioner Farbender.
[2:19:45] Yes.
[2:19:46] Commissioner Thompson.
[2:19:47] I'll be abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest.
[2:19:52] Commissioner Johnson.
[2:19:54] Motion passes for one.
[2:19:58] Thank you.
[2:19:58] They complete our regular agenda on this evening for this evening.
[2:20:02] Discussion items.
[2:20:03] Of course, we've already dealt with.
[2:20:04] that brings us to number 11 reports,
[2:20:06] the Auditor's Cash Basis Monthly Report.
[2:20:11] The report is included in the packet.
[2:20:16] Administrator comments.
[2:20:19] Just for information, the next commission meeting is next Thursday evening at 6 p.m.
[2:20:25] here in the chambers.
[2:20:28] Bring us to commission a comments, commission a wager.
[2:20:31] I'm good.
[2:20:32] Thank you.
[2:20:33] I'm sorry.
[2:20:34] Let me go ahead and make sure you get your commission.
[2:20:35] Awesome.
[2:20:36] Commissioner Woodington. Yeah, Chiefs are winning 10 to 0, but there's a big gain this weekend.
[2:20:46] Notre Dame versus USC, so look forward to bragging to my two Southern California boys over there that Notre Dame's going to win.
[2:20:59] Okay. Commissioner Carpenter.
[2:21:03] Commissioner Thompson. Commissioner Johnson.
[2:21:08] And I think it's late enough to where I have no comments either, so with that we are adjourned.
[2:21:14] Thank you.