[0:07] Call the meeting of order. Please rise
for the pledge of allegiance
[0:14] to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
[0:19] stands. One nation,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
[0:25] for all.
[0:28] » Welcome everybody. Make sure you got
your phones on silent.
[0:33] And we'll start with the uh roll call
today. We'll start with Commissioner
[0:38] Dove here. Commissioner Dove, I mean
Commissioner Reed, sorry. Commission
[0:44] Coverson here. And Commissioner Smith is
here. Okay. Before we I got a couple
[0:49] housekeeping things I want county
commissioners to consider before we go
[0:52] on to audience participation. One of
them is I'd like to move the audit audit
[0:57] that we have today which doesn't take
long ahead of that and get those people
[1:01] get those people out. Does anybody have
a problem with that? Nope. No problem
[1:05] with that. The second one is I like when
we go to appoint board members I'd like
[1:10] for everybody present. So I'd like to
move the appointment of the board of
[1:15] building and codes appeals to next
Wednesday when I've been told everybody
[1:19] will be here. Does anybody have a
problem with that?
[1:21] » No. No problem. Okay.
Good. Okay. Okay. Now, we'll go to
[1:26] public comment. I'm not going to read
the entire thing. I welcome everybody
[1:30] cuz y'all should know it by heart by
now. Uh we got 5 minutes. Just get a
[1:35] line come up and uh let's all support
each other, make your points cuz y'all
[1:40] make some real good points and then
we'll we'll go from there. So, at this
[1:43] moment, I'm going ask for public
comment.
[1:47] » Have the auditor come up.
You can tell I'm wanting to get this
[1:51] done.
>> I'm sorry. Good morning. Good morning.
[2:01] Thank you for letting me uh go first so
I can get back to the office and do some
[2:05] other things. Um your honor, I believe
you received the burgundy packets last
[2:09] week. Uh the audit was a clean audit
again this year. Uh page one of the
[2:14] burgundy binder is our auditor's report.
your county like 99% of the counties in
[2:20] Kansas report under the Kansas
regulatory basis with the KAG model. So
[2:25] the third paragraph in that opinion is
your clean opinion. We feel your
[2:28] financial statements are fairly stated
in all material respects. So it's a
[2:32] clean opinion. Uh your county also is
subjected to not every year but this
[2:37] year to the federal single audit. Um, if
your federal expenditures exceed $1
[2:41] million, that threshold went up from 750
to a million, then you're required to
[2:45] have an additional audit. And this year,
we did have to perform that. And the
[2:49] program we tested was the WIC program.
>> Excuse me. Excuse me. Will you slow down
[2:53] just a year?
>> You bet. You bet. All right. So, the
[2:57] program we selected to test for the
federal was the WIC program, the women
[3:01] and infant children that's handled
through the health department. So, we'll
[3:06] talk about that when we get to the back
of the report.
[3:09] Uh pages four, five, and six are the
actual financial statement for the
[3:14] county. Down the left hand side are all
the funds that the county uses to
[3:19] account for the money that comes in and
goes out of your county. Um on page
[3:24] five, you'll see there's a total line
for county. Then we add your related
[3:29] municipal entities. Those are your sewer
and fire districts that are included as
[3:32] part of your financials to come to the
grand total at the bottom. So when you
[3:38] look at page five, you can see you
started the year for the total county
[3:43] that subtotal 2/3 of the way down. You
started with 41,600,000.
[3:49] You collected 102 million. You expended
88 million leaving you with 55 million
[3:55] remaining unencumbered cash at the end
of the year. Um then as I mentioned we
[4:00] add the municipal related entities that
allows them to not have to have their
[4:04] own separate audit. Um, and so at the
very bottom you can see the total
[4:08] reporting entity cash was 56,617240.
[4:13] And then down below you can see where
that money was residing at 123125.
[4:18] Um, we had almost 7 million in checking,
136 million in treasury bills and then a
[4:24] couple of other small accounts that
belong to the related municipal entities
[4:28] leaving you with 143 million. But 86
million of that doesn't belong to the
[4:33] county. that belongs to the taxpayers
and your to the entities that have
[4:36] taxed. And so what happens is at the
after the end of December in January,
[4:40] you write that first distribution check,
that money goes to the schools and the
[4:44] fire districts and the all the different
entities within your district. So the
[4:48] county's money is the 56,617.
Any questions on that?
[4:58] » All right. The next several pages are
the footnotes. They are required. I'm
[5:02] not going to go through them in detail.
There were no new footnotes required
[5:06] this year. So, these would be notes
you're familiar with from prior years.
[5:11] Um, there's a couple I'd like to point
out. If you turn to page 11,
[5:18] 11 is the summary of the debt of the
county. So, you started the year with
[5:22] 22,927,000
in debt and you ended the year with
[5:26] 21,374.
You did not issue any new debt. All
[5:30] payments were made timely and the
interest paid was 543392.
[5:36] The bulk of the debt are go bonds
and then you have two very small
[5:41] revolving loans with KDH.
All right. And then
[5:48] if you will turn to
page 17.
[5:57] Well, let's just go let's go on to 18.
So 18 starts all the individual funds.
[6:01] Um so the general fund is the largest
fund in your county and it has multiple
[6:05] departments. So you have multiple pages
for the general fund. It starts on page
[6:09] 18 and goes through page 21. Um the
revenues are in more detail here. So on
[6:15] the front page you only got a total for
revenue and a total for expense. Back
[6:19] here you get the detail of where the
bulk of the revenue comes from. So you
[6:23] can see the general fund total revenue
collected was 39 million and you
[6:27] budgeted 35 million which is what we
would expect. You budget conservatively
[6:32] on the revenue side. So you brought in 4
million more than you anticipated. Your
[6:36] expenditures as you go down you'll see
the budgets for each of the departments.
[6:40] The Kansas budget law applies to the
fund in total. So if you have a
[6:45] department that over spent their budget
that is not a budget violation. Only if
[6:49] the total general fund was overbudgeted.
So there was no budget violation, but
[6:54] you will see there are a couple of
categories where we did spend more than
[6:58] what was budgeted initially and I always
pick on the commissioners because it
[7:02] always shows up first. So this year the
county commission was actually
[7:05] overbudget 132,000. There must have been
something unusual that you did this
[7:09] year. Um and then if you go down all the
departments you can see that the rest of
[7:15] them they're either positive or negative
as they go through the calculation. And
[7:19] then on page 21 at the bottom, you'll
see the general fund in total was under
[7:24] budget $1.8 million. So definitely under
budget.
[7:29] The rest of the pages until the federal
part are individual paid for each fund.
[7:33] So page 22 is the health fund and then
and we just go through all the funds and
[7:37] I won't go through each of those
individually.
[7:41] If we go to the back of the report, the
federal audit reporting starts on page
[7:46] 54,
[7:50] there are two additional reports we're
required to issue. The first one is on
[7:53] yellow book or government auditing
standards. When your entity is subject
[7:57] to federal audit, you are required to
comply with yellowbook. What that really
[8:02] means is our team has to be trained in
yellowbook and no one can work on your
[8:06] job that hasn't had the required
governmental training. So that's
[8:09] additional standards on our side. The
independence becomes even more critical.
[8:14] And so there's some met metrics that our
us as a firm or any CPA firm have to
[8:18] meet. It doesn't really change much on
the county side other than we're looking
[8:22] at the controls over the federal money.
So if we found there were deficiencies
[8:26] or material weaknesses, they would be
cited here. We did not. So it's clean
[8:30] report. The second federal report on
page 56 has to do with the federal
[8:36] programs we test. So, as I mentioned, we
tested WIC. If we had had findings in
[8:41] our audit work, they would be listed in
this report, but it is a clean report.
[8:45] There were no findings.
Page 58 is a summary of your federal
[8:50] expenditures. So, you can see you were
just barely over that $1 million
[8:54] threshold this year. Um, as a KAG
accounting organization, we are required
[9:01] to test 40% of your federal expenditures
because you're considered you're not
[9:06] considered a low-risk audit just because
you don't follow GAP. So, we tested WIC
[9:10] and that got us our 40% coverage that we
needed to uh meet the standard. And then
[9:16] finally on page 60 is our findings and
question cost. As I mentioned, we did
[9:21] not have findings. Um, we actually we
did test your aging cluster as well. I'd
[9:26] kind of forgotten that. Uh, we tested
your aging cluster. So, we went over to
[9:29] the food uh to the aging center, the
senior center, and we tested the uh
[9:35] title three food. So, we did test two
programs this year to reach that
[9:39] coverage and no findings in that program
either.
[9:45] » Any questions?
>> Basically, it's a pretty good audit.
[9:49] » Yes, we worked with Jennifer. So, as you
know, in the past, um, Janet was our
[9:53] primary contact when we first started
working with Barney, and then we created
[9:56] a position for the budget and compliance
person, Jennifer. And so, she's our
[10:00] primary contact as far as getting us the
information that we need for the audit.
[10:03] And then Fran is also involved. Um, and
most of our counties that have an
[10:08] administrative type position or a
financial
[10:13] person, that's how it operates. The
county clerk deals more with the
[10:16] elections and does those things and your
financial person deals with the audit
[10:20] which works great for us.
>> One thing people a lot of people don't
[10:24] or not a lot but some people don't know
that we do the collective but we also do
[10:27] dispersing and that's when you're
talking about the other entities that
[10:31] say oh the county brought in whatever
100 million you know what is 100
[10:35] million. Well you look at it there's the
cities there districts whatever is there
[10:40] is being sent out so it really reduces
what we're really operating on.
[10:43] » Yes. So page 53 gives you the total of
86,481 that doesn't belong to you and it
[10:49] breaks it down by the difference.
>> That's right. Thank you. Any other
[10:53] questions? I'll take you.
>> Thank you.
[10:58] » All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Sorry I already missed you
[11:01] after I asked
Mark. Okay. So, all righty. Uh now we'll
[11:08] go to public comment. people. You want
five minutes if you come up and
[11:13] introduce yourself, say where you live,
and then we all may be hold each other
[11:17] and let's hear what you have to say.
Good morning.
[11:20] » Good morning, commission. Uh, I'm Mike
Taylor. I'm here on behalf of the
[11:23] sellers in energy and the Wolf Creek
battery energy storage project. I want
[11:28] to be very blunt with you. The repeated
>> the repeated delays and now the newest
[11:35] moratorum are jeopardizing this $200
million plus project in in Levvenworth
[11:40] County. It's a project that'll pay $27
million in property tax and thousands of
[11:46] more in community benefits and
scholarships.
[11:50] For almost a year now, we've worked
closely with neighbors, with community
[11:53] groups, fire departments, emergency
management, environmental groups,
[11:56] unions, county staff, and all of you.
The Wolf Creek Best has strong support.
[12:02] The Sellers and Energy expected the best
regulations to be discussed at last
[12:06] month's planning commission meeting, but
the planning commission just abruptly
[12:10] ended the meeting while our item was
still on the agenda. They didn't talk
[12:14] about it. Now we expected the best
regulations to be adopted, talked about
[12:18] and adopted by the planning commission
tonight, but because of this newest
[12:22] moratorum, we're off the agenda again.
So we were prepared to submit our
[12:27] application next week to keep this
project moving. Uh the fact that coupe
[12:33] rock has recommended delaying best
regulations till they review them was a
[12:37] surprise development which is
unnecessary. Coupe Rock was hired to
[12:42] review data center regulations, not vest
regulations. And accelery has nothing to
[12:47] do with Blue Stem or Cloverleaf. So
we're not quite sure why we got mixed
[12:51] into all of that. My ask is that you
lift the coup rock directed moratorium
[12:56] on battery storage so the planning
commission can go ahead and discuss
[12:59] those rigs tonight, hopefully get them
approved. Um the delay is jeopardizing
[13:06] our project because it keeps pushing it
back and as you know
[13:11] has investors and investors are looking
at this going um
[13:17] this may be too risky for us to put our
money into with all these delays and
[13:21] coming if it crosses into next year.
Southwest Power Pool requires a massive
[13:26] deposit which is non-refundable just to
stay in the game. So, I'm asking you
[13:32] please let this project move along.
Thank you.
[13:34] » Thank you.
>> Thanks, Mike.
[13:40] » Good morning. Good morning.
>> Um, good morning. My name is Connor
[13:45] Eubanks and I am the political affairs
director for Laborers Local 1290. Um, we
[13:50] represent members across the state of
Kansas in the construction industry,
[13:54] including general construction, heavy
heavy highway work, environmental and
[13:58] pipeline construction. Um, I'm here
today to express our support for moving
[14:03] forward with the responsible reg
regulatory framework for battery
[14:07] battery,
excuse me, battery energy storage
[14:11] projects in Leworth County. I want to be
clear. I'm not here to speak uh up to
[14:15] the technical details of the best
regulations, but what I can speak to is
[14:19] the economic and workforce opportunities
these uh projects can create for the
[14:24] community. Uh we understand that
projects of the size need appropriate
[14:28] oversight and we support the county
making sure that they're appropriate uh
[14:31] standards for safety, emergency
response, infrastructure, and the
[14:35] surrounding community.
We know that battery energy store
[14:38] systems are becoming an important part
of our energy infrastructure that they
[14:43] can help improve grid reliability and
resilience by allowing energy to be
[14:47] stored and made a available where it's
needed and when it's needed. At the same
[14:51] time, we know these large scale energy
infrastructure projects can provide
[14:54] significant economic opportunities for
the county particularly during
[14:58] construction period. Large scale energy
projects require significant
[15:02] construction work including site
preparation, excavation, concrete util
[15:07] utilities and other infrastructure work.
Those projects create opportunities for
[15:11] skilled workers and and can bring good
construction jobs to the region. And we
[15:15] support local labor being used on
projects projects such as these so that
[15:19] economic benefits stay within the
community. Also, we have heard time and
[15:23] time again that property taxes are a
huge issue in our communities. Projects
[15:28] like this can actually cont contribute
uh substantial property tax revenue to
[15:32] the local tax base, helping support uh
county services and offset the tax
[15:37] property tax burden on existing
residents. We don't believe continued
[15:41] delay should be the default once the
county has established appropriate
[15:44] standards. We encourage the
commissioners to continue working
[15:47] towards completing the regulatory
process and bringing these regulations
[15:51] forward for a vote as soon as possible
so that the moratorum can end in
[15:54] responsible investment, economic
development and construction
[15:57] opportunities can move forward move
forward in Leworth County. Thanks for
[16:02] your time and thank you for your work on
this issue. Thank you.
[16:04] » Thank you. Appreciate you guys.
[16:09] » Good morning.
>> Morning. I'm Annette Null and I'm a
[16:12] Levvenworth resident. I'm with um local
101 operating engineers and we've been
[16:17] working together with um this company
with other projects and I'm just here to
[16:21] say this I think this is a really good
project. It puts our members to work and
[16:26] um gives back to the community. So thank
you.
[16:29] » Thank you for your comments.
[16:35] » Good morning. Morning.
[16:40] » My name is Steve Hindi. I'm the
president of showing animals respect and
[16:44] kindness or shark. Last April 29th, Ron
Lopez told this board that animals at
[16:50] the Diamonte ranch are given water and
he assured you that electric prods are
[16:55] no longer used at its rodeos. Both
claims were false. There were other
[17:00] falsehoods by Mr. Lopez, but with only 5
minutes, I'll focus on those two. On
[17:05] June 19th, a shark drone recorded a
badly injured steer shadow on Diamante.
[17:12] Dr. Manain also already gave you a
pretty da d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
[17:15] d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
d d d d detailed report on his
[17:16] deplorable condition, but one point must
be repeated. Shadow had no drinkable
[17:22] water in spite of the Lopez promise.
Worse yet, a subsequent police report
[17:28] indicates that Lopez was there at the
time. Two weeks later, Diamonte held a
[17:33] rodeo. A shark drone recorded as
powerful electric prods that are
[17:38] absolutely forbidden at sanctioned
rodeos were used constantly. This
[17:43] included steers being shocked in the
face repeatedly. Horses were also
[17:48] shocked. Remember, Ron Lopez told you
they don't use prods anymore. He stood
[17:52] here and told you that. I have proud
with me today if this board wants to see
[17:57] what it does. A report filed by code
enforcement officer Kyle Anderson states
[18:03] that Ron Lopez was one of the two people
who gave Anderson a tour of the event.
[18:09] So while the planning and zoning
department was somehow blissfully
[18:12] unaware of the abuse happening all
around him, Ron Lopez knew animals were
[18:17] being shocked and more. Last April 29th,
board member Reed questioned the
[18:23] difference between rodeos at Diamonte or
Hill versus those in Oklahoma, Texas,
[18:29] and Kansas. A fair question. The
difference is that sanctioned rodeos
[18:34] have rules. Diamonte rodeos are
unsanctioned. No one holds anyone
[18:39] accountable when claims about animal
care turn out to be lies. Sanctioned
[18:44] rodeos run an animal just once in a
performance. The July 4th viant rodeo
[18:49] ran on animals multiple times to the
point that exhausted steers repeatedly
[18:54] collapsed.
Some of the very harsh events at
[18:58] unsanctioned rodeos last not for seconds
as in sanctioned rodeos, but for a
[19:03] number of minutes and then they're
thrown right back into the arena. A PRCA
[19:08] rodeo requires a veterinarian to be
present for the whole event.
[19:12] Unsanctioned rodeos typically have no
vet because they don't want to spend the
[19:16] money and they consider the animals to
be disposable.
[19:21] On call vets have to be called by the
very people who injured them which costs
[19:25] them more money. On call doesn't work at
unsanctioned rodeos. I called two
[19:31] different phone numbers for Mr. Lopez to
give him an opportunity to respond to
[19:36] our evidence but he has not called back.
Shakers also reached out to the National
[19:40] Coordination of Cheria, but again, no
response. On April 29, Commissioner Reed
[19:46] correctly said that education about
these events is important. Dr. Joan
[19:51] Mann, a licensed large animal
veterinarian, an expert, has given you
[19:56] truthful information, and she has
largely been ignored. This isn't a
[20:00] matter of one person saying it. Now,
there's an actual video record. This
[20:06] continued abuse was completely
predictable. Shadow is an indicator of
[20:10] what has happened in the past and what
will happen going forward. I've
[20:14] investigated rodeos for more than 33
years, both American and Mexican. I was
[20:20] at a steering event in Washurn, Missouri
just last Sunday, and as usual, multiple
[20:26] animals were injured and there was no
vet care. Anyone who can't see the
[20:30] pattern probably shouldn't be in public
service. Steer tailing has the most
[20:35] injuries and deaths by far of any rodeo,
Mexican or American. Steer tailing
[20:41] shouldn't be allowed any more than
fighting or bull fighting. We're told
[20:45] this is culture. Well, whaling is an
ancient culture and Norway and Japan
[20:50] still kill whales today, but Norwegian
and Japanese immigrants don't get to
[20:55] kill whales in US waters. Bull fighting,
dog fighting, and stallion fights are
[21:00] legal in some parts of the world, but
not here. That's not disrespecting
[21:04] culture. That's prohibiting cruelty.
Sheriff Dedi has told us he opposes this
[21:10] abuse. Good for him, because it violates
Kansas anti- cruelty laws. At the
[21:15] minimum, the permit for Diamonte should
be immediately suspended pending further
[21:20] investigation by this board if need be
with an ad hoc committee. This criminal
[21:26] abuse will not stop until you act. Feel
free to contact me at any questions with
[21:31] any questions at info at
sharponline.org.
[21:35] Unlike Mr. Lopez, I will respond. Thank
you. Excuse me, sir.
[21:45] » Have you forwarded a copy of what you
just gave us? Have you forwarded to the
[21:50] commissioner's office?
>> To the commissioner's office? to us. Do
[21:55] I have to send a copy of what you just
>> you know I don't know I did the sheriff
[21:59] » I would like to have a copy if that's
possible
[22:01] » I promise you will receive it very
quickly today anything else
[22:06] » I would I would like to ask you a couple
questions
[22:09] » so a couple of the things that I heard
in debate um as we've been dealing with
[22:15] this issue the last couple years that
I've been here um are that if there was
[22:22] criminal activity be going on. The
sheriff's office would be bringing
[22:26] charges through the county attorney's
office. Can you speak to that?
[22:30] » Yeah. Uh I'm glad you asked. Um we have
tried to talk to both the sheriff's
[22:38] office and the uh and the and the uh
county attorney. And in fact, I was this
[22:45] is my first time back since the July 4th
event. I came and tried to actually file
[22:51] a report with the sheriff's office
yesterday and they said that they've
[22:56] already got it under investigation. They
would not take my report, which I found
[23:01] hot. I actually pushed
without trying to be univil. I pushed um
[23:09] and I understand it's been said before
that if you know it's in the sheriff's
[23:12] hands and if some if something's wrong,
you know, the the prosecutor will deal
[23:16] with it. Take a look at the video.
You'll see them shocking the animals
[23:21] over and over and over, including in the
face. You'll see animals collapsing. You
[23:26] know, whatever the authorities do or do
not do, the video speaks for itself,
[23:31] which is why my organization focuses on
video. You can have an animal expert
[23:36] here telling you the truth and
everything, but in when you see it with
[23:39] your own eyes, you see animals going
down over and over again, horses, steers
[23:44] getting shot,
it it you know it it is what it is.
[23:50] » So, you're stating that the sheriff's
office would not let you file a report.
[23:54] » That is what I was told. I was given a
little postcard size piece of paper to
[24:00] fill out my name, what I was there for,
blah blah blah.
[24:05] gave it to the lady at the at the desk,
building right across the street, window
[24:10] on the right side, and uh she came and
you called some people, got back to me
[24:16] and said, they said, "It's under
investigation already. We're good." I
[24:20] said, "I was the drone pilot. I saw it
firsthand.
[24:24] I really want to make a report." She
went back, made some more calls, came
[24:29] back to me, and said,
"We're good.
[24:34] Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Excuse. What date is that?
[24:38] » What day were you there?
>> You have a date at the sheriff's office
[24:41] yesterday.
>> And And who you talked to?
[24:44] » Sorry.
>> You have a date. And who you talked to?
[24:48] » Uh I was at the sheriff's office
yesterday.
[24:51] » No. No. Who's the Who's the person you
spoke to?
[24:54] » The lady the lady at the front. I I I
didn't get her name. Okay. Thought it
[24:58] would be rude.
>> And the date?
[25:01] » Yesterday. September 8th.
>> So, you're saying that you you asked to
[25:05] file a report yesterday?
>> Yes. And you didn't get any any uh
[25:10] encouragement from that. Okay.
>> Right. I had a conversation with the
[25:14] county attorney last week and he said he
said I basically operate off of police
[25:19] reports. It's not the first time I've
heard a a prosecutor or county attorney
[25:23] tell me that. I said, you know, okay.
So, that that's why I went in yesterday.
[25:27] We have I mean we've got video of of the
incidents uh you know some of the videos
[25:32] up on the on YouTube Facebook people
have seen it all over but if they want
[25:38] us to go through those particular
portals we will do that. Now I did they
[25:43] gave us me a portal to give them video
footage of Shadow the Steer uh from June
[25:49] 20th June well 19th and 20th. I was
there 2 days watching them. But uh we
[25:55] hadn't actually given them a you know
through their portal
[25:59] the rodeo yet. But uh if we get a portal
if I can make a report all this you know
[26:06] we're happy to do whatever they want us
to do.
[26:10] » So I'm sorry just to clarify they
instructed you to submit something
[26:13] through a portal
>> or
[26:16] » they did in the case of shadow.
>> Okay.
[26:18] » In the case of shadow I was provided
with a portal. I sent our video footage
[26:22] through to them. Uh it's their official
way of doing things.
[26:26] » Okay.
>> I just have not had we don't have the
[26:29] opportunity. They have to give us
another portal for the July 4th event.
[26:33] And uh we don't have it.
>> Gotcha.
[26:37] » I think from a layman's perspective
here,
[26:41] uh is there a I'm sorry, did you finish?
>> No, I'm good. Yeah.
[26:46] Um, is there a commit that you're that
you're supposed to to have before you
[26:51] can take footage of anyone's property?
No. No. No matter what. Is is there
[26:57] something that
is it legal? Is it not? No expectation
[27:01] process.
>> How does it how does it work?
[27:03] » I'm a I hold a uh a certificate with
from the FA. It's called a part 107.
[27:09] It's basically a drone permit. and uh
airspace unless unless the FAA has
[27:15] declared it to be uh you know special
use or prohibited or something like that
[27:21] drone the the drone is able to fly well
there are certain rules but no rules
[27:27] were broken I can assure you on either
the shadow matter or the rodeo and yes
[27:33] you can now if that drone was being used
to peep in people's windows or something
[27:37] like that would be a different thing but
it wasn't it was you know in the case of
[27:41] July for it was filming a public event.
And uh in the case of Shadow, in the
[27:46] case of Shadow,
I didn't anticipate. I was there for a
[27:51] preliminary flight, check out what
things look like and how we were going
[27:55] to operate on July 4th. And I happened
to find Shadow. Wasn't something I
[28:01] anticipated. It wasn't something I
wanted to see cuz I can't unsee it. So,
[28:06] so you were called there for that
specific duty of checking out that
[28:10] particular rock rodeo. Is that
>> were you called specifically to come and
[28:15] check out that particular rodeo?
We chose to come to that rodeo. We have
[28:21] been dealing with
unsanctioned private rodeos in Illinois
[28:26] for the last 5 years. There were there
were a lot more than there were are in
[28:31] Kansas five, you know, five years ago in
Illinois. We went and we started
[28:35] documenting those rodeos, all the
violations and the terrible cruelty that
[28:40] goes on. And over the last five years,
we basically knocked them out of
[28:43] Illinois. And it was always our plan to
branch out from there because cruelty is
[28:48] cruelty wherever it's happening. And now
we're in Kansas.
[28:53] » Yeah. Now we're in Kansas.
>> Something else that I have been trying
[28:57] to figure out and uh feel free to
disagree with me obviously. Um
[29:05] the uh federal animal welfare act as I
understand it doesn't like excludes
[29:12] rodeo animals basically.
>> We wish the animal the federal act
[29:17] included rodeos. It does not.
>> Do you have an idea more than I know of
[29:25] why that is?
>> No idea at all.
[29:31] » Thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay, I hear
[29:38] » morning
Julie DS uh Shauny County. Uh I just
[29:44] wanted to answer Commissioner Reed's
question or give you a little insight
[29:48] because I lived as you know and and
honestly dealing with it for a few
[29:53] years. I've been here for 20 years
testifying about this issue.
[30:00] um is that the sheriff's office
because I lived right across from one of
[30:07] from one of these sites. I called for 20
years the sheriff's department. I have I
[30:13] have video of standing on the road with
deputies as we look at these events and
[30:18] I have deputies saying to me, "This is a
business."
[30:24] And as I've said before, I had to pay
for research, which I felt the county
[30:29] should have paid for, to investigate
what was going on at these events.
[30:35] They're highly profitable events that
sell admission fees. I have a photo by
[30:42] my house where there's about a thousand
people
[30:46] there, but I could only take photos from
the road. So when we say the sheriff can
[30:53] could not not once had I ever called
even with commissioner Steve Steven been
[30:58] at an event who got charged
not once did a sheriff go on site that
[31:05] I'm aware of because they say it's code
issue. So I spent 20 years being told,
[31:11] including by members of the county, to
call the sheriff, call the sheriff, the
[31:16] sheriff comes or the deputies and say we
can't do anything because it's a code
[31:21] violation.
So the, you know, I'm just explaining.
[31:24] So the assumption that this has to be
criminal, if they can't go on the
[31:29] property, then it's never going to be
discovered of anything.
[31:35] Um, I did want to say if you look over
these meetings for a couple of years, we
[31:42] have been very clear about the need for
a vet. In fact, I preempted my old
[31:48] neighbor last time on July 1st by coming
up here and and stating that they will
[31:56] come up and say they can't afford this
vet. But I paid a lot of money to get
[32:01] ads again that showed they were making
tens of thousands of dollars. And
[32:08] frankly, the commissioners, you let them
continue with these on call vets.
[32:14] And you did change when I preempted
this. You did tell my former neighbor
[32:19] that he had to have a vet. And he said,
"Well, if I have rodeos, I will." One of
[32:24] my other objections and I think it's
very important for the commissioners to
[32:29] understand as well as planning and
zoning
[32:33] is my neighbor for 20 years would say
this is a private event and there'd be
[32:40] hundreds of cars there.
And so what happens when it's called a
[32:45] private event? Not one time did a
sheriff or a deputy stop it. Not one
[32:51] time.
hundreds of people, thousands of people,
[32:55] family event, you got to get through
that loophole that has to be noted
[33:01] cuz it's a huge loophole. And and and my
neighbor was very aware. He would say
[33:06] it's a wedding. It's a family party and
there would be 100 cars.
[33:11] The other thing is when the bull was
found, there was no papers. There was no
[33:17] that I'm aware of Coggins testing. The
counties addressed that.
[33:22] In fact, I believe county administrator
uh Mr. Laughrey had said in one of his
[33:28] notes that that I looked through just
the other day that we will do what we
[33:34] need to do when there was an outbreak I
believe in Sedick County.
[33:38] So, I'm not aware and this was addressed
uh what were Cogen Coggin's papers
[33:46] taken?
Who who got those from the county? Who
[33:50] knows that that was done? I'm not aware
of it.
[33:55] I want to end with the planning and
zoning.
[33:59] I had information that I felt the county
blocked. I filed the lawsuit.
[34:06] I moved. I had to drop it.
I I have detailed documentation on how
[34:12] hard of a fight this has been.
Planning and zoning had been
[34:18] particularly difficult
in in certain respects. And that report
[34:25] they filed was absolutely incredulous.
It was one paragraph or two paragraphs.
[34:33] Everything looked good when we know what
was happening. Thank you so much.
[34:38] Pleasure.
[34:42] » Come on down.
[34:47] Morning.
>> Good morning. Um, Jim Carl, Reno
[34:53] Township. I'm here uh on behalf of
Citizens Against Blood. Later today at
[34:59] 5:30 this evening, the county planning
commission is scheduled to vote on case
[35:05] DEEV26-100,
the proposed plan industrial technology
[35:10] district language. Public comment on
that item was closed on August the 12th.
[35:15] No com no public comment is allowed at
tonight's meeting. This is why five
[35:21] members of our group are before you this
morning. One after another at a meeting
[35:27] with the public is allowed to speak. We
are asking the board to hear what we
[35:32] would have had said tonight, to place it
on its own position on today's record
[35:38] before the evening hearing, and to be
prepared to exercise its authority under
[35:43] KSA 12-757
once the recommendation reaches it. Our
[35:50] position is straightforward. We ask that
this board state on today's record its
[35:55] support for continuing the public
hearing on DV26DEV26-100
[36:01] to the commission's regular meeting on
October 12 14th excuse me so that the
[36:07] amendments that record clearly requires
can be prepared so that any vote is
[36:13] taken on a complete document. There are
three reasons for this position and four
[36:19] speakers following me will address them.
First, the document before the
[36:24] commission tonight is not a document the
public heard on. What was tabled on
[36:29] August 12th was a 12-page draft prepared
by the staff. What returns tonight is a
[36:36] 15page replacement prepared by outside
council dated September 4th and
[36:42] delivered with the September 9th packet
which was put out late last Friday
[36:46] afternoon. It changes the noise
standard, the water provisions, the
[36:51] treatment of on-site power generation
and it introduces a variance provision
[36:56] that had no counterpart in an earlier
draft. Second, the document read closely
[37:03] sets almost nothing. The phase
development agreement appears 20 times
[37:09] in 15 pages. The sound limits, the
monitoring requirements, the reports to
[37:14] the public, the financial security, and
every panel in the ordinance are
[37:19] committed to that agreement. A
development a development agreement is
[37:24] negotiated between county staff and the
applicant after public hearings have
[37:30] closed outside of public record and in
terms are not before the commission
[37:35] tonight. Third, three items the staff
reporter herself contemplates are
[37:41] missing from the packet. They are no
proposed findings of fact. Although two
[37:47] of the three act action options direct a
recommendation beforeward with findings
[37:53] of fact. There is no draft of article 19
use tables although the staff report
[37:59] identifies them as part of that
amendment and there is no redline
[38:03] comparison of the two drafts. The four
speakers who follow me will address four
[38:08] of the specific specific defects that
flow from those problems. The noise
[38:15] standard, the battery energy storage,
decommissioning and financial security,
[38:20] and on-site power generation. Each will
identify what other jurisdictions in
[38:26] this region have already adopted on the
same question. Richard Paws will close
[38:31] the by restating the specific actions we
are asking the board to take today. We
[38:37] are not asking the county to decide
whether Levvenworth should host a data
[38:41] center. We are asking that that the
protections this county adopts be
[38:46] written into ordinance where they bind
every applicant equally rather than
[38:52] reserved to an agreement negotiated
after the public has been excused. Thank
[38:56] you.
[39:04] Good morning, Tammy Patton, Lancing,
Kansas. Good morning, commissioners. I'm
[39:09] here on behalf of Citizens Against Blue
STEM to speak to the noise standard in
[39:13] the proposed plan industrial technology
district ordinance. The county already
[39:18] has a noise standard. Article 27B,
section 1 of the existing zoning and
[39:24] subdivision regulations applies to every
planned district and provides that in no
[39:29] case shall the noise level exceed 60 dB
at repeated intervals or for a sustained
[39:35] length of time measured at any point
along the property line that is a
[39:40] ceiling and is measured at the property
line. The revised section 6.5 would
[39:46] replace that with a different rule. It
says that postdeveloped average noise
[39:51] levels may not exceed 65 dB or the
pre-existing average noise levels at the
[39:56] property line. That's five dB higher
than what article 27B already provides.
[40:03] It is an average rather than a ceiling
and it raises with the ambient sound,
[40:08] including ambient sound created by
earlier phases of the same facility.
[40:13] Neither draft repeals or reconciles 27B.
So if this text is adopted, the county
[40:19] code will contain two conflicting
property line noise standards with no
[40:23] rule of priority.
A data center runs continuously,
[40:28] including through the night. Its
principal sound signature is low
[40:31] frequency and the tonal noise is
awaited. A-weed measures ignore much of
[40:37] the low frequency content. They don't
fully reflect the actual sound level or
[40:42] impact of the noise. The revision
recognizes this. It defines a day night
[40:47] sound level. It authorizes C- weighted
and octave band measurement. It requires
[40:53] the acoustical study to address
cumulative sound from all phases. It
[40:58] then assigns no number to any of them.
Other jurisdictions in this region have
[41:03] already done what the revision refuses
to do. Cass County, Missouri, 40 miles
[41:09] from here, adopted a sea weighted limit
in April of last year. Its ordinance
[41:14] provides that the sound pressure level
that is attributed to a data center
[41:18] shall not exceed 50 dB
C as measured at all data center
[41:25] property lines. Cass County also caps
generator testing. Testing is prohibited
[41:30] between 9 at night and 7 in the morning.
It's limited to 2 hours per day and may
[41:36] occur no more than once per week.
Vancome County, North Carolina adopted
[41:41] an absolute ceiling. In no one case
shall a data center exceed at any time
[41:47] of day as measured at the property lines
and no facility may exceed its own
[41:52] preconstruction baseline. Archabal,
Pennsylvania calibrates the limit to the
[41:57] land. Project sound shall not exceed the
measured construction ambient sound
[42:02] level by more than 55 dB. Adaresville,
Georgia and Columbia County, Arkansas.
[42:08] Each set a lowered nighttime figure,
then daytime, and each attaches an
[42:13] enforcement consequence, a monetary
penalty in the first case, a misdemeanor
[42:18] with a suspension of operations in the
second. Every one of these standards was
[42:23] adopted by a peer jurisdiction on
foreign land of the same character. None
[42:28] is novel. We ask the board to state on
today's record that any noise limits in
[42:34] the new district must be fixed in the
ordinance, not in a later development
[42:39] agreement, and that a minimum they
should include a nighttime standard, a
[42:43] numerical C weighted limit, and a cap on
a generator testing. If the
[42:48] recommendation that reaches this board
does not contain these elements, we ask
[42:52] that it be returned under KSA 12-757
with a written statement identifying
[42:59] that defect. Thank you.
[43:06] » Good morning.
>> Good morning, commissioners. Morning
[43:08] Hunger Miller. I live at 21549
187th Street in Tangani in third
[43:14] district. Uh I'm here on behalf of
Citizens Against Blue Stem to speak to
[43:19] battery energy storage in the proposed
ordinance. The planning commission's own
[43:23] packet as it table section 6.6 tonight
because outside council has not had a
[43:30] complete review of section 6.6.
Section 6.6 is the battery section. It
[43:36] is where the fire and hazard provisions
would live, including installation under
[43:41] the National Fire Protection Association
or NFPA
[43:46] 70 and NFPA 855
tier classifications, commissioning,
[43:52] decommissioning, and insurance for
battery systems. NFPA7 or the National
[43:57] Electrical Code is the United States
benchmark standard for safe electrical
[44:02] design, installation, and inspection.
NFPA855
[44:07] is the national standard providing
minimum requirements for mitigating fire
[44:11] and explosion hazards associated with
stationary energy storage systems.
[44:17] Section 6.5, the planned industrial
technology district section, would
[44:22] nevertheless be voted on tonight. And
section 6.5, though it is not the
[44:27] battery section, addresses batteries in
six separate places. Batteries are
[44:32] listed as a permitted accessory use.
Batteries are inside the definition of
[44:38] backup utility generation.
Batteries are inside the site the list
[44:43] of site improvements.
Batteries appear in the provision that
[44:47] prohibits equipment inside required
setbacks and buffers. Batteries appear
[44:53] in the provision that permits lock
dimensions and setbacks to vary. and
[44:58] batteries appear in the requirement that
stationary equipment demonstrate
[45:02] compliance with the sound standard. The
effect is straightforward. If the
[45:07] planning commission adopts section 6.5
tonight and tables section 6.6, battery
[45:13] energy storage becomes a permissible
accessory use in the new district at a
[45:18] time when no battery safety criteria are
in force. The permission would be
[45:24] granted before the safeguards are
written. This is not a hypothetical
[45:28] concern. Lithium ion battery
installations have caused significant
[45:33] fires at data center and grid storage
sites in the last several years. And
[45:38] firefighting for lithium ion fires
requires specialized water suppression,
[45:44] thermal runaway procedures, and
dedicated setbacks that a county fire
[45:48] district must be prepared for in
advance. That is the purpose of the NFPA
[45:53] standards that would live in section
6.6. Six. Other jurisdictions treat
[45:58] batteries and data centers as a package.
Cass County and Missouri regulates data
[46:03] centers, battery storage, generators,
and substations together in one
[46:09] ordinance and requires that the fire and
hazard provisions be in place at the
[46:14] time the use is approved. Its bond and
decommissioning provisions apply to the
[46:19] battery systems. Specifically,
the Kentucky Resources Council model
[46:24] ordinance likewise treats batteries as a
separate use requiring its own approval.
[46:30] So, the safety criteria and the
permission are decided at the same
[46:34] hearing. The straightforward fix is to
hold the two sections together and act
[46:39] on them together.
That is CAB's preferred outcome. If for
[46:45] any reason section 6.5 is moved forward
tonight while section 6.6 6 remains
[46:50] tabled. The specific references to
battery energy storage should be struck
[46:55] from section 6.5.
The accessory use listing should be
[47:00] removed. Battery should be removed from
the definition of backup utility
[47:04] generation and the site improvement and
setback references to batteries should
[47:08] be removed until section 6.6 has been
adopted. that would preserve the ability
[47:14] to add batteries once the fire and
safety rules are in place without
[47:19] granting the permission. First, we ask
this board to state on today's record
[47:24] that the two sections should move
together or failing that that the
[47:27] battery should be struck from section
6.5 until section 6.6 is adopted. If a
[47:34] recommendation approving 6.5 with
battery references intact reaches this
[47:38] board, we ask that it be returned under
KSA2-757
[47:44] with a written statement identifying
that defect.
[47:47] » Thank you very much.
>> Excuse me, sir.
[47:49] » Yes, sir.
>> Could you give me a copy of that?
[47:52] » Yes, sir. We'll ensure you get a copy.
We'll ensure the entire petition. Yes.
[48:06] Uh D. Carl, Reno Township. Good morning.
Uh commissioners and members of the
[48:11] planning and zoning commission. Today I
want to address something that must be
[48:15] included in the approval conditions for
project blue stem. What happens when
[48:20] this project ends? We have spent a great
deal of time discussing what Blue Stem
[48:25] might bring to Levvenworth County. But
responsible government must also ask
[48:29] what happens if the project fails,
becomes obsolete, is abandoned, or the
[48:33] company is no longer capable of meeting
its obligations.
[48:37] Blue Stem is not an ordinary commercial
development. It could involve massive
[48:41] buildings, substations, generators,
cooling systems, fuel systems,
[48:45] electrical infrastructure, and other
industrial facilities. If the facility
[48:49] is abandoned, someone will have to pay
to deal with it. Someone will have to
[48:54] remove the buildings and equipment.
Someone will have to properly dispose of
[48:58] fuels, batteries, refrigerants,
coolants, and other materials. And
[49:02] someone will have to address
environmental contam contamination if it
[49:06] exists. And someone will have to restore
the property. I am asking this
[49:11] commission to make certain that someone
in in is not the taxpayer of Levvenworth
[49:16] County. Therefore, I ask that blue stem
approval contain these specific
[49:20] conditions. First, require a
decommissioning and site restoration
[49:24] plan. It should be submitted and
approved before any construction permit
[49:28] is issued and identified, what must be
removed, and how the property will be
[49:33] restored. Second, clearly define
abandonment. If operations permanently
[49:38] cease or cease for a specific period
without an approved plan to re to resume
[49:43] or develop, the county should have the
ab authority to require decommissioning.
[49:48] Third, require financial assurance
before construction begins. The
[49:52] applicant should provide financial
security sufficient to cover the fullest
[49:56] estimated cost of demolition, equipment
removal, environmental reme remediation,
[50:02] and site restoration.
and and that estimate should be
[50:06] determined solely by the developer. It
should be independently prepared or
[50:10] verified should not be done by the
developer and should be verified by a
[50:15] qualified third party with no financial
interest in the project. Fourth, require
[50:20] a bond or sur. The county should accept
only a a legally enforcable financial
[50:26] instrument such as a shy bond,
irrevocable letter of credit, escrow, or
[50:30] other security that can't actually be
used if the developer fails to perform.
[50:36] Because a promise to clean up the
property is not the same as money
[50:39] available to clean it up. Fifth, require
periodic review. The county should
[50:44] review the decommissioning cost at least
every 5 years and increase the financial
[50:48] assurance whenever necessary to keep
pace with the actual cost and inflation.
[50:53] Sixth, make these obligations survive
any transfer. If blue stem is sold,
[50:58] transfer transferred, merged, or
operated by another company. The
[51:02] decommissioning and financial assurance
requirements must remain binding on all
[51:07] successors and and assigns. Seventh,
give the county the ability to assess
[51:11] the financial security if necessary.
After appropriate notice and opportunity
[51:16] to cure if the owner fails to perform
required decommissioning or restoration,
[51:21] the county should be able to draw upon
the security and use those funds to
[51:25] complete the work. Most importantly,
none of this should be postponed until
[51:29] after construction begins. The financial
assurance should be in place before the
[51:34] first shovel goes into the ground.
Commissioners, this is not about
[51:37] preventing development. It is about
making development responsible.
[51:42] If Blue Stem succeeds, the developer
receives the benefits. If it fails,
[51:47] becomes obsolete, or is abandoned, the
developer should bear the cost of
[51:51] closing its operation and restoring the
property. We should not approve this
[51:55] project and leave further future
commissioners with an abandoned
[51:58] industrial facility and a multi-million
dollar cleanup bill. So, please put
[52:03] these protections into Blue Stem's
approval. Required removal of all
[52:07] structures, equipment, foundations,
battery systems, and fuel systems with
[52:11] 12 months of the sessation of operation.
A third party estimate of the cost of
[52:17] removal updated every 5 years. Shy or or
a letter of credit that in in that
[52:24] amount posted before the first building
permit is issued. a defined term for the
[52:28] approval and a requirement that an
expansion or change in power source
[52:33] return to a new approval. Because
responsibility government doesn't just
[52:38] ask what happens if the project
succeeds, it asks what if the project
[52:42] doesn't. For project blue stem, the
answer should never be the citizens of
[52:46] Levvenworth County. We ask the board to
state on today's record that
[52:50] decommissioning and financial security
must be written into the ordinance
[52:54] before this district is created. not
left to a later negotiation. If a
[53:00] recommendation without those provision
reaches this board, we ask that it be
[53:04] returned under KSA2-757
with a written statement identifying the
[53:09] defect. Thank you.
[53:16] » Could I ask her a question?
>> Sure.
[53:18] » Got a question for you.
>> Oh, sorry.
[53:23] » Hi there. Good morning.
>> Oh, morning. So, I had asked this
[53:28] question before in public session and uh
I didn't know if your group had assessed
[53:35] those responses that I received on the
decommissioning
[53:40] question. So, they basically stated, if
I remember correctly, that the buildings
[53:46] would be more or less a hot commodity
that they would be able to be sold and
[53:51] have new uses. And so I would just be
interested in what your group would say
[53:58] to that response and I can try and send
you that footage if you don't have it
[54:03] already.
>> No, I understand what you're asking
[54:04] because we've also thought about that
and we've heard other people recommend
[54:07] what it'll go to.
Um
[54:11] I've mentioned Prescott Bulch before.
He's into it. He's into these data
[54:15] centers. He does not like them in
communities our size because of the
[54:19] financial repercussions that never come
to fruition and we end up footing the
[54:23] bill. His recommendation is maybe a
bowling alley and this is why he said
[54:28] that the ceilings in these buildings are
lower than an office building.
[54:33] Uh there's no windows so there's not
much you can put in there. I know
[54:38] Jacobson and Mr. Jacobson had
recommended oh we'll sell it as a
[54:41] warehouse. Well, think about the complex
pictures you've seen. These buildings
[54:46] are low to the ground. There's no docks
put to them. If they have that, if they
[54:50] do this, they're going to have to
rebuild the buildings. And there's no
[54:54] place for a semi to pull in, turn
around, back up, and deliver. So, there
[55:00] aren't when you talk when you look at
industry experts and I'm and it's um I
[55:06] can't remember the name of it right now.
They say nothing. There's nothing you
[55:09] can put into these buildings. And
because of the toxicity of the ground
[55:13] surrounding them after in an operation,
you can't you can't grow crops. You
[55:19] can't put homes on these areas until
this is all redone because it'll be so
[55:24] toxic.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[55:26] » Mhm.
>> Thank you.
[55:28] » All right.
[55:34] » Good morning.
>> Good morning.
[55:36] » Kim Calbert, Tonga.
Um I'm here on behalf of uh citizens
[55:41] against blue stem to talk about as usual
on-site power generation. Now the
[55:47] proposed ordinance defines two different
things. Backup utility generation is the
[55:54] equipment that quote automatically
activates to provide electricity during
[55:58] a main electric power line outage and in
the tech own words does not include
[56:05] equipment operated as primary routine
merchant bridging or continuous power
[56:11] source. It also defines a power
generation facility and that is defined
[56:18] as any on-site or associated facility
other than backup utility generation
[56:24] that generates electricity on a primary
routine bridging merchant utility scale
[56:30] or non-emergency basis. The first is
standby equipment. The second's a power
[56:35] plant. The uh second is also defined in
the ordinance as I've mentioned and as
[56:42] I've described, but it's never permitted
anywhere else. There is no other
[56:47] reference to a power plant or this
particular power generation facility
[56:54] anywhere in the ordinance. Um it does
not appear in any of the three use
[56:58] lists. The prohibition in subsection 7E
says that any use not expressly listed
[57:04] as permitted or accessory is prohibited.
So you you might not be able to do this
[57:11] anyway
because it could already not be in the
[57:14] the lists of permitted or accessory use.
Um but the accessory list does mention
[57:22] power supply and other uses including
including utilities normally auxiliary
[57:28] to the permitted use. Whether an
applicant may build a generating station
[57:33] in this district ought not to turn on a
side thought of an oh this is an
[57:40] auxiliary.
Okay. It's it should be addressed
[57:43] completely as a power plant. The county
cannot set emission limits. I think they
[57:51] could, but it doesn't work very well.
The revision itself acknowledges that
[57:55] that is true. It is for that reason that
sighting becomes so critical. A sighting
[58:02] decision here will matter because it's
the only instrument bearing on public
[58:06] health that this that this draft
um actually has in it. This this
[58:12] ordinance does not have much in the way
of protecting public health.
[58:17] Um and then the the revision that we're
looking at coming from uh your law firm
[58:25] um actually makes it worse. It sort of
narrows the ability to put in advance
[58:31] some public protections by pushing
everything into the final development
[58:38] documents and being negotiated.
um the single emission standards uh oh
[58:44] excuse me um the August draft produced
prohibited nuclear power it's just right
[58:49] out and then now it doesn't have the
nuclear power prohibition in it the
[58:54] single emission standards that remains
uh to that's in there is applies only to
[59:02] reciprocating internal combustion
engines or rice and that alone not any
[59:08] other kind of power that means it
excludes glass gas fired turbines. The
[59:12] one emission regulation that's in there
doesn't cover gas turbines. Um so
[59:16] there's no forward at all for those. No
emissions regulation at all for gas
[59:21] turbines. And other jurisdictions have
addressed this in uh plain language.
[59:27] Kita County, Georgia disposes of the
question in one sentence.
[59:30] Notwithstanding utility grid failure, no
primary on-site power generation shall
[59:35] be permitted. Birmingham, Alabama puts
it in three parts. No on-site generation
[59:41] can be used for primary par parallel or
routine source. Fossil fuel systems are
[59:46] permitted only for emergency backup and
testing. And critically, the
[59:50] classification of power generation
system shall be determined by its
[59:54] intended design, not operational
capacity and functional use or by
[59:59] operational capacity and functional use
and not solely by the terminology used
[1:00:03] by the applicant. The last clause
prevents a power plant from being
[1:00:07] reclassified as bridging or backup
equipment. The pen future model adopted
[1:00:12] by Colombia and Alabama treats
generation as a separate land use
[1:00:17] altogether. Cass County, Missouri
reaches the same result by requiring
[1:00:21] that substations serve exclusively as
auxiliary facilities for on-site data
[1:00:26] center operations and may not provide
power to offsite structures or
[1:00:30] electrical grid.
In addition of sorry, got a substitution
[1:00:35] here.
You are hearing a number of reasons to
[1:00:39] re-evaluate the effectiveness of this
document. We ask the board to state its
[1:00:43] position in public hearing. Use KSA
127757
[1:00:47] to exert your authority if a
recommendation comes out back without
[1:00:52] these changes. Please be prepared to do
this for the protection of the people in
[1:00:56] the county you serve. Thank you.
COULD
[1:01:03] I ask you a question?
>> Yeah.
[1:01:06] » Um,
just to clarify as far as the nuclear
[1:01:11] power discussion point. So, does your
group um what's your group's stance on
[1:01:18] that? I mean
to be truthful I think it's
[1:01:25] overall generally we don't want it
because we don't want the waste to deal
[1:01:31] with it or to have to deal with the
waste
[1:01:34] » because from an emissions standpoint
it's
[1:01:37] » exactly it's a matter of
it's a matter of developing technology
[1:01:42] in the small nuclear reactor cap
capacity and the other thing is that
[1:01:50] It's not something that can happen on
the timeline that most data centers are
[1:01:54] after. They take a little bit longer and
some of the new smaller ones are being
[1:02:00] kind of vetted. So right now it's no
but I don't personally speaking for me
[1:02:08] personally I don't necessarily think it
will never be an option once the
[1:02:13] technology that is out there to make it
safer and deal with the waste more
[1:02:20] effectively are are proven. I just I and
I but that's me. The whole group in
[1:02:25] general I would say is against
>> So you want it to stay in gas or
[1:02:31] No,
I don't I I I don't want the gas engines
[1:02:36] there at all. I don't want diesel there
at all. But you know, these are
[1:02:40] personal. Um
if the energy is
[1:02:46] de is is developed
say within the regulations that are
[1:02:51] there 25% of it is from renewable
sources that we stop reactivating coal
[1:02:58] fire generators and pay attention to the
fact that g that that natural gas is
[1:03:03] clean burning in little tiny bitty units
but on massive scales it becomes a
[1:03:10] hazardous this thing. So what originally
was intended of course was to bring
[1:03:16] power in all all through a a power
company. Okay. The inclusion of these
[1:03:25] came like in the middle of all of our
discussions and
[1:03:32] you know sometimes it's hard to keep up
with all the changes that happen.
[1:03:36] um it is now the industry standard to go
with these gas fired generators and I
[1:03:43] think it's going to end up being a
mistake
[1:03:46] based on my research what kind of
pollution and issues that they can
[1:03:51] develop.
I'm not sure there's another option
[1:03:55] right now. Well, that's what I was
trying to
[1:03:58] » Well, but the thing is is if they get
Okay, if EverGy gets
[1:04:03] the um transmission lines to the site,
okay,
[1:04:10] then
there shouldn't be a need to generate
[1:04:16] your own power. All you should need is
your backup.
[1:04:21] And that's why throwing this in there
throwing through us for such a loop. Our
[1:04:24] expectations of the power would be
brought in doesn't mean overall that
[1:04:28] wherever that power was generated is not
dirty but it would not have been here.
[1:04:35] » See my go.
>> Sorry I didn't realize you were
[1:04:38] » No, I never I never shut up.
>> I have the same problem. So um my
[1:04:45] understanding was a little bit different
as far as the power plant onsite
[1:04:51] situation. I had heard those discussions
coming from when when this was going
[1:04:55] through Topeka from what I remembered
and so I was trying to
[1:05:02] like to me this was part of their idea
when they built the legislation part of
[1:05:06] what the legis
>> that's not what was communicated to us.
[1:05:09] » Okay. I mean, if they're if they're
holding secrets in Topeka, that kind of
[1:05:13] proves our point, doesn't it?
>> Well, thank you so much.
[1:05:22] » Good morning, chair. Commissioners
Richard Paw, 1775 Michael's Road. And on
[1:05:28] behalf of CAB, I'd like to close out
this presentation and restate what what
[1:05:31] we're asking the board to consider, to
understand. And as Jim mentioned, this
[1:05:36] is our only ability to do it publicly
because of the procedural closing of the
[1:05:41] public comments at the planning
commission, which we felt was premature
[1:05:45] and not to the spirit. What was
discussed during that meeting was very
[1:05:48] much a civil discourse.
So, um, so you've heard from four
[1:05:53] speakers on the four specific defects in
the proposed PITD ordinance, and each of
[1:05:57] those defects reflects the same
underlying problem.
[1:06:01] The document fixes almost no standards
in the ordinance itself. Nearly every
[1:06:05] substantive requirement, the sound
limits, the monitoring, the reporting to
[1:06:09] the public, the financial security, and
every penalty is committed to a
[1:06:12] development agree to a development
agreement negotiated between county
[1:06:17] staff and an applicant after the public
hearing is closed. So again, our purpose
[1:06:23] on behalf of the community is to get
that public scrutiny in there. Again,
[1:06:27] the mission of a county government
An ordinance that fixes performance
[1:06:31] standards binds every applicant equally
and can be enforced by the county as a
[1:06:35] matter of right.
An ordinance that promises to negotiate
[1:06:39] performance standards binds no one until
the negotiation is complete and its
[1:06:44] outcome depends on the county's
bargaining position at the time. And
[1:06:49] again, when you're faced with the
multi-million billion dollar behemoth,
[1:06:53] you can understand why the public
scrutiny is important. So the former is
[1:06:58] regulation which we are uh fighting for.
The latter is just a placeholder. But
[1:07:03] again if those negotiations happen
behind closed doors the county and the
[1:07:08] people may be at a disadvantage. So
there will be three courses of action
[1:07:12] before the planning commission tonight
and the staff report identifies them as
[1:07:15] action option one two and three. CAB
asks two things of this board today.
[1:07:21] first that this board state on the
today's record its support for action
[1:07:25] option three uh continuence to October
14th and failing that action option two
[1:07:32] denial of finding a fact. Uh the second
action is if the planning commission
[1:07:37] forwards a recommendation of approval
this evening, this board this board
[1:07:40] hopefully would exercise its authority
under KSA2-757
[1:07:45] either to return the recommendation with
a written statement of defects
[1:07:48] identified in our report or to override
it. That's certainly within the the
[1:07:52] remitt of the of the governing body
which is you all. Action option three is
[1:07:58] to continue the public hearing to
another date, time and place. And again,
[1:08:01] I want to reemphasize that to continue
the public hearing to another date,
[1:08:04] time, and place. It's not to say no data
centers. It's to continue to public
[1:08:08] discussion and to have a civil discourse
over what's best for the community. We
[1:08:14] ask specifically that the item uh to be
continued to the planning commission's
[1:08:18] regular meeting on October 14th so that
the amendments the record clearly
[1:08:22] requires can be prepared so that article
19 tables can be produced and so that
[1:08:27] any vote is taken on a completed
document that the public has had an
[1:08:31] opportunity to be heard on and to your
point um Mr. of we have a report from
[1:08:36] which this testimony is derived. So
you'll have a complete work. So in a in
[1:08:41] a sense it's like staff work for you to
look at. So when you get those
[1:08:46] recommendations, you already have a
standard which the public brought before
[1:08:50] you. So thank you for asking that
question. We
[1:08:52] » appreciate that. Action option two is to
recommend denial of case uh deev 26100.
[1:08:57] Again, our first option three, not
action option two, but if we can't get
[1:09:02] three, go for two. And then you've
already heard the findings uh of the
[1:09:08] record which we are presenting, which
would fill that out for you. So
[1:09:12] immediately following this meeting uh we
will submit for the record the full
[1:09:16] written report which we will provide to
you from today's testim from which our
[1:09:19] testimony is drawn and together include
a detailed analysis documenting each
[1:09:24] point our speakers have raised and
identifying by chapter and verse what
[1:09:27] peer jurisdictions as you've heard today
have done and we've documented those. So
[1:09:32] we thank you for your time for your
ability to listen and to um you know do
[1:09:38] your due diligence. So, thank you so
much for allowing us this time to do
[1:09:42] that.
>> Thank you.
[1:09:49] » I I just want to make one point just
just me talking. Uh I think uh rep for
[1:09:54] the uh bees, they could have done we
could have done that separately.
[1:09:59] Um I think uh there was no reason for
that to be combined and that could have
[1:10:04] proceeded forth, you know. And a
disclaimer, I own one of those fancy
[1:10:08] battery cars. as I understand the risks.
But we actually in the August turn, we
[1:10:12] actually applauded the BDES regulations
because it was more rigorous than the
[1:10:17] data center ones, especially with
decommissioning
[1:10:21] because it had that in the BES already.
So, uh I I would just throw that note
[1:10:26] out on a personal note that they could
have been done separately and there's no
[1:10:29] need to delay those, but again, uh our
focus has been the data center and the
[1:10:34] power generation and such. I just wanted
to note that we're just I know people
[1:10:38] say we're nimbies and all that's
certainly absolutely false.
[1:10:42] » And the fact about what you
>> you know people say we're we're we're
[1:10:47] nimbies and that's absolutely false and
the whole cliche about we're closer for
[1:10:51] business. Absolutely not. because here
we are, business is always coming. And
[1:10:55] and to your point, Commissioner Reid,
about warehouses, uh great point. If if
[1:10:59] you could
>> the speaker has way exceeded his
[1:11:05] second five minutes now. So,
>> good question on that.
[1:11:07] » I turned off the time.
>> We'll look at that. Could be a matter of
[1:11:12] economic geography too about where Thank
you. Thank you.
[1:11:22] Good morning.
>> Good morning. My name is Christy Cruz
[1:11:25] and I am uh a neighbor of the new
apparently new data center coming. Uh I
[1:11:33] live on Canrell and uh Highway 1. Um I
have an I'm also a board member of roll
[1:11:41] water district 10 lworth county and I
also run a business that I write uh
[1:11:47] grants for infrastructure for small for
counties and cities all over the state
[1:11:51] of Kansas. um here today just as a
private citizen not representing any of
[1:11:56] either of my other roles um and I
haven't really spoken up about the data
[1:12:00] center because I haven't really informed
myself about them enough to really have
[1:12:05] that much of an opinion. I watched the
news. I see there's nationwide concern
[1:12:11] about resource use, about pollution,
about toxicity, that type of thing, but
[1:12:16] again haven't taken time to really re
reach into it. The reason I'm here today
[1:12:21] is because I do work with a number of
counties across the state and I've seen
[1:12:27] them wrestling with new industry coming
into the counties, wind, solar,
[1:12:32] batteries, um, data centers. They're all
like everyone is looking at this and
[1:12:37] right and wrestling with what to let in
and everyone has vocal populace about
[1:12:43] you know that mostly against it not a
lot for it but I've also seen you know
[1:12:47] really good things done with pilot money
that type of thing in these counties so
[1:12:51] you know developments coming and and
it's not a bad thing to be able to have
[1:12:55] these investments what I do see is
that's dangerous is having these uh new
[1:13:02] industries coming in unregulated
And I'm very alarmed at how the
[1:13:07] regulation is is um proceeding here.
Very, you know, no public comment.
[1:13:13] You're not wanting to get into the messy
and you're wanting to do them very
[1:13:16] vague. And that's going to be a recipe
for disaster for the county. Like I
[1:13:21] really feel like you need to have strong
regulations. The county needs to
[1:13:26] actually develop a damn damn opinion
about what you want to see and what you
[1:13:30] don't want to see and put it to
ordinance so everything isn't written
[1:13:35] into contract. And the contracts are all
going to be a little different. You're
[1:13:39] you know you're always going to have a
little bit of um you know differences
[1:13:43] that the developers ask for something
something else. But you do need to have
[1:13:48] strong baselines as far as what you want
to see.
[1:13:52] um Medicine Lodge put in unregulated
voted in unregulated solar and the
[1:13:57] counties had or counties had a mess with
that. So, you know, really think about
[1:14:01] that. And I think that a lot of these
citizens are just asking for responsible
[1:14:05] government, right? We want we want you
guys to build laws to make us safe. You
[1:14:11] know, we don't want to be exclusionary.
We just want to be able to um have
[1:14:16] industry come in in a way that is
beneficial to both the industry and the
[1:14:21] county and and the citizensry there um
to to make a good partnership. And as
[1:14:27] far as you know developers urging
urgency and I kind of see that a little
[1:14:32] bit with the fact that planning and
zoning is wanting to have no public
[1:14:36] comment about what's being passed
through this evening is you know there's
[1:14:40] some developmental urgency. There's a
lot of these projects needed. So, if for
[1:14:45] some reason your partners don't want to
play ball because they think the county
[1:14:48] is taking too much time, take your time,
make make informed decisions. You've got
[1:14:53] really um smart people here that have
actually done a lot of research for you.
[1:14:57] So, take advantage of it. But, you know,
the county should have the ordinance in
[1:15:02] place and that includes project blue
stem. It's there is appearance of
[1:15:07] impropriety letting that project move
forward when nothing else can without
[1:15:12] ordinance. That that's the other thing
that alarmed me. But anyway, uh thank
[1:15:17] you for your time and thank you for the
work that you do. Uh, oh, one other
[1:15:22] thing. If they we're talking about fire
and that's every single client that I
[1:15:27] talk to that we write um fire grants, if
they've got solar, we that's such a good
[1:15:32] argument because solar and batteries do
increase uh possibility of fire. So,
[1:15:38] make sure that we're informed in that
and make sure that we are also getting
[1:15:42] um accommodation for that in any of
those contracts that we sign. Thanks for
[1:15:47] your time and thanks for all you do.
>> Thank you. ANYONE
[1:15:55] else would like to address the governing
body?
[1:15:59] Come on down.
>> Sure.
[1:16:06] Good morning. Good morning. Um, I will
state that I'm representing myself as an
[1:16:12] um an expert witness, if you will, on
these subjects. And if so, if you don't
[1:16:16] like what I say, don't take it out on a
a group of individuals or my neighbors.
[1:16:20] Okay. So, um, as a cancer researcher,
>> what's your name? What's your name?
[1:16:26] » I didn't give your name. I'm sorry.
>> Oh, Linda Steel.
[1:16:29] » Okay.
>> And I live in Reno County or Reno
[1:16:31] Township.
>> I recognize you. I couldn't place it. Go
[1:16:33] ahead.
>> Yeah. Um, and I I work at the at the
[1:16:37] cellular level, whether it's cancer. Um,
and I've built Faraday cages to run
[1:16:43] experiments to when I release
catakolamine release, dopamine levels,
[1:16:49] and all of these things have to be in a
Faraday cage because I can't have that
[1:16:54] outlet anywhere near this experiment
because that's too much EMF. Now, inside
[1:16:59] a building with all of these electronics
going, that's like hundreds of billions
[1:17:07] of
hair dryers going off at once, right?
[1:17:11] And this is like a hurricane. If you
think of, if you want to think about
[1:17:14] waves, think about a hurricane
occurring, right? Now, not every wave is
[1:17:18] a problem, but the ones that crash into
your ship and sink it are. So what we
[1:17:23] want to do what I suggested and I feel
very discredited from what I've seen
[1:17:29] come back from cout and and that the
planning and zoning wrote me down as in
[1:17:36] opposition of a data center when I
actually stated these are safety
[1:17:42] measures we should put in place like she
just said get these things in place they
[1:17:47] may an EMF getting loose may cause
cancer can cause cancer
[1:17:53] there is statistical
um probability of people working in
[1:17:59] these may have a higher incidence of
ALS. That's that's a hor horrible
[1:18:04] disease. So I stated that the the
building should demand that we do
[1:18:10] Faraday cage engineering and the tonal
noise we should do the the entire um
[1:18:18] there's a platform that you can put them
on of layers to stop any of the
[1:18:23] vibration from leaving the site
and that the transmission lines be
[1:18:30] designed to mitigate the EMFs.
And I did not just blatantly and I wrote
[1:18:36] this in in in plain language and I sent
letters about it beforehand and then it
[1:18:43] did not end up in their paperwork from
Koutach or anything else. We have
[1:18:47] $450,000
that supposedly was given to the county
[1:18:53] in good faith and our county
administrator signed for this. So, they
[1:18:58] should be working and it states
outside expert engineers. And I and I
[1:19:05] really want you to consider like not
doing anything until you hear from the
[1:19:11] outside expert engineers and really
review what they've said about these
[1:19:15] things that we've brought up. Fluff
fluff language. Ignoring what we've
[1:19:22] said, ignoring these experts. We have a
lot of we have engineers, we have
[1:19:26] biochemists, we have analytical
chemists, we have electrical engineers.
[1:19:31] And if you want something new in the
county, look at all these problems what
[1:19:36] we see. And we have now we have a grant.
I have a neighbor that's now writes
[1:19:41] grants for counties. Let's get some
environmental bonds and money in to do
[1:19:47] research on some of these things at a
high level to get rid of PFAS and water
[1:19:54] to research getting different levels of
energy production of cancer research of
[1:20:00] using the community and our skill set to
bring new industry in because we create
[1:20:07] it here. That's really the way to make
money for a community is if you create
[1:20:13] your industries,
creating the industries,
[1:20:18] selling the uh ability to teach classes.
P I could do pandemic responses and
[1:20:24] government agencies could come in and
they could learn how to deal with
[1:20:28] pandemic responses from someone with my
background.
[1:20:33] And anyway, I I have sent a letter
requesting you take it easy. Let's
[1:20:38] pause. Let's think about these things.
I'm also with the planning and zoning
[1:20:42] commission. We have experts that are not
hundreds of dollars an hour to sit down
[1:20:48] with and discuss some things. And just
because I don't feel like I should be
[1:20:52] considered
irrelevant because of my address, I'm in
[1:20:57] the danger zone. So, thank you very much
and thank you for your hard work. I know
[1:21:02] this is something bringing this in is is
crazy. It just just nothing you've ever
[1:21:07] seen or dealt with before. So, thank you
for your time.
[1:21:10] » Go ahead.
>> Ma'am, are you saying you don't think
[1:21:12] you've been hurt because of your
address?
[1:21:15] Well, they when I put I I wrote up about
the Faraday cage engineering and and the
[1:21:24] tonal noise mitigation and the
transmission line mitigation of these
[1:21:29] these are I'm not designing it myself.
These are engineering these put these in
[1:21:33] place. And then when I looked at what
Koutak put in for the planning and
[1:21:38] zoning meeting, it it didn't really
state that they had evaluated what I
[1:21:44] said. It was not evaluated as if and it
just said spoken opposition and I
[1:21:51] actually gave expert testimony that I
felt should be
[1:21:57] evaluated.
>> Thank you.
[1:21:59] One of the uh
things that I found interesting in this
[1:22:04] is the uh I don't know if you heard
where the Sierra Club representative
[1:22:10] came. I think maybe during one of our
initial work sessions
[1:22:15] um but they
[1:22:21] um
I'm just reading this so I don't get it
[1:22:24] wrong. The Sierra Club typically points
to mainstream scientific consensus
[1:22:30] such as studies from the World Health
Organization or university stating that
[1:22:34] these low frequency EMFs are similar to
standard household appliances and do not
[1:22:38] pose a documented threat to human
health. Okay. So an EMF is like they
[1:22:44] said that that is produces an EMF but so
do I. As I said I study the ones. So
[1:22:49] when my enzymes or my thought process
that creates an EMF.
[1:22:54] Now, having an entire building that is
requiring an entire power station to run
[1:23:01] is like a trillion haird dryers going,
right? That is that is a whole different
[1:23:07] level than the EMFs that I create. And
and so you have a whole different level
[1:23:13] of it's not just a a little if you think
about waves on a pond, it's not just a
[1:23:19] turtle making a few waves. This is this
is hurricane. And so getting that
[1:23:24] controlled inside a building because
there are so many unknowns
[1:23:29] and when you look at scientific
publications if I want to say something
[1:23:33] silly like I'm going to jump in the air
and end up on the moon that doesn't even
[1:23:37] get a scientific publications. All of
these things have hundreds if dozens for
[1:23:42] certain certain Parkinson's
autism,
[1:23:48] MS and then the uh the cancers has
hundreds of scientific publications on
[1:23:54] these. That means there there's a lot of
unknowns and there are a lot of knowns
[1:23:58] and it's very hard to separate that this
disease came because of an EMF and not a
[1:24:04] toxin in the water or food additive. So,
so that's where you get this what's
[1:24:10] causing this. But I'm saying since this
is so unknown and so intense, let's put
[1:24:16] the safety safety in place. Let's demand
the the Faraday cage engineering, demand
[1:24:25] the tonal noise decreasing. that that is
my request is to put that safety the
[1:24:31] safety of the community in and and
figure out a way to not cause any new
[1:24:38] additional problems with these.
>> Thank you.
[1:24:40] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:24:42] » Anybody else like to address the
governor?
[1:24:48] Anybody else like to address the
governor body?
[1:24:51] Okay, very good. Thank you. Appreciate
all your comments. Believe me, we hear
[1:24:55] you. Uh, and we read. So, I've got a
bookshelf full of, uh, information in
[1:25:02] there, and I do appreciate y'all getting
it to us. Okay. Um, no county clerk
[1:25:07] report today, Mark. Okay. Um,
did you have anything, Mark, for the
[1:25:13] group?
>> I don't.
[1:25:16] Do you have anything?
>> No, I do not.
[1:25:20] I would like to um ask Mark to speak on
the over budget item just since it was
[1:25:26] brought up in the uh
[1:25:32] » So, are you referencing the one in the
county commissioner's budget?
[1:25:36] » Yes.
>> Yeah. So, uh commissioners um from year
[1:25:40] to year we have different expenditures
that come up. um legal expenditures most
[1:25:45] often. Uh sometimes um other
professional services that we have to
[1:25:50] engage um rather than budget um for the
work for the worst case scenario which
[1:25:56] you know we can budget $250,000 a year
for that and then only spend 20 to 30
[1:26:01] most years. Um we just we allow them to
come as they are because we're part of
[1:26:05] the general fund. We can usually absorb
them as part of that budget. So the
[1:26:09] specific overages this year are indeed
related to uh legal engagement outside
[1:26:15] of what we normally would have and other
professional services. Um it's not that
[1:26:20] um it's not that we haven't had those in
the past. We just normally don't have
[1:26:23] them to the level that we have them.
>> Is there any further detail we can
[1:26:28] offer?
>> I can get I can get all of the detail
[1:26:31] for you if you'd like.
>> Yeah. I just think for public
[1:26:34] transparency, it's important for them to
understand
[1:26:38] why it wasn't budgeted for, if there's
any specific thing that caused it to be
[1:26:43] higher this year.
>> If we if we budgeted for, like I said,
[1:26:46] if we budgeted for worst case scenario
every year, we would have like $250,000
[1:26:51] budgeted in there for these types of
expenditures, but we would normally only
[1:26:55] spend 20 to 30,000. So, that's why we
don't budget for we don't want to uh put
[1:27:00] a tax in. And plus, again, because we're
part of the general fund, um there's
[1:27:05] usually plenty of room in the general
fund to absorb that when the time comes.
[1:27:10] » But I can give you the detailed
expenditures.
[1:27:12] » And when you you set it up that high,
too, it affects the mill levy. I mean,
[1:27:16] everything that we do, you're talking
200,000 with a quarter of a mill. So,
[1:27:20] you don't want to do that. These things
should be rare, but the last year or so,
[1:27:24] we've had some things come up, and I'm
sure Mark will be glad to share that.
[1:27:27] » Yeah, I'll get I'll get the detailed
expenditures for you.
[1:27:30] » Okay. Thank you.
Anything else?
[1:27:34] » Um,
[1:27:37] I didn't see the uh individual from
Shark stick around after public comment.
[1:27:42] Do we have the contact information for
that individual?
[1:27:46] » Um, yes, I'm sure that um we do. He has
uh sent a couple of emails and
[1:27:52] » Okay, I will look for that.
>> He should have that.
[1:27:57] Anything else?
[1:28:04] I,
you know, have been trying to figure out
[1:28:09] this whole unsanctioned rodeo thing for
a while. And I would like us to make
[1:28:15] sure that there's,
you know, potentially not something more
[1:28:22] we can do as far as the county
attorney's office, the sheriff's, and
[1:28:26] our department working together.
Obviously, we're all separate separate
[1:28:29] elected offices and all of that. Um, so
I will try to reach out to them just to
[1:28:35] see. I I feel um
I I don't want there to be any gray area
[1:28:43] if possible. I don't want it to seem
like the public feels
[1:28:47] everyone's pointing the finger at each
other or whatever. So, anything we can
[1:28:51] do to kind of make sure and I I don't
know if it would make sense to have a
[1:28:56] work session or something with all of us
entities together to talk through these
[1:29:00] issues in a public format to where it,
you know, the public gets the
[1:29:05] opportunity to hear the discussions
between the three departments or
[1:29:09] anything like that. But, um, you know,
I'll I'll reach out to both of those
[1:29:14] offices today just to see if there's
anything I can do. But that would be of
[1:29:19] interest to me because I think if I was,
you know, I always try to put myself on
[1:29:24] the other side of the mic and I think
>> if I was on the other side of the mic in
[1:29:28] this issue, you know, might I don't want
it to be feel like a head scratcher to
[1:29:32] anybody. So I I agree with you. You
know, I've seen the videos and things
[1:29:36] like that. Seems sometimes that in
government we pass the book one person
[1:29:42] to the other. I know one thing with
tightening up the rules. there may be an
[1:29:45] opportunity to tighten tighten the
moral. I don't think anybody wants to
[1:29:50] see animals her
>> or whatsoever at the same time as we
[1:29:54] want to protect everybody's individual
rights and conduct themselves uh and
[1:29:59] follow the rules and that's what you
rules are for and there's there's got to
[1:30:04] be a reason that another division or
another elected officials has decided
[1:30:08] not to go that way or if they're still
investigating it. So I think you make a
[1:30:12] good point about that discussion but I
really do anything
[1:30:16] » I just think that uh having a direct
conversation with the uh departments
[1:30:21] would probably uh do us a lot of good
instead of looking at what is be what we
[1:30:27] see on the face on Facebook back and
forth. Uh, I've seen the video uh myself
[1:30:35] uh twice, but I wanted to make I'm
pretty sure what I saw cuz I thought it
[1:30:39] I thought it was uh cruelty to uh to
animals, especially taking a pod and put
[1:30:44] it in a cow in a cow space
uh continuing. I don't see any reason
[1:30:50] for whatever whatever it is. So rather
than than than and deal with individuals
[1:30:56] that are saying well this happened and
that happened and we can't do it because
[1:30:59] of this. Well, no one has said that to
me directly, but I've heard it on many
[1:31:05] occasions. So, um,
>> well, one, if there's a if there's
[1:31:08] something that prosecutor or the sheriff
needs in our code that we don't have
[1:31:14] there so they can go further to take a
look at it. Yeah.
[1:31:17] » A meeting with the elected officials
besides us would probably be the way to
[1:31:21] get it done. Well, I think in in in the
meeting that uh uh that uh Vanessa's uh
[1:31:28] uh have responded to, I think that some
of those questions can be asked directly
[1:31:33] one on one cuz our person would like to
do a no exactly this is exactly what we
[1:31:38] can what we cannot do and not continue
to rely on someone else's opinion except
[1:31:47] when it comes from the department head.
then we can put some things uh together
[1:31:55] and and not and not thinking what this
could be or could not be.
[1:32:02] And that's kind of why I'm trying to
bring up the federal regulations today
[1:32:05] in a totally different circumstance. You
know, from my schoolboard experience,
[1:32:10] there's laws about what children should
or should not be exposed to as far as
[1:32:15] sexuality and pornography and all kind
of things. And then libraries are
[1:32:18] excluded from that. It's like what?
Those are like one of the main areas
[1:32:23] that children are affected. And so that
that kind of interested me as far as why
[1:32:29] why does the federal government, you
know, not protect animals in in these
[1:32:34] arenas? So I I myself am trying to gain
a broader understanding as far as
[1:32:40] » Absolutely.
>> Yes.
[1:32:42] And so I just want the county's position
to be able to be defended as well, you
[1:32:47] know, not not get us into a lawsuit that
we lose up up the chain or whatever. So
[1:32:52] I just
>> Exactly. I'm with you,
[1:32:55] » commissioners. Um, one of the things
that we did on the last application was
[1:32:59] require on-site um an on-site
veterinarian for any uh their events.
[1:33:06] And I think in the um proposed update to
our animal ordinances which was tabled a
[1:33:12] few weeks ago um that was going to be
something that was required across the
[1:33:16] board. And I think that is I do think
that that would be a good step um to
[1:33:21] pass a resolution that requires an
on-site veterinarian for all rodeos in
[1:33:27] Levvenworth County. Um not to be
exclusionary in any way, shape, or form.
[1:33:32] So we we made one applicant already
follow that rule and they agreed to it.
[1:33:36] I think it that's something that we
could do that would address the issue.
[1:33:40] Um
and and I think um the veterinarians who
[1:33:44] were here that day agreed that having an
on-site veterinarian would take care of
[1:33:48] most of these complaints because they
can they have the authority when they're
[1:33:52] on site to check for the paperwork that
um was referenced earlier today and have
[1:33:57] the ability to report any instances that
they felt cross the line into animal
[1:34:03] cruelty. And I I don't want to misstate
anybody, but I think it was maybe missed
[1:34:07] downs earlier.
But so would that apply to private
[1:34:13] um parties and things or
>> So uh that's a that's a good question.
[1:34:18] One that I would need to um ask uh our
legal counsel to be sure. Um, I would
[1:34:24] think it would, but uh because we say
it's for rodeos, but I can't I can't
[1:34:29] tell you that without talking to our
legal counsel
[1:34:31] » because I I don't want to encroach on
anyone's personal rights. Obviously, I'm
[1:34:36] for small government. I don't support
overreach. At the same time, if the
[1:34:42] events
that go on are handled as private events
[1:34:46] and they believe these things that
wouldn't be allowed in a public event
[1:34:50] are happening in private events, I would
just like to look into
[1:34:54] » the um so the issue with the private
events was more of a permitting issue.
[1:34:58] It wasn't it wasn't about what was
happening at the events. It's that they
[1:35:03] were having events with a large number
of people and they didn't have permits
[1:35:07] and and I don't want to say it was even
the the people that were that they're
[1:35:10] referencing with this this last rodeo on
the 4th. It was just an event was
[1:35:14] happening in Lour County and they would
have multiples throughout the year and
[1:35:17] they didn't have a permit for it. Um we
did take those folks to code court. The
[1:35:22] judge said get a permit and they came in
and applied and received a permit. Um,
[1:35:27] so they they did follow the rules after
the courts after we got them involved
[1:35:32] with the courts. And so, um, I I think
from a whether it's private or not, they
[1:35:37] would have to follow, um, resolutions.
It'd be, you know, it's like underage
[1:35:41] drinking, even if it's private, you
can't allow underage drinking. So, I
[1:35:44] think it would, but, I'd like to get our
legal counsel's advice on that. Before I
[1:35:48] answer that, Mark, that brought up a
question on the that thing we were
[1:35:52] talking about asking, who hires that
person and who they report to.
[1:35:57] » So, um, first of all, like doctors,
veterinarians are licensed by the state
[1:36:01] of Kansas. So, they'd have to be a
licensed veterinarian in Kansas. They
[1:36:05] have they take an oath and they would
have to follow that oath. Doesn't matter
[1:36:09] who pays for them, but the the applicant
would have to pay for them. I mean, the
[1:36:12] countyy's not going to pay for these
private events or public events.
[1:36:16] » Oh, I understand. So, They would have to
hire a licensed veterinarian in the
[1:36:20] state of Kansas and that veterinarian
would have to follow their their duties
[1:36:23] and thereof.
>> Well, I think just thinking out loud, I
[1:36:27] could be totally wrong. If you have a
vet on site and they call the sheriff's
[1:36:31] department and the sheriff's department
or whoever deals with a professional
[1:36:37] that that's what they do for a living,
they're basically a doctor. Their
[1:36:41] testimony would be stronger than
anything else. I mean, we've got it on
[1:36:45] video. there's no doubt, but have a
person that does that for a living say
[1:36:48] yes or no, this was going on. So, I
think adding that rule was a very
[1:36:52] positive thing. I still think we need to
have a conversation with our elected
[1:36:56] officials and see if we can get our own
track around this better.
[1:36:59] » I think you're right, Commissioner.
Let's let's go face to face.
[1:37:03] » Okay. Anything else?
>> Thank you.
[1:37:05] » Okay. Jeff, do you have anything?
>> Thank you.
[1:37:07] » Okay. Uh I don't have anything. Uh we
got the consent agenda.
[1:37:11] » Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the
consent agenda as presented. Second
[1:37:16] motion to such. Any discussion?
Push it up. I
[1:37:21] » I
>> I
[1:37:25] moving on to formal board action. We've
done the audit. We've tabled the
[1:37:29] building court appeals appointment. Now
we'll do the consider a motion to
[1:37:35] authorize the county minister to execute
the engagement agreement with Fisher
[1:37:39] Patterson for county counselor services.
We have to have an attorney.
[1:37:45] Yes, good segue on this last discussion
of groups.
[1:37:51] » Commissioners, um we solicited proposals
from requests for qualifications for
[1:37:56] legal firms to provide uh council
services for the Lmore County. Um after
[1:38:01] reviewing them, uh we made a
recommendation uh to the board of county
[1:38:05] commissioners to hire Fisher Patterson.
County has utilized them um for a lot of
[1:38:10] years. They've been very good um
representation for us on other items and
[1:38:15] they provide these services to multiple
uh municipalities in Kansas. So we're
[1:38:21] comfortable with their proposal and are
recommending them for your approval to
[1:38:25] be provided as county counselor
services. Um we are still uh looking for
[1:38:32] um staff council but this is the this is
the gap coverage and um look I would
[1:38:38] answer any questions. Any comments?
>> Um, being that this event um will be
[1:38:45] held in Tomoxy
in a couple weeks or next week, will
[1:38:51] there be council available for that?
>> Uh, commissioners, I do not anticipate
[1:38:56] having counsel at that meeting because
it's not an a business meeting. You're
[1:39:00] not taking action that evening. It's
just a more of a public engagement
[1:39:03] meeting. So, um, if you would like legal
counsel there, I can ask them. I don't
[1:39:09] know if they would be available in the
evening on the 16th, but I can ask. But
[1:39:12] again, I did not anticipate having legal
counsel there because of the nature of
[1:39:16] the meeting.
>> Uh, no decisions will be made, but we do
[1:39:22] want to hear from as many residents and
that's the third opportunity to come
[1:39:26] share with the people we haven't been
able to see. So,
[1:39:30] » so it's basically a public comment
meeting
[1:39:33] » basically. Yeah.
>> Okay.
[1:39:35] » That's what I see it as.
I wouldn't know.
[1:39:40] » Yes. Okay.
Okay.
[1:39:45] All righty. Uh we have we we have uh any
more comments on the uh the county
[1:39:50] counselor services. If not, I entertain
a motion.
[1:39:54] » Second.
>> Consider a motion to authorize the
[1:39:59] county administrator
>> to execute the engagement agreement with
[1:40:03] Fischer Patterson for county counselor
service.
[1:40:07] » Second. Second. Thanks. Motion a second.
Any further discussion.
[1:40:12] Mr. Dub I
>> I
[1:40:15] » I.
>> Okay.
[1:40:19] Last item D. Consider a motion to
approve it 2027
[1:40:24] related topics. I think Mark provided
all ones to you plus any input we have.
[1:40:30] Is there any Mark? Do you want any
discussion on that?
[1:40:32] » I do. Um, so what I provide you was just
carryover from last year. Um,
[1:40:37] Commissioner Steven did send me an
email. He had a couple of items that he
[1:40:41] would like added. Um, so you'd need to
vote to add those today if you wanted
[1:40:46] to. Um, or and you do need to vote on
whether or not um, you want to you
[1:40:52] utilize last year's uh, topics as well.
So the items that Commissioner Steven
[1:40:57] asked was he asked for um legislation on
the Senate Bill 98 to limit eliminate
[1:41:05] the incentives and allow for provision
of public vote just like corporate hog
[1:41:10] legislation
[1:41:15] comments.
>> I wouldn't support that. I would support
[1:41:19] that.
>> You wouldn't
[1:41:21] say you wouldn't support it? No. Okay.
So the next item, we don't have three
[1:41:28] votes there. So okay, the next item
would be um to add to, you know, we have
[1:41:34] legislation about um parental notice for
minors receiving abortions in Kansas. He
[1:41:41] would like to add to that to see the
legislation request testing that all
[1:41:45] late term and partial birth abortions
including dismemberment abortions um
[1:41:52] should be banned in the state of Kansas
comments.
[1:42:00] » I think that they should be banned.
However, I think it's is is they're not
[1:42:04] allowed to fire for right now. Um, is
are there any statutes that uh from the
[1:42:10] state of Kansas that um regulate that
that we can depend on? Um,
[1:42:20] you know that this has been a hot topic.
Um, we brought this up last year. Um,
[1:42:26] and honestly, the legislation that we
proposed didn't even get um out of the
[1:42:33] Kansas Association of Counties
legislative topics. Um, so while I have
[1:42:39] a very strong opinion about these
things, um, it I don't believe that that
[1:42:45] um, we have a a high likelihood of
getting this on the agenda either, but I
[1:42:50] don't think it hurts to add it as as one
of your topics. If it's something the
[1:42:54] county commission wants to do, we'll
present it um to that the committee that
[1:42:59] makes the decision and um, then they'll
decide whether or not they'll take take
[1:43:03] it up. But um just our our very I I'll
call it watered down language from last
[1:43:09] year uh got no traction. So
[1:43:15] » okay it didn't even get out of the
committee and and I'm not I'm talking
[1:43:19] about the Kansas Association counties
not not the legislators.
[1:43:22] » I didn't see it but is there any support
to put that on our
[1:43:28] » I'm not opposed.
>> I'm not either not opposed to it.
[1:43:31] » Okay.
I'll add that. Why don't
[1:43:34] » you add it more?
>> Yep.
[1:43:35] » Okay.
>> Okay. I have another um
[1:43:38] » that's coming from Mike. Of course you
>> Yes. Yeah. And I actually was able to
[1:43:42] take three of Malcus. Two of them were
duplicates of each other. So
[1:43:44] » yeah, that's what number one and number
five I think were the exact same thing,
[1:43:48] but he wanted to make sure he got the
point across. Um, so, uh, pass
[1:43:53] legislation requiring the Kansas legis
legislative research department must
[1:43:57] maintain a record of all taxes that are
foregone as a result of incentives that
[1:44:00] have been passed by the legislature. Um,
and then he listed all of the different
[1:44:04] incentives they've passed over the
years. Um, the department shall prepare
[1:44:08] an annual report detailing foregone
taxes in all taxation areas where such
[1:44:12] incentives have been applied. Total
approximate monetary value of such
[1:44:16] incentive program shall be published and
made publicly available. Um he brought
[1:44:20] this up I think last week and what I
mentioned is uh they require local
[1:44:23] legislation to like we have to do that
if we adopt any legislation locally that
[1:44:29] provides an incentive we have to then
report annually how much that incentive
[1:44:33] was back to the state. Uh I'm not 100%
sure that they have that own rule for
[1:44:38] themselves but I do think it makes sense
that if they're going to make local
[1:44:42] municipalities do it that they ought to
do it themselves.
[1:44:45] » I have no problem. It makes sense with
that.
[1:44:47] » Yeah.
Okay.
[1:44:50] » The only problem that that I have with
this, are you saying we can bring this
[1:44:54] up next week?
>> So, I you need to approve these today
[1:44:59] because the Kansas Association of
Counties needs them submitted before
[1:45:03] next week's meeting. Um, in fact, I'm
pretty sure I have to go on uh tomorrow
[1:45:08] and get these submitted in order to get
them on as topics of discussion. The
[1:45:12] these are just basically what items will
the Kansas Association of Counties put
[1:45:17] on their list of agenda items to take to
the Topeka to try to get legislation
[1:45:22] passed. Now, we submit it to them. They
put it in their committee. Their
[1:45:26] committee reviews it and then re and
then they the committee votes on it to
[1:45:30] take it to the executive committee and
then they vote on whether or not that's
[1:45:34] going to be their topic. So, while we
have multiple topics, um one or two
[1:45:39] might make it. So that that's that's
really what it is. These are our ideas
[1:45:44] » and I'll give you that that there really
aren't a lot of counties who submit
[1:45:49] anything. Um it's usually the five
biggest counties, six biggest counties
[1:45:53] that have items. So um I think and I do
think it's important that we get all
[1:45:57] these messages out there, but um some of
them I don't have a a lot of hope for,
[1:46:02] but it doesn't mean we won't do our best
to try to get
[1:46:06] » you set in on these last year. I think
you set in on what? I think my only
[1:46:10] concern is that he didn't have these
recommendations from Commissioner Steven
[1:46:14] before.
>> That's what I'm that's I wish we would
[1:46:16] had them before so we can have some
Yeah. information more about it so we're
[1:46:21] not just throwing up against the wall
and say, "Oh, it' be a great thing uh to
[1:46:25] do."
>> What would be a great thing to do? I
[1:46:28] just want to see it in writing before I
do anything with it.
[1:46:30] » Sure.
>> Well,
[1:46:33] Mark's telling you he needs it soon. So,
I can either add these items or I can go
[1:46:39] with what was what we've already had.
Um,
[1:46:44] either way, I do need to grab something
to submit
[1:46:47] » today. Well, I think they're due
tomorrow.
[1:46:50] » So, we have to make a decision.
>> Okay.
[1:46:52] » Are we going to add Commissioner Stevens
stuff or we going to go with the
[1:46:55] original? That's what it comes down to.
>> I'd like to add and have a conversation
[1:46:59] about it so I can know exactly what I'm
what I'm putting my fingers into here.
[1:47:03] In other words, that means we won't be
adding Well, you're saying you don't
[1:47:07] want to add it to it then because Mark's
got to add it.
[1:47:09] » I got I would say yes. I'm sorry.
>> Okay. Do it. Yeah.
[1:47:13] » Okay.
>> And we went line by line on them.
[1:47:16] » We did. Yeah. The other ones we've
already said yes or no to. And then this
[1:47:20] is just the reporting requirement that
the state do a report similar to what
[1:47:24] they require local municipalities do
when they provide incentives.
[1:47:32] I I would want more information on that
one. I feel like
[1:47:35] » Well, we got bottom do you have any
comments on that? Bottom line is we got
[1:47:39] to have a motion to to pass it. So, if
you want to vote no or you want to vote
[1:47:42] yes, we need to go ahead with the motion
now. So, there's a motion to approve 237
[1:47:47] topics. You can say adding the uh things
that Mark has brought up or we could
[1:47:52] just go with the uh the original ones
that we received.
[1:47:54] » You can this is just to KC, right? We're
just telling KC what we think we want. I
[1:48:00] mean, add it all. It don't matter. Just
add it cuz they're not going to do it
[1:48:04] anyway.
[1:48:08] » Well, we we have had success in the past
getting some of our topics. Not all of
[1:48:12] them, but some of our topics we have had
success. was the other part of this is
[1:48:16] is we will meet with our legislators for
breakfast at some point before this s
[1:48:22] session starts and you can still lobby
them directly on our topics.
[1:48:27] » Okay. This this is just to try to get
the case either pick up our pick up the
[1:48:32] flag for us and carry it
>> and then they're going to decide whether
[1:48:35] they're going to take it forward or not.
So and they haven't on those ones we're
[1:48:39] talking about they have not brought
those forward yet. I I guess the issue
[1:48:43] maybe being election year they might
knock down that but the but the issue is
[1:48:49] what do we put want to put on it for now
whether they're going to approve it or
[1:48:53] kick it down. I saw some folks saying
they didn't want a couple things on
[1:48:57] there. That's where we have to decide.
Now what were the ones we wanted?
[1:49:01] » Okay. So the
>> one more time.
[1:49:02] » Yeah. So the ones that we discussed were
the data center one. You decided not to
[1:49:07] include that one. Um
the one that we did add uh was the
[1:49:13] abortion banning the late term partial
birth abortions including dismemberment
[1:49:17] abortions. And then the fourth one that
we did not make a clear decision on was
[1:49:22] the legislation requiring the state to
report uh economic impact of incentives
[1:49:28] similar to what they require
municipalities.
[1:49:30] » Oh, I was for that one.
>> Yeah, absolutely.
[1:49:33] » Okay. So then those would be the those
those two items then would be the two
[1:49:36] that we would add. If that's the case,
then we need a motion to approve the
[1:49:41] legislated topics plus those two items.
>> Uh second.
[1:49:46] » Thank you. Me
>> comments.
[1:49:51] » I
>> no
[1:49:53] » I
>> I
[1:49:54] » Okay.
>> Thank you.
[1:49:55] » I'll draft that submitted.
>> Okay. Uh
[1:49:59] we don't we don't need an executive
session, do we? We don't have a
[1:50:02] counselor, so I guess we don't. Uh
presentation, discussions. Is there
[1:50:07] anybody else in the audience that would
like to address us one more time? Going
[1:50:11] once. Going twice.
>> I almost
[1:50:20] Tammy Patton Lancing, Kansas.
>> I have my bachelor's of science in
[1:50:26] agriculture specializing animal health.
Um, if you've seen these videos that
[1:50:30] they were talking about with the animal
cruelty, if anybody was doing that to a
[1:50:35] dog, a cat, any kind of animal, this
would have been stopped. I've also had a
[1:50:40] stolen horse situation. And the
sheriff's department doesn't always get
[1:50:43] involved. That was not the state.
However, there multiple states. This is
[1:50:48] something that can you guys could stop
in the animal cruelty. I mean, being
[1:50:52] prodded in the face. I mean, these
animals collapsing. This is ridiculous.
[1:50:58] Um the other topic I wanted to cover is
you know I know there's a lot of talk
[1:51:02] online about our group. We have very
educated people in our group. We have
[1:51:08] chemists, we have engineers, we have uh
nurses, we have all kinds of people in
[1:51:14] the medical field. We have specialists
higher than that that want to help. We
[1:51:19] want to help put in regulations. That's
not going to cost you money. Do you
[1:51:23] think that their education like if they
won't come up here and help and give
[1:51:26] advice for free? They will. Like we're
here. We want to help. If this is going
[1:51:31] to come in and there's absolutely no way
to stop it, let's protect the families.
[1:51:36] Let's get as much regulation. You know,
I was at planning and zoning. The room
[1:51:41] was packed. We were out in the hallway.
Um the other thing is what I kind of
[1:51:46] don't understand is like the people on
the board of planning and zoning are all
[1:51:50] educated. Some might be pro- data
center. Some might be anti-data center.
[1:51:56] But for a commissioner to get up there
and try to get people to have to be to
[1:52:00] step down and not being able to vote,
that's not okay because they know rules
[1:52:06] and regulations. That's their
background.
[1:52:09] Like everybody has a right to be here
and to have an opinion. And just because
[1:52:14] they don't have the same opinion as
yours doesn't mean that they should have
[1:52:17] to step down from the board. Thank you.
>> THANK YOU.
[1:52:26] DE CARLSON, RENO TOWNSHIP. I I need to
share some things with you guys. Um, in
[1:52:32] the animal cruelty discussion that you
had today, it was mentioned about
[1:52:36] federal law.
Um, Jim being in the legislature, there
[1:52:40] was some animal cruelty stuff going on
that he assisted with. the federal law
[1:52:44] will not protect animals because they're
afraid it's going to drift from your
[1:52:48] backyard farms to the kayos. So, they're
not wanting any rules on the books. Uh,
[1:52:56] and it's very hard even in Kansas to get
any rules. If any of you have ever
[1:53:00] looked up um puppy mills, it's horrid
what happens in those facilities. And
[1:53:06] it's horrid how the current laws protect
them, not the dogs.
[1:53:12] um in regards to the horses. I have
horses. There are some excellent horse
[1:53:17] vets in this area that could be at these
these uh deals. But let me share a story
[1:53:22] with you that happened here about 4
years ago. I was at the vet with one of
[1:53:26] mine and in pulls three huge trailers
full of horses. They started unloading
[1:53:32] them and I asked, it wasn't the vet, but
it was a medical person that I was
[1:53:37] seeing there with my horse and I said,
"What's going on here?" here. And she
[1:53:41] goes, "Well, those are the raceh
horses." And I said, "Oh, how old are
[1:53:45] they?" "Well, two, maybe three." I said,
"So, why are they bringing so many at
[1:53:49] once? Why wouldn't you do a farm call?"
"Well, they're coming in because their
[1:53:53] joints are so painful. If they don't
inject them every month, they can't
[1:53:58] race. So, all they're giving them is
pain medicine. They're not doing
[1:54:02] anything to counteract the damage that's
being done." And Mr. Culverson,
[1:54:06] Commissioner Culbertson, you probably
have heard the stories being a horse
[1:54:09] owner. So, even though you put a vent on
site, there are things that are going to
[1:54:14] restrict them and the rules have to
change is where I'm going with that. So,
[1:54:21] my question is, please get the experts
in here. Listen to their stories.
[1:54:26] They've got horror stories every day
that should should not happen. Find out
[1:54:32] what it is. Find out where you as a
county can make a difference because the
[1:54:37] state's never going to do it. So, I'm
imploring you to be the change. Be the
[1:54:41] change with the rules and regs for data
centers and battery plants. Be the
[1:54:45] change for these animals and let's give
them some compassion and relief. Thank
[1:54:49] you.
[1:54:56] » Good morning again, commissioners. Lee
Hunger, 21549
[1:55:01] Street.
>> Go ahead.
[1:55:03] Uh
on the 18th of September 2005, I had the
[1:55:08] privilege to personally witness the
Transitional National Assembly of Iraq
[1:55:12] vote to adopt the new constitution of
Iraq. On the 15th of October 2005, I was
[1:55:18] also able to witness Iraqi citizens vote
to ratify that constitution through a
[1:55:24] nationwide public referendum. The joy
and the courage displayed by these
[1:55:30] citizens was nothing short of inspiring.
When they voted, they were physically
[1:55:36] marked by dipping their finger in a
bottle of ink. These people proudly
[1:55:42] displayed their fingers, knowing many of
them would be targeted by
[1:55:45] anti-government and anti-American
forces. They proudly risk their lives
[1:55:50] for an opportunity to vote. I don't take
voting for granted anymore. Is Iraq
[1:55:56] perfect? Of course not. We've also
experienced our own challenges in the
[1:56:00] United States. The Revolutionary War
officially ended with the signing of the
[1:56:04] Treaty of Paris on September 3rd, 1783.
Our Constitution was ratified on June
[1:56:10] 21st, 1788, but didn't officially go
into effect until March 4th, 1789.
[1:56:17] Outside Independence Hall in
Philadelphia, Elizabeth Willing Pal
[1:56:21] asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, doctor,
what do we have? A republic or a
[1:56:26] monarchy?" Franklin responded, "A
republic if you can keep it?"
[1:56:32] Representative democracy isn't easy. But
once you account for human nature, I
[1:56:37] believe it's the best form of government
people are capable of sustaining.
[1:56:42] I've heard reported from both a
currently sitting county commissioner
[1:56:45] and a sitting Kansas state
representative whose district is in
[1:56:48] Leworth County that the August 4th
election was a mandate supporting data
[1:56:54] centers. Their reasoning was since Jan
Klesinski won district 1
[1:56:59] and that the remaining two county
commissioners were pro data center then
[1:57:03] Levmore County supports data centers.
But as late as the July 15th candidate
[1:57:09] forum, which was just a little over two
weeks before the election, Miss
[1:57:13] Klazinski stated that she believed data
centers were coming, but the county
[1:57:17] government needed to have regulations in
place before a project is approved. It's
[1:57:22] interesting how numbers can be
interpreted.
[1:57:25] What neither the commissioner nor the
state representative explained was that
[1:57:29] there were only three of the five
districts up for election this year. Two
[1:57:33] of the three commissioners elected this
year are against data center and power
[1:57:38] plants. This could be an alternative
interpretation of the mandate.
[1:57:43] Currently, all five members of the BOCC
are all from one party. And the three
[1:57:48] newly elected members are also from the
same party and normally this would be a
[1:57:53] cause of celebration for me.
I believe this is an accurate
[1:57:58] representation of the majority of voters
in Lenmore County. On the other hand,
[1:58:03] our organization, Citizens Against Blue
Stem, is a nonpartisan grassroots
[1:58:09] organization comprised of Republicans,
Democrats, independents, Libertarians.
[1:58:15] Arguably,
we provide a greater demographic
[1:58:18] representation of Levvenworth County.
But we won't know that for sure because
[1:58:23] last week a motion to direct the county
staff to prepare procedures for
[1:58:27] conducting an advisory election failed
to pass 2 to two with commissioners
[1:58:32] Colulbertson and Reed voting against and
unfortunately Commissioner Dove was
[1:58:35] absent that day. Additionally, we have
been told that on advice of council, the
[1:58:42] BOCC would not be conducting a joint
work session with the planning
[1:58:45] commission prior to their meeting
tonight as they requested on August
[1:58:50] 12th.
I found at least five precedents in the
[1:58:53] past 5 years where the BOCC has met with
the planning commission for a joint work
[1:58:57] session.
On March 24th, 2021, a joint work
[1:59:02] session was held to deliberate community
planning rules. On November 17th, 2021,
[1:59:09] a joint work session immediately
followed the regularly scheduled
[1:59:12] Wednesday morning business meeting to
address ongoing zoning updates.
[1:59:18] January 18th, 2023, the board held a
joint work session with the planning
[1:59:22] commission to review the comprehensive
plan and discuss special use permits and
[1:59:27] zoning.
July 12th, 2023, a joint work session
[1:59:31] was held to discuss joint development
and local board strategies. And on May
[1:59:36] 8th, 2024, a joint work session was also
held to discuss the comprehensive plan.
[1:59:43] The purpose of all five of these joint
work sessions sounds strikingly similar
[1:59:47] but smaller in scope to the issue we're
currently facing. Facing the potentially
[1:59:52] largest development in the count in the
history of Lemworth County, why wouldn't
[1:59:57] you want a joint session with the
planning commission to ensure the proper
[2:00:01] regulations are in place to protect
Leworth County and its residents?
[2:00:06] » And I apologize. I forgot I missed that
it was discussion that I appreciate your
[2:00:13] time for listening to that GIRL
[2:00:19] on the way to addressing everybody.
Okay, with that being said,
[2:00:26] Mr. D, do you have anything?
>> Not today. Not right now anyway.
[2:00:32] » Mr.
[2:00:35] » I don't have anything. So I entertain a
motion to second.
[2:00:44] » Okay.
I I we are injured. Thank you both.
[2:00:50] » Thank you. Thank you very much.