[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.

BOCC Meeting for September 9, 2026

Transcript