[1:32] She said I've never been
messing with them in the back house
[1:36] something.
He's a loser guy.
[1:38] Um but I I understand it's hard for her.
[2:54] » When something happens
[2:57] She's the first to reach you.
And if you up to no good
[3:01] That's going to know it.
[3:06] So we can do the rest.
There you go.
[3:09] » [laughter]
[3:17] » I'm the director of the library at the
college.
[3:25] You haven't? No? Did you go to school
there? No.
[3:53] We will now call the city special
council meeting Wednesday, August 19th
[3:58] to order.
We're going to start with a roll call,
[4:02] please.
[4:04] » Let's see. Robinson is absent.
Ames
[4:09] » Here.
>> Scribner
[4:11] » Here.
>> Bogus
[4:13] » Here.
>> Covington
[4:15] » Here.
>> Cross
[4:19] » [laughter]
>> Bradford
[4:20] » Here.
>> Franklin
[4:22] » Here.
[4:27] » Next on the agenda will be a public
hearing for a proposed tax of for 2026.
[4:34] So, we're going to do a roll call of
standing committees and led by finance
[4:38] our finance administrator
chairwoman Bogus.
[4:44] » Thank you. We have one order for that
we're ordinance that we're looking at
[4:48] this afternoon.
>> Excuse me. We have to do the public
[4:51] hearing first. Yeah. Yeah.
>> [clears throat]
[5:01] » Is there anybody signed up for our
public
[5:03] » I have four individuals that would like
to speak.
[5:06] » Okay.
>> Um the first one I have is Kevin Lugen.
[5:14] » Just be clear on the procedure. Is it
still the 3 minutes?
[5:24] » Hello.
Kevin Lugen, 408 West 22nd Street. I
[5:27] have several concerns about the proposal
to increase the property tax rates.
[5:32] I think there could be some way other
ways to address
[5:36] what might otherwise be a budget
shortfall instead of raising property
[5:39] tax rates, which I really do not feel
people in Sedalia can absorb any more
[5:43] tax rates at this point.
One thing that would be an enormous help
[5:48] is some clarity around these over $6
million or just under $6 million
[5:53] in the drop in the real estate assessed
valuation.
[5:58] I haven't seen any explanation how the
county's valuation could drop from $247
[6:03] million in real estate value to $241
million because as you know, they're not
[6:08] making any new land or real estate these
days. So, I would expect that to
[6:11] typically go up. I know there is the
possibility some Chapter 100 events
[6:15] could be taking place, but I think it
would be helpful to understand
[6:19] how the valuation could drop that much,
especially when last year it rose by $22
[6:24] million.
So, I think if we could get some clarity
[6:27] around that, that would be enormously
helpful. I would also like to see if you
[6:32] could look at possibly using some
procedural budget mechanisms, either
[6:36] cutting non-essential critical
day-to-day expenses, leaving those
[6:40] critical ones alone, but seeing if there
could be some way
[6:45] budget cuts could be made before a
decision is made
[6:48] in order to see if you can gain that
additional delta
[6:52] that would make up the potential
shortfall that exists today. And if you
[6:56] can't cut expenses, again, finance
director
[7:00] um
gave an update this past week indicating
[7:03] that year-to-date we are up $567,000
over projected revenues.
[7:09] I think it would be helpful if we could
get an assessment of the likelihood that
[7:13] that's to maintain because if revenue
continues to maintain at over 6% over
[7:17] what we projected, do we really need to
raise the property taxes? And I just
[7:21] think it's it would be really helpful to
look at that and if necessary to delay a
[7:25] decision today and to possibly call
additional special meetings because I
[7:29] believe we have until September 1st to
report that change. Those are the key
[7:33] points I just wanted to make today and I
wanted to see if anybody
[7:37] again, any feedback or any questions,
I'd be happy to answer anything that you
[7:40] might have from your perspective.
Okay, thank you. I appreciate your time.
[7:49] » The next individual is Chuck Leftwich.
[7:56] » Chuck Leftwich,
908 West Broadway, Sedalia.
[8:01] Well, Kevin's covered the numbers, so I
I What I want to say is first of all, I
[8:04] just can't even believe we're talking
about a tax increase.
[8:08] Uh you know, homeowners are already
stretched especially senior citizens,
[8:12] high cost of living, struggling to pay
for medications, groceries, high cost of
[8:17] living in general, $4 a gallon gas as of
today.
[8:21] You know, the list just goes on and on.
So, I I just I can't believe that you're
[8:26] asking for more property tax. My
personal tax bill, 70% of it goes to the
[8:33] schools. I have no children. I have no
grandchildren. But yet, I pay 70%
[8:40] property tax to the school system.
So,
[8:43] my feeling is
you know, it almost makes me wonder if
[8:47] does the city want to get the tax up so
high that people default on their tax so
[8:52] that a tax lien can be slapped on the
property, seize the property, and then
[8:56] eventually sell it at auction? Is that
the strategy? You know, I I have to
[9:00] wonder. I really do. I know there's a
lot of big salaries being paid right now
[9:05] in the city of Sedalia,
way more than they should be in my
[9:09] opinion.
So, high cost of of salaries going out,
[9:13] plus a lot of unnecessary expense, labor
law firm,
[9:18] it just goes on and on.
That's all I want to say for today.
[9:22] Thank you.
[9:28] » The next individual is Janet Mazanski.
[9:39] » Just keep getting shorter.
Uh Janet Mazanski, 723 East 5th Street,
[9:45] Sedalia, Missouri.
Um I He hit on a lot of what I was going
[9:49] to say when I came up here. Um I work
with a lot of elderly people doing home
[9:54] health, and a lot of those people are
already stretched on the social security
[9:59] they're trying to live on.
Uh they get very little food stamps.
[10:03] They're trying to you know, pay for
their personal properties or or their um
[10:08] like their uh taxes on their cars or
whatever. Um if you have never worked
[10:14] with these people, I want you to think
about this cuz it could be your
[10:18] your parents, your grandparents,
whoever.
[10:21] But um
you know, we keep raising these taxes
[10:25] when I've seen what uh
money being spent here like water. Like
[10:30] like just
handing it out for this and that.
[10:35] There's times when I think the city
spends some money on some things that
[10:39] could be set back and talked about a
little more before you just vote on it
[10:43] and it's passed through.
Uh but I really want you to think about
[10:46] the senior citizens because they are
going to be the ones that suffer through
[10:50] this property tax rate
uh at higher taxes when they're barely
[10:55] able to pay their stuff now.
So, that's all I have.
[10:59] Thank you.
[11:04] » And the final individual, Debbie
Covington.
[11:17] » Um Debbie Covington, um P.O. Box 965.
So,
[11:22] have you ever heard the story of a
church that got a new pastor, and he
[11:28] wanted to move the piano, and they're
all like, "Don't move the piano because
[11:33] people don't like change."
And
[11:36] uh so, over a period of time, they move
this piano just a little bit every week
[11:43] until eventually the piano's on the
other side of the room. And no one says
[11:47] a word.
I feel like it's kind of the same
[11:49] concept as taxes.
You all move these taxes up, say every
[11:55] year, and then before you know it,
everybody's basically taxed out. Like,
[12:01] that's where people are right now.
They're basically taxed out. I agree
[12:05] with Chuck, a lot of our property taxes
go to the school, an exorbitant amount,
[12:11] and in fact, they just had a meeting
Monday night and decided not to raise
[12:18] the tax because they too feel everyone
is taxed to the umpteenth degree.
[12:25] So, if this tax goes through, this levy,
I understand from some math I did, which
[12:32] I could be wrong,
it is
[12:35] kind of a small amount. I believe that
there are things, like they mentioned,
[12:43] in the budget that can be cut to
uh make up that
[12:49] difference.
So,
[12:52] interestingly enough,
so we have the Sedalia Redevelopment
[12:57] Corporation. They have a
account
[13:02] where it has 400 to 500,000 dollars in
it.
[13:06] I think, if I remember correctly,
they just awarded
[13:11] $65,000 for a roof for a for-profit
company
[13:16] that our second ward councilwoman works
for.
[13:19] And there's $65,000 right there that
could offset
[13:24] almost half of what you're going to ask
Sedalia to pay in tax if this levy goes
[13:31] through.
Um
[13:35] I agree.
You have um single
[13:38] families, uh
elderly,
[13:42] fixed income that are going to be
affected by the raise of property taxes.
[13:46] And like I said, over time
it adds up and it keeps adding up and it
[13:51] keeps adding up.
We can probably list a multitude of
[13:55] things that could be cut in the budget
to offset this. So, I'm 100% opposed to
[14:02] raising the tax, um
just like us, "Hey, just put a $20,000
[14:08] roof on our business.
Nobody paid for that for me.
[14:12] I had to work for it.
You have to work and live within your
[14:15] means. We have to do that. You all
should have to do that. You guys should
[14:19] care. All of you all live in city
limits. Every one of you. We have
[14:23] administration, upper-level
administration making inflated salaries
[14:27] that do not live in the city limits and
that will not be affected by this.
[14:31] That's wrong.
Our upper management that are sitting in
[14:34] this room
need to live in city limits and adhere
[14:38] to the tax increases,
the ordinances and everything we have to
[14:43] adhere to adhere to. So, I hope
Another thing,
[14:50] this tax abatements, that's passed on to
us. All the free money or extended time
[14:56] that these large corporations everything
have to pay tax,
[15:01] it's passed on to us.
And things I think can be managed in a
[15:06] way that can lessen the burden on the
citizens.
[15:10] And so, I hope council you take into
consideration that every time you raise
[15:14] the property tax, it hurts the citizens
of Sedalia more and more. And I hope you
[15:19] take that in consideration when you make
this vote and whenever you're going to
[15:22] make this vote. I appreciate you. Thank
you.
[15:29] » That was the final one I had.
>> Okay.
[15:33] Well, next one on the agenda,
roll call for standing committees and
[15:36] then we have finance finance
administrator
[15:40] chairwoman Boggs.
>> Miss Boggs, would you like me to explain
[15:45] a little bit about how the taxes
calculated?
[15:52] » Yes, thank you.
>> Sure. So, I put together
[15:55] a sheet to help
provide information of how things
[16:00] come about and it's
a multi-step process and I'll show you a
[16:05] couple of different documents, but this
is
[16:08] a overview of the the process. So, the
first step, if you look down here at the
[16:13] sheet I have on the on the screen, it
says the process at a glance.
[16:17] So, to start, we start off with the
assessment. So, the assessment is done
[16:21] by the the county. The city does not do
the assessment of property values. The
[16:27] county does that both in the city and in
the county.
[16:30] And so, that determines the assessed
valuation. Whether it goes up or goes
[16:35] down is not determined by anyone other
than the assessor. The calculation,
[16:41] which is required by the levy
calculations and that's how it's
[16:45] completed and I'll show you a form here
in a minute that that shows that, but I
[16:49] just wanted to give an overview of the
process. Then you get to the point of a
[16:53] hearing, which is where we are at now
and then of course, step four would be
[16:57] the final, which is where the levy is
adopted by the council.
[17:01] Um, so this gives that that information.
So,
[17:06] uh, when we try to understand it cuz
this isn't an easy process and it is is
[17:12] complicated.
Um, so what changed over the last from
[17:17] from year to year. So, the county's
total evaluation, this is our portion,
[17:22] the city's portion
of our general
[17:27] real estate tax. So, it did go down. The
valuation went down 2.7391%.
[17:35] Um which equals a 0% calculation. So,
when the when we get this form, that's
[17:43] where the calculation comes from.
We don't figure that calculation. This
[17:47] comes from, as you can see, the state
auditor's office.
[17:51] So, the numbers that you see right here,
uh that 4.59
[17:57] and 4. or 0.4996,
this is how it is calculated right here.
[18:08] Current rate computed pursuant to
Article X Section 22 of the Missouri
[18:12] Constitution.
So, that's where that number comes from.
[18:19] So, to help understand
how that that number comes about, when
[18:26] it why is it different? Well, the the
valuation went down,
[18:31] but the revenue
by this form right here from the state
[18:37] says
[18:40] right here, total revenue permitted in
the current year is that amount. So,
[18:45] it's the same as
as last year. So, the permitted revenue
[18:50] is the same in each year.
It's this
[18:56] the tax rate does go up, but the
permitted revenue
[19:01] stays the same because the valuation
went down. Does that make sense?
[19:06] So, it's a calculation and a formula to
keep the permitted revenue at the same
[19:11] amount.
But the assessed valuation goes up, but
[19:16] the valuation is or the the the amount
per 100
[19:20] if that makes sense.
So, when
[19:25] we put these numbers together,
it all comes
[19:30] from the state auditor's office and also
the county.
[19:35] So, that is where the numbers come from
and you can see this is the form that we
[19:40] received on this
on the and it does go down through the
[19:45] different political subdivisions like
for example, this one is for the
[19:49] library.
But the sheet that I have here
[19:55] just since I'd
not having a sheet for every single one
[19:59] of the taxes um explains it. The
valuation
[20:03] is calculated that property evaluation
is used in the formula for each one of
[20:09] the taxes like the library tax or the
pension funds, that sort of thing. Does
[20:13] that help explain
uh the process and where the numbers
[20:17] come from and that sort of thing?
Okay.
[20:20] » So, what the what's the I'm sorry,
what's the the total percentage? Is that
[20:24] like a 2.
>> 2.43
[20:25] » 2.8
percent that it went the
[20:29] » 2.28
>> the valuation went down 2.7391.
[20:33] So, basically 2.7% is what the valuation
went down.
[20:40] » In the assessment
>> the assess the assessed valuation, yes.
[20:48] » No, I see.
You're saying that it looks like it'll
[20:50] be an increase of $43 with the same
from 25 to 26
[20:58] potentially?
>> $43. So, the
[21:02] » From the from the amount here for $100
of tax rate.
[21:06] » So, the the tax rate is based on this or
on the valuation. So, the reason that
[21:13] number that I'm pointing at here went up
to here is to maintain the same the the
[21:18] law allows to maintain the same amount
of revenue.
[21:21] » So, it's not going to increase based on
what this is saying.
[21:24] » It's going to I don't I don't want to
say that someone's taxes aren't going to
[21:28] go up because I don't know.
>> It's going to
[21:30] » You could have
>> Well, it would go up. Yeah, it
[21:32] » a penny on a hundred, right?
>> Yes.
[21:35] » That's what the rate showed on the
>> But, the valuation went down.
[21:38] » Yeah. So, it's the property went down.
>> The cuz that is the total valuation of
[21:44] all properties. There's a possibility
that say you did something to your
[21:49] property that added value to it, your
valuation went up. So, you would pay
[21:55] more taxes cuz your valuation went up.
But, there are some properties that
[22:00] clearly from this show that their value
went down.
[22:05] So, they would pay approximately the
same, but again, I'm not going to cuz
[22:10] every property is different. That's why
the assessor goes to every single
[22:14] property and looks at it each year. is
to check and establish the valuation of
[22:19] that property.
[22:26] » So, it sounds like to me that this is
not something that the city has put in
[22:31] place. This is something that the county
puts in place and we have to approve and
[22:37] acknowledge it.
>> If you want to collect the revenue from
[22:41] this tax, then yes, you are correct.
[22:50] » [snorts]
>> But, the revenue would still be
[22:53] the 1.6
>> The revenue would be the 1.6 and if
[22:57] there is any new property,
then that new property will have taxes
[23:03] collected on it.
So, your revenue, the increase in your
[23:07] revenue, would be the new properties
that are added. So, if someone built a
[23:13] new house, they're now paying taxes on
it.
[23:17] The city's portion, if it's in the city
limits, would then come in.
[23:23] » But, we just kept it the same as still
the same.
[23:26] » Yes, that revenue is still going to be
there cuz it's a new taxed property.
[23:34] » [snorts]
[23:37] » Are there any other questions?
[23:49] So, the council is being asked to
approve the City of Sedalia's property
[23:53] tax levy for the 2026 tax year. The
ordinance establishes the applicable tax
[23:58] rates for the city public library, park
farming, and police pension funds, and
[24:02] special business district. This item
requires requires a special meeting
[24:07] because the city must receive updated
assessment valuation information before
[24:12] the annual tax levy can be accurately
calculated. Due to the timing of
[24:17] receiving that information, completing
and verifying the required calculation,
[24:21] and providing the required public
notice, the item could not be considered
[24:25] during a regular scheduled council
meeting. The levy must be approved by
[24:29] September 1 in order for the rates to be
placed on the tax books for the county.
[24:35] The property tax rates are not simply
selected by the city each year. They are
[24:39] calculated in accordance with Missouri
law, based upon assessed valuation and
[24:44] other factors established by the state
law, including changes in valuation, new
[24:49] construction, and improvement, and
allowed the growth. This process
[24:53] established the city's tax rate ceiling
and is intended to limit increases in
[24:58] property tax revenue result resulting
solely from increases in existing
[25:02] property values. For 2026, the ordinance
establishes city levy of 0.4996
[25:09] per $100 of assessed valuation along
with applicable library, parks, pension,
[25:17] and special district special business
district levies, depending upon the
[25:21] location of the property and the taxing
districts in which it is located. The
[25:26] combined levy will range from 0.8216
to 1.9844
[25:33] per per $100 of assessed valuation.
[25:42] This proposed calls for an ordinance to
be passed.
[26:06] » So, I call for the reading.
Where's everyone? So, I call for the
[26:10] reading of bill number 2026-103.
[26:15] » Bill [clears throat] number 2026-103.
Excuse me.
[26:19] An ordinance levying providing for the
collection of taxes for the year 2026 in
[26:24] the city of Sedalia, Missouri.
>> Second reading.
[26:29] » Got a motion and a second for the second
reading of bill number 2026-103.
[26:34] Any objections?
All in favor?
[26:38] » I am in favor.
>> Any opposed?
[26:41] » Bill number 2026-103.
An ordinance levying providing for the
[26:45] collection of taxes for the year 2026 in
the city of Sedalia, Missouri.
[26:51] » Final passage.
>> Second.
[26:54] » I got a motion and a second for the
final passage of bill number 2026-103.
[26:59] Is there any further objections?
All in favor?
[27:04] » Nope, we need to do roll call now, sir.
>> Roll call.
[27:07] » Ames.
>> Yes.
[27:10] » Scribner.
>> Yes.
[27:13] » Bogus.
>> Yes.
[27:18] » [clears throat and cough]
>> Covington.
[27:19] » No.
[27:21] » Cross.
>> Yes.
[27:23] » Radford.
>> No.
[27:26] » Franklin.
>> Yes.
[27:28] » And Robinson is absent.
>> Honestly, we have enough growth in
[27:33] Sedalia going on that I don't think we
need to increase anything, but I'm just
[27:37] going to say that across the board. We
have Chick-fil-A and all these other
[27:41] companies and businesses and building
going on.
[27:44] I think that's crazy that you guys are
willing to
[27:48] up it.
[27:50] » Yeah, and I totally agree with you on
that. You know, people are on set
[27:53] incomes.
I agree with what the what the public is
[27:57] saying.
It's going to affect everybody sitting
[27:59] up here, you know, so we have to really
think about that long and hard, you
[28:03] know, so
piggybacking off of what Councilman
[28:06] Radford just said,
we got businesses that are coming in in
[28:09] here
and we can
[28:12] we can piggyback off of what what
they're bringing in. What are we getting
[28:14] from like such as Chick-fil-A? What what
are the
[28:18] what I could say is the kickback we're
getting from QT that's coming in
[28:23] QuickTrip, you know, QuickTrip and
Chick-fil-A. So, those are things we
[28:26] have to take into consideration and look
at that before we want to even raise
[28:30] anybody's at all because that affects
not just the citizens, but it affects
[28:34] everybody here.
>> And obviously the school district knows
[28:39] the fact that they don't need to raise
taxes.
[28:42] So, I mean, I don't understand
why 1 2 3 4 5
[28:47] are voting yes.
If
[28:51] my Nobody likes to see your taxes
raised, but that's what the city runs
[28:55] off of taxes.
>> But we're still going to get the same
[28:57] amount.
>> Yeah, we're still going to get the
[28:59] raise. Without the raise, that number's
not going up. It's not like we're going
[29:03] to get 1.8 million now.
>> [snorts]
[29:06] » It's the same.
>> Basically, that's what the city is run
[29:09] by tax tax tax
>> Yeah, and
[29:11] the businesses and everything coming in
increase that.
[29:14] » Yeah, when you have your business, that
increases you.
[29:18] » And that's pretty common.
[29:26] » So my question becomes one in which
if we do not pass this, what are the
[29:33] repercussions from that?
What is the upside downside from that?
[29:40] » If you don't If you don't establish a
tax levy, you do not collect that money.
[29:46] » Okay.
>> So you would have a loss in revenue
[29:50] uh in the budget of a minimum of 1.6
million dollars.
[29:53] » So they're saying basically if we don't
increase it, we get zero.
[29:58] » Yeah.
So the what the
[30:01] going back so if you establish the tax
levy at .4996,
[30:08] the properties that exist now, the
revenue will be the same as last year.
[30:13] On those properties.
If because that's what the the state
[30:18] sends us.
If you chose to go and keep it the same,
[30:23] we would have a decrease in that that
portion of the revenue in the existing
[30:29] property revenue.
Is what is what those
[30:34] those choices are.
Does that make sense?
[30:40] » What you say Say the part you we're
losing what now?
[30:43] » So what part are we losing if you chose
to
[30:48] stay at the current assessed valuation
and we'll have to look at the make sure
[30:52] that that is legal because what we are
given is from the state auditor.
[30:59] I mean this is what we're given as
information to do.
[31:03] Um then
you would have you would have less than
[31:07] 1.6 million come in from current.
Now again, there is new property so that
[31:16] revenue since we don't know it
that that's difficult to calculate. I
[31:20] can't tell you you know there's
there's going to be X number of dollars
[31:25] in new uh new revenue from additional
properties
[31:31] that have been built.
Does that make sense?
[31:35] » Yeah, I understand it now. Yeah, thanks.
>> So then my question becomes
[31:39] if we say no to this do we have enough
time to get in touch with the state
[31:45] auditor which is saying this is what you
need to do?
[31:49] Do we have enough time to find out by
voting no, we don't want to do this
[31:55] are there legal repercussions coming to
us from the state?
[31:59] » Well we could
I don't know if I would say legal
[32:02] repercussions.
Um
[32:05] we could just see about amending it is
what I would I would say we would do.
[32:10] If you want to establish the rates, you
would direct staff to to establish the
[32:15] current rates, research it and we can
try to put together numbers on it and
[32:20] how much the difference in your revenue
will be.
[32:24] So the the state establishes a ceiling
of how much can increase and so that's
[32:30] what that the figures are based on that
they send to us is that ceiling because
[32:36] you're only allowed to increase so much.
>> Mhm.
[32:42] » Well, is that a step in which we want to
do because
[32:45] » [clears throat]
>> one of the individuals that spoke
[32:48] spoke of one thing that that I've been
saying for many years. Why am I paying
[32:52] school taxes? I don't have anybody in
school.
[32:55] But that's one of the higher taxes on
the tax bill that we're paying.
[32:59] I still have to pay it even though I
don't have anybody in there. So perhaps
[33:03] that's where we might want to go is to
direct staff to find out if we do not
[33:08] agree with the state on this increase,
what will then happen and what is our
[33:15] next step?
>> I would I would definitely encourage you
[33:18] to pass at least something because you
don't want the the the budget includes
[33:25] that revenue for this year
and that would be a significant issue
[33:31] not having that revenue. It'd be a
significant issue for things like the
[33:34] library and the pension fund who and the
parks that rely heavily on those
[33:40] property taxes to operate their budgets.
Uh so we want to pass something. So if
[33:48] you want to direct staff to find that
out and then we can get a meeting again
[33:54] as quick as possible to make sure that
we
[33:56] get this done by September 1st.
>> Okay. Because the pension funds that
[34:00] we're we're talking about, that's the
firemen and the police pension funds.
[34:04] » They are [clears throat] they are
those unfortunately as time has gone by
[34:10] when those were established,
they could pay for the pensions in those
[34:14] days, but they have been around for so
long that we have to supplement it with
[34:18] general revenue to pay those pension
funds.
[34:21] But yes, those do pay significant
portions of the police and fire pension
[34:27] and if you did not pass that, you would
lose the ability to pay that portion of
[34:32] their pension funds.
[34:37] » It's not like they're It's not like
they're leaving us with no options.
[34:39] That's what they're making it sound
like. So, there's no option. We got to
[34:41] pass something. Well, which just don't
sound fair.
[34:45] » But But the bad thing about this whole
situation, right? Like Like we don't
[34:49] have enough time to assess
how much growth will affect us in the
[34:54] whole year.
>> We don't
[34:55] » Like from all of the new builds, all the
houses that been built. And I know that
[35:00] in until a house is completed, you can't
collect taxes on something that's
[35:04] incomplete. So,
and we have so many in the pike of being
[35:07] built, right? And then we have so many
companies that we can't anticipate what
[35:11] the growth will be for this upcoming
year.
[35:14] » You also have to look at the other side
of that is how many of those companies
[35:18] might not be here by the end of the
year. You know, how many companies that
[35:21] are here now might not be here next
year.
[35:23] » Well, by September, it's going to be
impossible
[35:25] » Yeah, we're not going to
>> It's going to be impossible to make an
[35:27] assessment by then. So,
>> I mean, is there Is there an option to
[35:31] amend it back down to a lower rate, or
would we have to amend up to the other
[35:35] rate, and is there even a legal option
to do?
[35:38] » That I I don't know the legalities
of it, and I I have ideas, but I hate I
[35:44] would be making assumptions that I don't
want to publicly make.
[35:48] So, I would rather I would rather speak
to legal about that,
[35:53] um, and check it out before we
I I make a
[35:58] a solid opinion on that. So,
>> we have less than or would have less
[36:02] than 2 weeks to come back.
>> We We should be able to figure it out.
[36:08] It's just that when
when I read a a line that says current
[36:13] year rate computed,
uh, pursuant to Article X, Section 22 of
[36:17] the Missouri Constitution,
I don't I don't want to mess around with
[36:22] that, just to be blunt. So, I want to
make sure that it is okay to amend it
[36:28] back
under that because we we are a taxing
[36:32] jurisdiction, but we are a different
taxing jurisdiction than the school
[36:36] district.
So, we just want to make sure that we
[36:39] align those figures correctly
as opposed to what the the auditor sent
[36:44] us. So, we can check that out. Just
direct staff on if you're if cuz what
[36:52] I'm think I'm hearing and I'm making an
assumption this is that
[36:56] you're discussing the idea of leaving
the current levy the same.
[37:02] » Correct.
>> So, we can see that. Now, that will
[37:07] reduce the current assessed
amount that 1.6. It would lower that
[37:13] amount.
What you're What you're looking at then
[37:17] is is that growth would cover
[37:21] I guess any increases or loss if you
will.
[37:25] » Yes, the loss of that.
[37:29] I just
I hate to bet on something without
[37:32] having a number. We're betting that
these companies are going to make the
[37:35] money and produce it, but we cannot
guarantee that.
[37:39] It's It's
>> Chick-fil-A alone
[37:42] I can tell you what I got. Yeah.
>> I mean, QuickTrip alone by themselves.
[37:47] » And but when you're looking at when
QuickTrip comes, the two other gas
[37:50] stations stop.
You got to look at it on that type of
[37:53] stuff.
>> You So, the
[37:55] » Their evaluations obviously going to be
a lot less.
[37:57] » So, and and when we talk about the
percentage of what revenue is up and
[38:03] Jessica provides those that information.
And say for example, she says it's 6%
[38:08] up, but our budget was set at three
percent. So, it's not above that. It's
[38:16] that's the total growth if that makes
sense. Now, that that averages out
[38:22] because if you look at those numbers
when we provide when we provide the
[38:25] revenue not all of them are at that rate
and some of them may show 24% because
[38:33] it's a smaller dollar amount. So when
you look at those a lot of times it's
[38:39] best and what I look at is the total
growth. What is the actual dollar amount
[38:45] that things are increasing because
that's that's what you're going to see
[38:49] when you see budget
decisions and if you remember back to
[38:54] the decision tree we look at percentages
but ultimately we look at the dollar
[38:59] amount that we have um to make decisions
on. You know we don't look at it as X
[39:07] number of percent we look at it as
here's a million dollars in this fund
[39:12] how many how much of our services can we
provide with that million dollars.
[39:16] » Just last budget session we didn't have
enough in the budget to provide the
[39:20] raises that we all wanted to give.
And I know this is
[39:26] » Mr. Harris what was the total
growth so far this year
[39:32] on properties?
>> The total
[39:35] valuation
>> 80 million
[39:38] or something like that.
>> The total property valuation like you
[39:42] can start
>> Yeah yeah.
[39:43] » It's 60 million but that is we
>> Yeah yeah.
[39:47] » Right.
>> Well I yeah I understand that.
[39:50] » But that was just the halfway mark
right?
[39:54] » Yeah.
>> So that that 60 million remember the
[39:57] assessed valuation is less than that
right?
[40:00] » I was just
>> Yeah that's fine.
[40:03] Sure sure.
>> Is this just
[40:07] » Do you know any projected for the rest
of the year?
[40:11] » No.
[40:14] » Yeah.
[40:17] » It'll be competitive as far as like
that's what he was.
[40:20] » Okay.
>> So, I got a I got a question on
[40:23] something. I mean, can we kind of keep
the budget where
[40:27] could possibly sustain itself if we can
target like uh
[40:31] reducing or keeping it capped at
people who are that are seniors, low
[40:36] income, that we know that we're
tracking, who financially don't have the
[40:39] means for the the increase, and just
kind of put the burden on the ones that
[40:43] financially can
>> So, the So, the city can't change the
[40:49] collection of property taxes or who is
>> No, I mean, like prorate it where we can
[40:54] adjust it where it accommodates
everybody.
[40:58] » The personal pro- or uh real estate
taxes?
[41:01] » Yeah.
>> No, real estate taxes are uh are are are
[41:05] assessed. The Now,
uh people of a certain age can get lock
[41:10] in there,
uh and I'm blanking on the name of that
[41:14] program. Um where a person of a certain
age uh can lock in their their uh real
[41:21] estate taxes for the rest of their life
on that property.
[41:25] Um and I apologize I'm blanking on that.
Um
[41:29] because we do get a calculation on that
each year
[41:33] um because it is reducing the amount of
tax that uh
[41:38] property tax that we are receiving.
And I it was several thousand dollars
[41:43] this year, and each year it's
increasing.
[41:46] Um
and we'll see that affect real estate
[41:49] taxes over the years because those folks
that apply for that program do have
[41:54] their real estate taxes uh locked in.
So, it it and it does lock it in, I
[42:01] believe, for life.
>> Is it possible for us to get the answers
[42:06] that we're looking for or that we're
discussing now? Is Is possible for us to
[42:11] get those, have them back, and be able
to reconvene by, let's say, Wednesday, a
[42:16] week from today?
>> 1?
[42:19] » Before September 1. Before September 1.
>> Yeah, there there are some of the
[42:22] questions that you've asked though that
I don't know that we can predict, and
[42:26] that's the that's the the biggest
>> predictions. I want us to be able to
[42:31] contact the state because the state is
the one that's saying this is where we
[42:35] got to be at. So, I just want us to be
able to contact the state and say,
[42:39] "Okay, this is what we're looking at.
This is what we're thinking about. Can
[42:43] we legally do that?"
>> Mhm.
[42:46] Yes, we can do that. Yes.
>> Is um
[42:51] the council in agreement to directing
the staff to get with the state in this
[42:57] regard to find out whether or not we can
legally
[43:01] do what we're asking, which is to stay
where we are rather than increase, and
[43:06] after we have that answer, come back in
another meeting and make a vote?
[43:11] » Yeah.
>> Yeah, I'm in agreement on that.
[43:13] » Yeah, we're good.
>> Do you want to put it to a roll call?
[43:17] » You will have to have a motion and a
second to do that.
[43:20] » Okay, so I make that motion.
>> I second.
[43:23] » We got a motion and a second, so we're
just going to go to roll call on that
[43:26] vote?
>> Hold on just a second. And you're
[43:28] wanting to bring this back
>> for Wednesday?
[43:31] » for next week?
[43:34] Next Wednesday? Same time?
>> Mhm.
[43:37] » Yeah.
>> I'll make it work.
[43:40] » Okay.
And you
[43:41] » [clears throat]
>> you want to you want to roll call, Mr.
[43:44] Mayor?
[43:48] » Okay. Roll call, please.
>> Robinson [snorts] is absent. Ames?
[43:52] » Yes.
>> Scribner?
[43:55] » Yes.
>> Burgess?
[43:58] » Yes.
[44:01] » Covington?
>> Yes.
[44:03] » Cross?
>> Yes.
[44:05] » Radford?
>> Yes.
[44:07] » Franklin?
>> Yes.
[44:09] » Okay, you
>> You have seven yeses and one absence.
[44:14] » So, we'll motion to adjourn.
And table this to Wednesday.
[44:18] » Yeah. Say
yes.
[44:22] Didn't
[44:25] We didn't have a motion to
>> No.
[44:30] Now, the taxes, they go to each entity
or not?
[44:35] » Okay.
[44:39] » No, we can't say.
[44:44] Well,
[44:47] it would all depend on the state of
their evaluation went up.
[44:51] » This is what the state is
>> So, since we don't know what their
[44:54] evaluation went up,
>> You all should have
[44:56] » We know that some people's valuation
went
[45:00] So, I can't say what the average person
is going to pay.
[45:05] You know, mine may have gone value of my
property may have gone down, so I'll
[45:09] actually pay less taxes.
And yours went up,
[45:13] so you may pay more. So,
it all we can say is is that
[45:18] that per
per $100 of assessed that it assessed
[45:23] value, yours went up that amount.
>> Well, I would say though that
[45:29] the average
the person would have to pay
[45:32] would not have to pay over $100.