[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.

0819 2026 Special Council Meeting

Transcript