Feb 02, 2026 County Legislature

[00:00:02]

THANK YOU THOUGH. WELCOME TO THE SECOND REGULAR MEETING OF THE JACKSON COUNTY LEGISLATURE. IT IS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2ND, 2026, AT 3 P.M. IN THE KANSAS CITY LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AREA AND KANSAS CITY.

[1 ROLL CALL]

HERE. SMITH. PRESENT. HUSKY.

PRESENT. FRANKLIN. PRESENT.

MCGEE. LAUER HERE. SMITH HERE.

IBAKA. PRESENT. NOT PRESENT.

ONE ABSENT. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE JOURNAL? SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND.

OH SORRY. SECOND SECOND LEDGE BY.

[2 THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]

LET'S DO THE PRESENT ALLEGIANCE, AND I'LL DO IT, I GUESS. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

[3 APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING]

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.

THE EYES DO INDEED HAVE IT.

[4 HEARINGS]

[A RESOLUTION recognizing MINDDRIVE for its contributions during National Mentoring Month.]

[11 INTRODUCTION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS AND ASSIGNMENT TO COMMITTEE]

INTRODUCED BY DONNA PEYTON.

IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT? SO MOVED.

SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

ANDERSON. YES. YES. YES.

HUSKEY. YES. FRANKLIN.

YES. MCGHEE. LAUER. YES.

SMITH. YES. YES. YES. ONE ABSENT AND THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM MINE DRIVE.

IF YOU COULD COME UP.

I WANTED IT TO BE. IT IS SUCH AN HONOR TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT.

THIS LAST MONTH WAS NATIONAL MENTORING MONTH, AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANYONE ELSE HERE, BUT I WOULDN'T BE WHERE I AM TODAY IF IT WERE NOT FOR MENTORS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, AND THIS IS OFF SUBJECT, I WAS WATCHING THE NEWS THIS MORNING AND USHER AND BIG SEAN WERE DOING OR DOING A FOCUSING ON MENTORING, AND THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW MENTORING IMPACTED THEIR LIVES AS WELL. AND WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES HERE TODAY WHO I'M SURE WILL HAVE A STORY ABOUT MENTORING.

SO IT IS SUCH AN HONOR TO PRESENT THIS RESOLUTION.

I'M GOING TO READ JUST A LITTLE BIT OF IT.

THIS IS A RESOLUTION FROM MINE DRIVE, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2010, ORIGINATING AS A CREATIVITY CLASS LED BY STEVE REESE AT DE LA SALLE EDUCATION CENTER AND SOON EVOLVED INTO AN INDEPENDENT, NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION CO-FOUNDED BY MR. REESE AND LINDA BUCKNER WITH EARLY SUPPORT FROM BRIDGESTONE AMERICA.

THANK YOU. MY DRIVE PROVIDES EVENING OPPORTUNITIES IN WELDING, DRONE RACING, AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN AND ESPORTS, AND IS LAUNCHING AN AUTO REPAIR PROGRAM THAT EQUIPS STUDENTS WITH FOUNDATIONAL SKILLS AND DIAGNOSTICS, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR, WHICH DIRECTLY BENEFITS LOW INCOME FAMILIES BY IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION ACCESS AND HOUSEHOLD STABILITY, AND UNDOUBTEDLY, BY ALLOWING THESE YOUNG PEOPLE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF A DIFFERENT TRAJECTORY THAN WHAT MUCH OF SOCIETY MAY THINK SHOULD HAPPEN.

SO BE IT. RESOLVED THAT THE COUNTY LEGISLATORS OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, HEREBY RECOGNIZES AND COMMENDS MY DRIVE FOR ITS OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUTH MENTORING AND COMMUNITY IMPACT DURING NATIONAL MENTORING MONTH,

[00:05:02]

LET'S GIVE THEM A HAND, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. PLEASE. WELL, WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

MY DRIVER'S BEEN IN KANSAS CITY FOR 15 YEARS.

WE WE SERVE ABOUT 250 STUDENTS FROM KANSAS CITY.

AND AS WAS MENTIONED WE'VE LAUNCHED A CAR REPAIR PROGRAM WHERE WE FIX CARS FOR FAMILIES FROM THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S A SMALL PART OF WHAT WE DO. WE'RE MOSTLY KNOWN FOR THE CARS THAT WE BUILD. WE TAKE CLASSIC CARS, CONVERT THEM ELECTRIC.

THESE STUDENTS ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON A A 86 K10 FOR JASON KELCE THAT WILL BE FULLY ELECTRIC WITH A DIESEL HYBRID OPTION.

TRAVIS KELCE DROVE A CHEVELLE TO THE CHIEFS GAME A YEAR AGO.

THAT WAS A CAR THESE KIDS DID.

WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF OUR STUDENTS WITH US AND A COUPLE OF STAFF MEMBERS AS MAIZE, THE PRESIDENT OF OUR STUDENT LEADERSHIP COUNCIL. SHE'S FROM CROSSROADS, ADAMS FROM KIPP LEGACY HIGH SCHOOL.

AND JACQUELINE AND DAMON HERE ARE BOTH STAFF.

WE HAVE 24 STAFF AT MY DRIVE.

ONLY THREE ARE NOT FORMER STUDENTS.

SO A LOT OF OUR STUDENTS HAVE COME THROUGH OUR PROGRAM, GONE TO SCHOOL OR COME TO WORK DIRECTLY TO US.

OUR OUR ENGINEER IS A STUDENT.

THAT WAS A MIND DRIVE KID WHO WHO WENT TO UMKC, GOT HIS COLLEGE PAID FOR, GOT HIS ENGINEERING DEGREE AND IS NOW OUR ENGINEER. SO WE'RE REALLY APPRECIATIVE OF THIS, THIS HONOR. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING US. THANK YOU.

AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE. OKAY.

IF YOU COULD COME UP. THIS IS THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED.

GOOD JOB YOU ALL. COMMUNICATIONS WITH AND REPORTS OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE.

[5 COMMUNICATIONS WITH AND REPORTS OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE]

MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE.

I'M GETTING USED TO YOUR NEW SEATING ARRANGEMENT. ME TOO.

AS PART OF THE JACKSON COUNTY 200 YEAR ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION, I'M GOING TO SHARE A LITTLE HISTORY WITH YOU DURING MY REMARKS EVERY WEEK ON FEBRUARY 2ND, 1940, IN JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, SENATOR HARRY S TRUMAN CHOSE TO SEEK REELECTION DESPITE A WIDESPREAD BELIEF HIS CAREER WAS OVER, AND HE EMERGED FROM THE COLLAPSE OF THE PENDERGAST MACHINE AS HIS OWN MAN.

I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO LOVE THESE TIDBITS FROM ME. EVERY WEEK SOMEONE WILL BE COMING AGAIN NEXT WEEK. UPDATE SOME THINGS BEEN GOING ON IN THE COUNTY THIS PAST WEEKEND AT JACKSON COUNTY PARKS, THE LONGVIEW LAKE BEACH.

WE HAD 800 PEOPLE PARTICIPATE IN SPECIAL OLYMPICS POLAR BEAR PLUNGE.

THEY RAISED 170 $170,000, 108, $187,000.

EVERY WEEK WE'RE DOING A THING CALLED FRIDAYS WITH PHIL.

WE'RE TRAVELING ACROSS THE COUNTY IDENTIFYING AND PRESENTING AND HONORING SOME OF OUR COUNTY EMPLOYEES, OUR AGENCIES.

AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE YOU GUYS INVOLVED IF YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS WITH FRIDAYS. AND I WANT TO SHARE AND BE ON THAT. I KNOW FLETCHER HUSKEY KEEPS CALLING ME EVERY WEEK.

CAN I PLEASE BE ON FRIDAYS WITH PHIL? WE WILL YOU.

THIS NEXT ONE IS THE HUSKY EPISODE, AND WE'LL DEFINITELY DEAL WITH THAT.

AS FAR AS THIS ROOM HERE, WE'VE HAD SOME TECHNOLOGY ISSUES TODAY IN YOUR PRIOR MEETINGS. WE'VE GOTTEN IN TOUCH WITH THE AGENCIES THAT DO THIS HEART, HEART, HEART, HEART LINE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S FIXED TO TAKE THE, THE ROOM APART AND PUT IT BACK TOGETHER WAS QUITE AN ORDEAL TO WIRE IT.

AND WE'VE HAD JUST A COUPLE TECHNICAL, TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. WE HOPE THAT'S GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. AS FAR AS THE THE RENOVATIONS IN HERE THIS BODY APPROVED NEW CARPETING FOR THIS AREA.

AND SO I WANT TO THANK MY STAFF FOR GETTING YOUR ORDER TO PUT THAT IN HERE AND TAKING UP ALL THE CARPET IN HERE.

THEY MOVED EACH OF THESE BENCHES AROUND TO MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE.

WE HAD A PROFESSIONAL MEETING.

DESIGNER. TELL US ABOUT HOW TO DESIGN THIS.

IF YOU'LL NOTICE THE THE BIG TABLE THAT'S GONE FROM THERE, THERE'S ADA ACCESSIBLE TO GO THROUGH THERE.

IT'S GOT A GOOD SPOT FOR THE CLERK TO BE THERE, A GOOD SPOT FOR SOMEONE TO TESTIFY. RIGHT ON TOP OF YOU THERE.

SO I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR PUTTING THAT TOGETHER. IT WAS DIFFICULT TO DO.

[00:10:01]

WE HAVE THE DECLARATION FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES WERE MAILED OUT.

EVERYONE'S GOING TO GET A POSTCARD THAT YOU HAVE TO EITHER RETURN OR GET ONLINE TO FILE YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY DECLARATIONS, AND THEY'RE DUE BY MARCH 1ST.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR POSTCARD YET, YOU CAN GO TO JACKSON.

THOSE NEED TO BE FILED BEFORE MAY 1ST.

WHAT? THAT IS. EVERYONE LISTENING IS YOU'LL GET A LETTER POSTCARD FROM THE COUNTY THAT SAYS, WE THINK YOU OWN THIS AND OWN THAT? CAN YOU TELL US IF YOU STILL DO OR IF YOU DON'T? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOUR PROPERTY TAXES, YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES WILL BE ASSESSED ON. YOU WILL HAVE TO HAVE A PEN THAT'S ON YOUR POSTCARD, BUT DON'T WORRY IF YOU WANT TO DO IT BEFORE YOU GOT YOUR POSTCARD, YOU CAN GET THAT PEN BY CALLING (816) 881-4455.

OR YOU CAN EMAIL TO TAX QUESTIONS AT JACKSON GOV.

ORG AND THERE WILL BE A VIDEO COMING TO HELP YOU.

IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW THAT VIDEO ON HOW TO GET YOUR PIN ONLINE AND DO THAT ONLINE I ALSO HAVE SOME SOME TAX BILL QUESTIONS I WANT TO ANSWER.

AS OF SATURDAY WAS YOUR LAST DAY TO PAY YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES WITHOUT PENALTIES AND INTEREST. AS YOU KNOW, WE EXTENDED THAT FOR A MONTH.

THE TAX BILLS GOT OUT LATE.

PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE THEM BEFORE, DIDN'T HAVE 30 DAYS TO GET IT.

AND SO WE EXTENDED THAT.

CLOSES CLOSED ON SATURDAY AS WE HAD ALL HANDS ON DECK WORKING ON THAT.

SOME PEOPLE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT CHECKS.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE ANYONE'S LISTENING.

AND FOR THIS BODY TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE ASSESS DEPARTMENT.

ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS WHEN WILL ALL THE CHECKS BE DEPOSITED? SO ANYONE THAT'S PAID THEIR CHECKS, THEIR PAYCHECKS OR THEIR TAX BILLS.

SOME PEOPLE SAID THEY THEY HAVEN'T HIT MY BANK YET.

AND WHAT'S GOING ON? DO I NEED TO WORRY ABOUT PAYING AGAIN? I MADE SURE I MAILED IT BEFORE DECEMBER 15TH, AND I DON'T HAVE THAT.

ANYONE THAT HAS MAILED THEIR CHECKS OR DROPPED THEIR CHECKS IN A DROP BOX BEFORE DECEMBER 31ST. YOU'RE FINE.

WE HAVE A SLOWER PROCESS BECAUSE CHECKS SUBMITTED EITHER BY MAIL OR IN PERSON HAVE TO BE PROCESSED. NOW AFTER WE GOT EVERYONE'S CHECKS IN.

THEY ARE COMING THROUGH THE MAIL. SOME OF THEM ANY REMAINING CHECKS NOT RECEIVED WILL BE DEPOSITED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

THAT'S SUBJECT TO ARRIVAL BY THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SYSTEM.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HEARD OF THEM. THEY'RE NOT VERY FAST. THE COLLECTION DIRECTOR ESTIMATES THAT ALL CHECKS BE PROCESSED BY FIRST OR MID-MARCH, SO DO NOT BE ALARMED IF IT HASN'T POPPED UP IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT THAT IT'S BEEN TAKEN OUT YET. BUT IT WILL BE, AND YOU WILL HAVE NO PENALTIES ON YOU.

AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE PROCESS OF US GETTING BACK ON IT, THE POSTAL SYSTEM NOT GETTING IT TO US AND US CREDITING IT.

ANOTHER QUESTION I HAD. WHEN WILL THE PAYMENTS BE MADE PRIOR TO DECEMBER 31ST BE CREDITED TO THE PARCEL ACCOUNTS, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ONLINE.

AND RIGHT NOW YOU'RE NOT SEEING THAT ONLINE.

THE ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT SENDS A WEEKLY LIST OF THE CHARGES, AND PROPERTY VALUE AND COLLECTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DOWNLOAD THESE UPDATES UNTIL CERTAIN TECHNOLOGY ISSUES ARE RESOLVED.

WE'RE CURRENTLY RUNNING A BETA TRIAL OF PROPERTIES TO ASSURE ACCURACY OF OUR TAX INFORMATION. WE ARE TRYING TO CLEAN UP EVERYTHING DOWN.

THE PAYMENTS WILL BE CREDITED AS EARLY AS END OF THIS WEEK WHEN TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED. SO BY THIS TIME NEXT WEEK, THE PAYMENTS MADE PRIOR TO DECEMBER 31ST WILL BE CREDITED TO THE PARCEL ACCOUNT.

NOW, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHEN WILL APPLICABLE COMMERCIAL PARCEL ACCOUNTS SHOW THE CORRECTED BILL AMOUNT DUE TO THE 15% CAP CORRECTION ISSUED BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE.

I'LL REMIND YOU, WE MADE SURE WE HAD A CAP ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OF 2025, AND WE CAPPED THEM AT 15% FOR THOSE PROPERTIES, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES UNDER $15 MILLION.

AND THE VALUE OF THE CORRECTIONS HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT.

THE TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGE TO CONVERT THIS INFORMATION TO THE BILLING SIDE SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY THE END OF THIS WEEK.

I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHEN WILL THE RECALCULATION OF PARCELS BE COMPLETED IN TYLER AND MOMENTUM DATABASES DUE TO THE ROLLBACK OF 2023, AND THE RECALCULATIONS ARE IN TYLER.

WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING TO FIX THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BARRIER BETWEEN TYLER AND OMENTUM.

THIS SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY THE END OF THE WEEK. AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TWO SOFTWARE SYSTEM THAT DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER VERY WELL. AND THAT'S BEEN AN ONGOING PROBLEM, AND IT'S CAUSED SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WITH OUR TAX ISSUES.

AND WE'RE GOING TO FIX THAT.

WE SHOULDN'T HAVE COMPETING SOFTWARE THAT CAN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER. I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE ABOUT THE TAX QUESTIONS.

I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS. IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY.

[00:15:01]

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE REALLY ONLY HAVE AN ONLINE PROCESS THAT WE'VE BEEN PENALIZING FOLKS THAT ARE NOT CONNECTED.

LET'S JUST SAY BECAUSE THEY DON'T SEND A DECLARATION BACK.

WHAT WHAT IS THE ALTERNATE? AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, JUST I DON'T THINK WE HAVE AN ALTERNATE METHOD OF PEOPLE CORRECTING THEIR DECLARATIONS IF THEY, RECEIVE THE POSTCARD AND DON'T HAPPEN TO BE SOMEBODY WHO'S CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET.

I MISSPOKE. I MISSPOKE ABOUT ABOUT THEN THAT'S OKAY.

I MISSPOKE ABOUT MAILING BACK.

YOU CAN'T MAIL IT BACK. YOU HAVE TO GET ONLINE.

HERE'S WHAT I FOUND OUT IS THAT IF SOMEONE DIDN'T GET THEIR LET'S SAY YOU DIDN'T GET YOUR POSTCARD, SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. YOU DIDN'T GET YOUR. AND YOU DIDN'T GET YOUR DECLARATION IN AFTER MAY 1ST.

THERE WERE SOME ACCOUNTS BEING CLOSED, AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY THEY'RE THEIR PROPERTY TAX DIDN'T SHOW. SO PEOPLE WOULD TRY AND GET ONLINE AND IT DIDN'T SHOW A PROPERTY TAX.

RIGHT. THEY STILL OWED IT, BUT THEIR ACCOUNT WAS CLOSED AND WE HAD A POLICY. I SAY WE BEFORE ME THAT THE PEOPLE HAD TO COME DOWN HERE AND BRING TITLES AND BRING THINGS TO OPEN IT BACK UP TO PAY THEIR TAXES.

THAT'S RIDICULOUS. SO WE'RE GOING TO FIX THAT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE.

WELL, SO WE USED TO HAVE A LETTER AND YOU COULD JUST CROSS THINGS OFF, MAIL THE LETTER BACK. THEN WE WENT TO THIS POSTCARD SYSTEM AND, YOU KNOW, I'M CONNECTED ALL THE TIME.

I DIDN'T THINK ANYTHING OF IT. BUT HAVING SERVED NOW FOR THREE YEARS AND INTERACTED WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE MAYBE ON THE LOWER END OF THE INCOME SPECTRUM OR OLDER, OR JUST CHOOSE TO BE NOT CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET AND WE PROVIDE THEM NO ACCESS.

I THINK IT'S A REALLY A DRASTIC ERROR ON OUR PART TO NOT HAVE UNIVERSALLY ACCESSIBLE SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES THAT DON'T RELY ON TECHNOLOGY.

OBVIOUSLY, THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO RELY ON TECHNOLOGY IS PRETTY HIGH, BUT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SERVE ALL OF OUR TAXPAYERS, INCLUDING THOSE WHO MIGHT NOT BE CONNECTED OR MIGHT CHOOSE TO NOT WANT TO PUT THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION ONLINE. WE SHOULD NOT GET AHEAD OF USING TECHNOLOGY AND FORGET THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T USE TECHNOLOGY.

I ALWAYS REFER TO MY MOTHER AS ONE OF THOSE.

AND YOU'RE CORRECT. THE OLD, OLD TIMES USED TO GET A LETTER AND YOU COULD MARK THROUGH IT AND MAIL IT BACK. SO IF IF OUR ONLY ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE THE DECLARATIONS ARE ONLINE THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD DEFINITELY LOOK INTO.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE? I HAVE A COUPLE.

MR. EXECUTIVE, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CEILING ON THE SECOND FLOOR MURALS? CAN I TALK ABOUT IT? YEAH.

CAN YOU TELL US WHY THEY WERE PAINTED OVER? BECAUSE UNDER MY AUTHORITY, UNDER THE CHARTER, IT'S ON THE AGENT AND THE OPERATOR OF THE FACILITY.

WAS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE PAINTED OVER THEM? THE REASON WAS TO RESTORE HISTORIC THIS HISTORIC BUILDING TO THE WAY IT WAS.

AND THE FACT THAT I DIDN'T KNOW.

I DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS IN OPEN THING. WE CERTAINLY CAN. SORRY.

WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT LATER, IF YOU'D LIKE. OVER $100,000 WAS SPENT BY A FORMER COUNTY EXECUTIVE. PUT HER FACE ON TOP OF THE BUILDING OF SOME CARTOON AVATARS THAT WERE ON THERE. AND COMPLAINTS.

MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THAT.

MY GOAL IN THIS POSITION IS RESTORE INTEGRITY OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE AND INSIDE THE COURTHOUSE. WE ARE RESTORING THE INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORY OF THIS BUILDING.

AND WE'RE RESTORED BACK TO WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE IN 1936.

AND WE'RE GOING TO HONOR THE INTEGRITY OF THIS COURTHOUSE.

OKAY. MY APOLOGIES. I THOUGHT THAT WAS SOMETHING WE WERE GOING TO DISCUSS HERE AND THEN GO AND DEFER THE DISCUSSION BACK THERE, I THINK IN CLOSED.

SO THAT'S THAT'S ONE QUESTION.

THANKS FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT YOUR INTENT FOR THE NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP GRANTS AND WHY NONE OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS DIRECTLY INVITED TO THE CHECK PRESENTATIONS? I KNOW WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT HOW WE WERE AWARE OF IT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE ALL RECEIVED ANY SPECIFIC INVITATION FOR THAT EFFORT.

WE CAN DEFINITELY TALK ABOUT THAT, TOO, MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW, BUT BUT I'M OVER ACROSS THE WAY 8 TO 5, FIVE DAYS A WEEK AND ANY ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURES CAN CONTACT ME. YOU ALL HAVE A CELL PHONE. ALSO, THE PROCESS, THE WAY THIS WORKS, THE LEGISLATURE PASSES THING AND IT COMES TO ME TO PROCEED AND GO ON WITH WRITING THE CONTRACTS AND FORWARDING THE CHECKS ON.

I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE A TERRIBLE PROCESS TO WAIT FOR THESE AGENCIES THAT WE PROMISED TO GET TO THE END OF THE YEAR FOR THIS BODY TO BE DONE DECEMBER 31ST AND DUMP IT IN MY LAP, AND THE AGENCIES CALL ME, WHERE'S THE MONEY? WHERE'S THE MONEY? WHERE'S THE MONEY? WHICH TAKES A MONTHLY, IF NOT MONTHS TO GET IT DONE.

SO I PULLED MY STAFF UP A LOT OF OTHER THINGS.

WE PULLED 150 DIFFERENT CONTRACTS AND GOT THE CHECKS ALSO WITH THEM.

AND TRYING TO GET THE MONEY TO THEM AS SOON AS WE COULD. ONE OF THE OPTIONS TO GET THEM WAS TO ACTUALLY HAVE THEM ALL COME TO ONE CENTRAL LOCATION AND PICK UP THE CHECKS AND THE CONTRACTS AT THE SAME TIME.

[00:20:01]

AND WE DID IT. I WAS CONTACTED BY SEVERAL LEGISLATORS THAT KNEW ABOUT IT, AND THEY KNEW WHEN IT WAS AND THEY CAME. ACTUALLY, SOME OF THE LEGISLATORS DID COME TO IT, SO I'M NOT SURE THE QUESTION OF OF MY RESPONSIBLE FROM MY END OF THE FLOOR AFTER YOU GUYS GET DONE WHAT YOU WANTED.

THIS IS AN OPEN THING.

SOMEONE COULD HAVE CALLED ME AND SAID, BY THE WAY, WE JUST PASSED THIS, MR. COUNTY EXECUTIVE, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M THERE WHEN THE CHECK IS PRESENTED TO X, Y, AND Z ORGANIZATION.

AND I WOULD WOULD DEFINITELY AGREE WITH THAT.

I HAD ONE LAST WEEK. ONE OF THE MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE SHOWED UP FOR THAT, SO I'M NOT SURE THE QUESTION.

BUT NO ONE'S EXCLUDED FROM ANYTHING, AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE AN HONEST ON, ON PEOPLE ON THIS DAIS IF THEY WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN SOMETHING THAT'S OUTSIDE OF YOUR PREROGATIVE TO REACH OUT TO ME, I WOULD NEVER NOT INCLUDE ANYONE AT ALL.

MISTER EXECUTIVE, I DID, THOUGH, ASK THAT YOU INVITE ALL OF US TO A CHECK PRESENTATION. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, YOU AND I, AND THEN THIS WAS CREATED.

SO I JUST I WOULD ASK FOR ALL OF US BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL FRUSTRATIONS SHARED. AND I'VE SHARED BACK OUR YOUR MESSAGE NOW THAT YOU ALSO TALKED TO HIM FREELY.

BUT I THINK TO CONTINUE GOODWILL FROM THE REMAINDER OF THE BODY, THAT WE ALL JUST SEEK AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THOSE MOMENTS WITH EVERYONE.

WITH AN INVITATION FROM YOUR OFFICE, WE I DON'T THINK ANYONE WAS FORMALLY INVITED, AND I THINK THAT WAS CLEARLY WERE NOT FORMALLY INVITED TO OPERATION.

I PUT TOGETHER FROM MY END OF THE HALLWAY, BUT EVERYONE KNEW ABOUT IT. AND YOU'RE WELCOME. ANYTHING MY OFFICE DOES TO BE INCLUDED.

I APOLOGIZE IF THERE'S ANY MISCOMMUNICATION ABOUT THAT, BUT NO, I DID NOT SEND A FORMAL INVITATION TO ANYONE.

I WAS WORRIED ABOUT GETTING 150 AGENCIES IN THAT DOOR, FINISHING THOSE CONTRACTS THAT REACHED 10 TO 12 PAGES LONG, GETTING THE CHECKS UP THERE AND HAD PEOPLE COME IN ON THE WEEKENDS TO DO IT.

SO I DEFINITELY AM ALWAYS HERE TO COLLABORATE.

BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS ISN'T PHRASED AS ME NOT INCLUDING THIS LEGISLATURE OR ANYTHING, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE IN THE FUTURE.

I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT AND WE CAN SHARE OTHER CONVERSATIONS IN THE FUTURE.

I DID WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE ABATEMENT NEXT DOOR, BECAUSE THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO INFORM OUR COLLEAGUES ABOUT, BECAUSE I THINK YOU AND I AND STAFF HAD HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS.

THERE'S SEVERAL CONCERNS ABOUT EXPOSURES FROM THE ABATEMENT OF ASBESTOS IN OUR BUILDING.

AND I THINK TRYING TO GET SOME ANSWERS THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AND SO FORTH.

UPON I THINK SOME EXPOSURE OF SEVERAL COLLEAGUES HERE WITH SMELLS OF MATERIALS THAT WERE SEEPING OVER. WE DID DO VALIDATION.

I THINK EARL'S OFFICE ALSO DID AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW AN AIR QUALITY TEST SEPARATELY FROM THE ONE THAT I HAD CALLED IN IMMEDIATELY TO RESPOND.

IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE WAS EXPOSURES, AT LEAST FROM OUR DOCUMENT, BUT THAT THE MATERIAL USED IS NOT WAS NOT CARCINOGEN, IS WHAT I BELIEVE BOTH REPORTS HAD SHARED.

SO I WANTED TO ALLEVIATE FOLKS ON THAT.

HAPPY TO SHARE IN BROADER FORM THE CONCERNS THAT WERE INITIATED AS WELL AS THE REPORTS THEMSELVES FOR THAT MATERIAL.

BUT I DO I DO ASK THAT I THINK FROM THE EXECUTIVE SIDE, WE LOOK AT TERM SUPPLY CONTRACTORS BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL UNANSWERED QUESTIONS THAT I'VE ASKED ABOUT CERTIFICATIONS OF THOSE PROFESSIONALS THAT WERE THERE STATUS.

SADLY, I THINK WAS THERE'S A LOT OF COMMUNICATION ISSUES THAT WERE DONE WITH THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ACTUALLY DOING THE ABATEMENT THEMSELVES.

AND THERE WAS A CLEAR FAILURE AND AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE VENTILATION SYSTEM THAT WE NEEDED TO ADDRESS. AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHO EXACTLY.

AND MAYBE OUR FORMER CHAIRMAN OR WHAT OUR EMERITUS CHAIRMAN, I THINK IS WHAT WE'VE CALLED HIM. MAY HAVE MORE DETAILS ON HOW THE EXECUTION OF THAT PROCESS TOOK PLACE AND THAT CONTRACT, BUT THERE WAS SOME THERE WERE SOME MISSTEPS, I THINK, AND SO WANTED TO ALLEVIATE AT LEAST THE CONCERNS OF FOLKS ABOUT THE ABATEMENT, MAKE SURE FOLKS KNEW THAT IT WAS.

AND THANKS TO YOU ALL, AS WELL AS THE CALL TO ACTION FOR A QUICK EMERGENCY RESPONSE FOR THAT ISSUE.

BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE, I THINK NEED TO TAKE SERIOUSLY AS WE MOVE FORWARD. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SHARE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT AS WELL. JUST BRIEFLY, MR. CHAIRMAN THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES, OFFICES, YOU GUYS HAVE VOTED TO IMPROVE THEM AND RENOVATE THEM, THEN THAT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY TO GET THAT DONE UNDER MY STAFF.

AND THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON PAINTING, ON MOVING CUBICLES, ON NEW CARPET. AND SOME OF YOU HAVE ACTUALLY MOVED DOWN TO THE FIRST FLOOR TO GET OUT OF THE WAY. AND THAT'S TAKEN A WHILE. AND THEY'VE ALSO WORKED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND DOING THE SAME THING. AND SOME OF THE AGENCIES THAT WERE IN THERE GOT DEEPER INTO IT AND FOUND WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS ASBESTOS.

THEY FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURES OF WHAT THEY SHOULD DO IN THE ABATEMENT. THEY SCREENED OFF ALL THE AREA AND THEY WERE WORKING ON IT.

AND THEN I GOT A CALL FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND SAID, HEY, YOU GOT TO SMELL THIS AND CAME DOWN.

IT WAS SOME NOXIOUS FUMES GOING ON.

SO I APPRECIATE MR. CHAIRMAN REACHING OUT TO ME.

WE DIRECTED THOSE OUR STAFF TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON.

THEY OPENED THE AIR VENTILATORS AND GOT THAT CLEARED UP.

BUT THEN ALSO THE CHAIRMAN'S CONCERNS, I THINK HE HAS A BACKGROUND IN THIS TYPE OF ISSUE, WAS WHAT WAS IN THE AIR.

WHAT WAS THAT? AND SO WE DID AN OUTSIDE STUDY TO FIGURE THAT OUT.

[00:25:03]

BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS A CONCERN TO MYSELF AND TO YOU GUYS FROM BEING THERE.

SO I THINK WE'VE GOT IT FIGURED OUT.

I THINK WE HAVE SOME MORE ANSWERS TO GIVE BACK TO THE CHAIR ABOUT SPECIFICS OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE DOING THE WORK, THEIR CERTIFICATIONS, AND MAYBE WHAT WAS IN THE ACTUAL STUDY THAT CAME BACK.

BUT I THINK WE'VE WE'VE GOT IT ALL WRAPPED UP, FIXED AND MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

MR. EXECUTIVE, I THINK YOU WERE MISSED.

AND REMEMBERING SOME OTHER JACKSON COUNTY HISTORY.

ACCORDING TO MY NEW BOOK THE HIDDEN AGENDA, IT REFERENCES THAT ON THIS DAY IN 2020, THE KANSAS CITY CHIEFS WON THE SUPER BOWL.

SO THAT MIGHT BE JACKSON COUNTY HISTORY. YOU ALSO SHOULD ADD JUST FYI.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE? ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE DID ASK FOR CLOSED SESSION TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER TOPICS. SO APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE A PART OF THAT AS WELL.

NOW MOVE ON TO THE PERFECTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES AND REPORTS OF COMMITTEE.

[AN ORDINANCE prohibiting law enforcement officers from concealing their faces or badges during performance of their official duties and establishing penalties and exemptions.]

I THINK THE SECOND SUBSTITUTE.

IT WAS HELD REPORT FROM COMMITTEE.

THE ORDINANCE 6050 IS HELD IN COMMITTEE.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DISCHARGE THIS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THIS ALONG.

AS A POINT OF REVIEW, I HAVE ALSO ASKED AND WAS ASKED, I THINK, TO DO A PUBLIC HEARING NEXT MONDAY ON THIS TOPIC.

SO I'M NOT SURE IF WE WANT TO ADVANCE TO DISCHARGE FROM COMMITTEE SO WE CAN BRING IT BEFORE US, OR IF WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN MOVE THAT ALONG.

I THINK WITHOUT A DISCHARGE EFFORT, THIS WOULD BE DELAYED FOR ANOTHER TWO WEEKS.

SO I'LL SEEK A MOTION.

MOVE TO DISCHARGE. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

THIS IS TO DISCHARGE TO MOVE IT FROM THE ANTI-CRIME COMMITTEE INTO LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE.

ACTUALLY, WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE ON THAT. ANDERSON.

YES. PAYTON. YES. SMITH.

NO. HUSKEY. YES. FRANKLIN.

ABSTAIN. MAGEE. YES. LAUER.

NO. SMITH. NO. ABARCA.

YES. FIVE. YES. THREE.

NO. ONE. ABSTAINING. THANK YOU.

SO IT'S NOW BEING MOVED TO LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE.

WHERE TO REMAIN ON THE AGENDA. I'LL ASK COLLEAGUES TO REVIEW THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE SUGGESTED. I THINK THE LATEST ONE.

GENERAL COUNSEL, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THAT? JUST TO SHOW THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO SUBSTITUTES OR ONE OF YOURS.

SHAUN THE SUBSTITUTE THAT WHITNEY MILLER, THE COUNTY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE.

THE SUBSTITUTE THAT WAS PRESENTED IN COMMITTEE SHOULD BE IN FRONT OF YOU ON THE DESK. IT WAS PRESENTED BY LEGISLATOR BARCA.

IT NARROWS THE SCOPE ONLY TO FEDERAL IMMIGRATION OFFICERS.

AND THEN GENERALIZES SOME OF THAT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE.

BUT THE PRIMARY CHANGE IS THAT IT IS FOCUSED PURELY ON FEDERAL IMMIGRATION OFFICERS, AS OPPOSED TO ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT LEGISLATORS.

DID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOURS AS AN ALTERNATIVE? OKAY.

SO I'LL LEAVE THAT TO THE PREFERENCE OF THE BODY IF YOU WANT TO AMEND NOW OR IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IN THE FUTURE.

WHAT THE POSSIBILITIES ARE FOR 60 50.

SEEMS LIKE WAITING TILL THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING NEXT MONDAY AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR AGENDA.

[AN ORDINANCE repealing subsection 5293.2, of Jackson County Code, 1984, related to the subject of wreckers and tow services and enacting in lieu thereof one new subsection relating to the same subject.]

REPEALING SUBSECTION 5293.2 OF THE JACKSON COUNTY CODE, 1984. RELATED TO THE SUBJECT OF WRECKERS AND TOW SERVICES, AND ENACTING LIEU THEREOF.

ONE SUBSECTION RELATING TO THE SAME SUBJECT.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. REPORT FROM COMMITTEE.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED PERFECTION. ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL ADD THAT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. 60 53.

[AN ORDINANCE repealing sections and subsections 9103., 9104., 9113., 9121., 9120.2., 9125.4., and 9125.5., of Jackson County Code, 1984, relating to the Board of Equalization, and enacting, in lieu thereof, four new sections and three new subsections relating to the same subject, with an effective date.]

RELATING TO THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. ENACTING IN LIEU THEREOF, FOUR NEW SECTIONS WITH THREE NEW SUBSECTIONS RELATING TO THE SAME SUBJECT, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

[00:30:04]

WE'LL ADD IT TO CONSENT AGENDA. FINAL PASSAGE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS 6049,

[AN ORDINANCE establishing a third-party monitoring program for Jackson County projects and authorizing access for qualified contracted third parties to conduct site visits.]

IT'S PERFECTED. IT'S IN THE. OH.

I'M SORRY. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THIS WILL BE PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR ADOPTION. OBJECTION. THERE'S BEEN AN OBJECTION.

IS THERE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR? I WOULD SEEK A MOTION, I GUESS, AS THE CHAIR. I WOULD OTHERWISE MAKE THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING. INSPECTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE.

IT'LL BE HELD. RESOLUTION AND COMMITTEE 2201 FOR.

[A RESOLUTION awarding a twelve-month term and supply contract, with one twelve-month option to extend for the furnishing of disaster recovery services for use countywide to 21st Enterprise, LLC aka ServPro of Lee’s Summit, Missouri, under the terms and conditions of the Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City, Missouri (MCC) Contract No. 19-7242-C3R2.]

MCC CONTRACT NUMBER 1970 242 C3, R-2 LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE.

MOVE TO ADOPT. THERE'S A MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? WE'VE HELD IT FOR A WHILE. HAVING AN EMERGENCY SERVICES PROVIDER THAT CAN CLEAN UP AFTER AN ACCIDENT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA.

SERVPRO HAS BEEN A LONG STANDING CUSTOMER OR PROVIDER FOR FOR JACKSON COUNTY.

JUST NO SPECIFIC TROUBLES WE'RE ATTACHING TO A ANOTHER CONTRACT.

SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO HAVE THIS AVAILABLE.

I THINK WE EVEN HAD SOME PIPE ISSUES AT THE HISTORIC COURTHOUSE THIS PAST WEEK, AND MIGHT HAVE AVAILED THEMSELVES OF THEIR SERVICES HAD WE HAD THE CONTRACT IN PLACE, IT'S A POINT OF INFORMATION. I THINK THERE WAS A GOAL OF HAVING ADMINISTRATION ATTACH A UP TO FEE SO THAT YOU CAN'T GET A 300 $500,000 BILL ATTACHED TO A TERM AND SUPPLY CONTRACTOR, PARTICULARLY ONE THAT'S NOT BEEN BID OUT FOR ANYONE TO APPLY FOR, PARTICULARLY SMALL BUSINESSES.

BUT IF THE PLEASES THE BODY TO PASS THIS, THAT IS SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT.

REMEMBER IT'S 112 MONTH OPTION.

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ACTUALLY, I THINK IT'S MARY JO.

SORRY, ANDERSON. 22014.

I'M SO SORRY. YES. PEYTON.

YES. SMITH. YES. HUSKY.

YES. FRANKLIN. YES. MCGEE.

YES. LAUER. YES. SMITH.

YES. IBAKA. NO EIGHT. YES.

ONE. NO. RESOLUTION 22147.

[A RESOLUTION requesting the Missouri State Auditor to conduct a full comprehensive performance audit to examine and evaluate the management of Jackson County’s fiscal, budgetary, and procurement policies and procedures of the expenditure of ARPA funds.]

AND I'LL JUST IF I MAY SPEAK FOR A MOMENT ON THIS.

SURE. SO THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE IN A MEETING LIKE THIS HAD SUGGESTED THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH AN AUDIT. THIS REALLY STARTED BEFORE WE FINALIZED THE DISBURSEMENT DECISIONS THAT WE MADE AT THE END OF DECEMBER FOR THESE FUNDS.

THIS WAS REALLY RELATED TO THE FACT THAT WHEN THE NEW ADMINISTRATION CAME IN, THEY IDENTIFIED THAT THERE WAS MONEY THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS, AS ARPA MONEY THAT HAD BEEN MOVED IN AND OUT OF DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS. AND WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY SPENT, ALLOCATED, MOVED AROUND WAS ALL HANDLED PROPERLY.

SO I RECOMMEND ADOPTION AT THIS TIME.

AND IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, MR. CHAIR, OPEN IT UP TO SEE IF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE HAD ANY COMMENT.

MR. EXECUTIVE. YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. SMITH AND I TALKED ABOUT THAT.

WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IS HAVING THE STATE AUDITOR COME IN AND TALK ABOUT THE FIRST DOLLAR THAT CAME FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT CAME INTO THIS BUILDING WHERE IT WENT, WHY IT WENT THERE.

AND THEN THAT DOLLAR THAT LEFT, THE LAST DOLLAR THAT LEFT, I THINK IT'S BEEN REPORTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS INVOLVING THE ACTUAL FUNDING PROCESS THAT THIS BODY VOTED ON. AND THAT WASN'T MY ISSUE THAT I, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT.

I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT JUST THE TRACKING, THE ACCOUNTING BECAUSE NO ONE IN THIS ROOM KNOWS WHERE THE MONEY WENT, WHY IT WENT IN CERTAIN PLACES.

AND I'M NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THERE'S ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT, BUT I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON ME AND IN THIS BODY TO KNOW.

AND SO I'VE TALKED TO STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, AND THE REQUEST HAS TO COME FROM THIS BODY TO ASK THEM TO COME IN AND DO THAT.

I THINK IT'S ONLY PRUDENT FOR US TO DO IT.

SO I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS UP.

[00:35:01]

BUT THIS IS JUST THE AUTHORIZATION TO KIND OF MOVE FORWARD. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, MR. ANDERSON. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO INQUIRE OF THE VICE CHAIR.

YES, SIR. IS THIS GOING TO COVER AND I APOLOGIZE, IS SO THIS IS GOING BACK TO COVER ONLY THE ARPA FUNDS, NOT THE FUNDS THAT WERE PUT OUT BY THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

IS THAT RIGHT? TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT'S CORRECT.

I MEAN, IT'S FEASIBLE THAT WE COULD NOT ADOPT TODAY AND AMEND IT TO BE ALL COVID RELATED FEDERAL DISBURSEMENTS.

BUT, MISS MILLER, THE COUNSELOR'S OFFICE IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED TO AUDIT ARPA FUNDS NOT CARES ACT. I SEE IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

I'LL HAPPILY TAKE AN AMENDMENT.

REALLY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD AND FELT LIKE THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE. SURE.

AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS THAT WILL THIS COVER? AND AGAIN, YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID IT AND I DIDN'T CATCH IT OR WHATEVER THAT WAS.

IS THIS COVERING THE ARPA FUNDS THAT WERE JUST SENT OUT OR IS THIS NOT COVERING? THIS WAS INTRODUCED BEFORE THAT.

THIS WASN'T INTENDED TO NECESSARILY DEAL WITH THE MOST RECENT DISBURSEMENTS, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A GOOD HANDLE ON WHAT THOSE WERE.

I SEE. THANK YOU. MISTER CHAIR, TO INQUIRE.

LEGISLATOR SMITH. TO THE SPONSOR LEGISLATOR SHAUN SMITH, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD BROADEN THE SCOPE TO ALL FEDERAL FUNDING? ALL FEDERAL FUNDING WOULD GET PRETTY FAR IF WE COULD IF WE COULD LIMIT THE SCOPE OF AN AMENDMENT TO JUST BE THE FEDERAL FUNDING THAT WAS COVID RELATED, SUCH AS CARES, FUNDS AND ARPA FUNDS, I'D BE OKAY WITH THAT.

MISS MILLER, IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD DEAL WITH? I MEAN, MAYBE NOT TODAY.

I DON'T, MR. EXECUTIVE.

DOES IT MATTER IF THIS IS TODAY OR NEXT WEEK? NOT AT ALL. THAT'S A GIGANTIC ASK TO GET ALL FEDERAL FUNDS THERE.

THAT WOULD BE ONE. HECK, YEAH. THAT'S THAT'S THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN.

SO IF WE COULD LIMIT IT LEGISLATOR SMITH TO JUST CARES AND ARPA OR OTHER FUNDS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DISPERSED AS A RESULT OF THE COVID PANDEMIC THAT WOULD BE EASIER, I THINK, TO MYSELF. IS THERE A MOTION THERE? SO MOVED. SO I THINK WE HAD PREVIOUSLY MOVED TO HAD WE MOVED TO ADOPT? NO, NO, NO, I MEANT FOR THE AMENDMENT.

THE COMMITTEE. SO I THINK WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A WRITTEN AMENDMENT. SO I GUESS JUST HOLD FOR TODAY AND MISS MILLER AND I COULD WORK ON.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT HOLD.

ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL HOLD THAT UNTIL NEXT WEEK.

SO IS THAT SINCE THE COMMITTEE ALREADY MOVED MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT, IT'S GOING TO LEGISLATURE'S. CORRECT STATE LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE.

[A RESOLUTION authorizing the County Executive to execute a permanent utility easement in favor of Missouri Alliance, LLC, dba Bluebird Fiber across a portion of Fleming Park, for a fee payable to the County.]

REPORT FROM COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED ADOPTION.

RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOING TO THE CONSENT? YEAH. GO TO. SORRY, I HAD TO SWITCH PAGES HERE.

[9 CONSENT AGENDA]

DID I MISS ANY? MADAM CLERK, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE.

THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT, MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? ANDERSON. YES. DID I GET A MOTION FOR THE.

OH, I'M MOVED TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? HEARING NONE.

NOW. MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU CALL? YES. PEYTON. YES. SMITH.

YES. HUSKEY. YES. FRANKLIN.

YES. MCGEE. YES. LAUER.

YES. SMITH. YES. ABARCA.

YES. NINE. YES. INTRODUCTION.

THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES AND ASSIGNMENT TO COMMITTEE 6054.

CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THOSE ON THE CONSENT.

THOSE ARE WHAT YOU READ BACK, MADAM CLERK.

THOSE NUMBERS. 60526053 FOR PERFECTION.

AND THEN RESOLUTION 22148.

THANK YOU. INTRODUCTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES AND ASSIGNMENT TO COMMITTEE 6054.

[AN ORDINANCE requesting a renewal of a conditional use permit (CUP) in District AG (Agricultural) for continuous operation of a horse boarding facility subject to specified conditions, as to a 48.09± acre tract.]

PERMIT CUP AND DISTRICT AG.

AGRICULTURAL FOR CONTINUOUS OPERATION OF A HORSE BOARDING FACILITY, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED SPECIFIED CONDITIONS AS TO A 48.09 PLUS OR MINUS ACRE TRACT OF LAND USE. 6055 AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE UNIFIED

[AN ORDINANCE amending the zoning districts established pursuant to the Unified Development Code by rezoning a certain 19.48± acre tract from District AG (Agricultural) to District RE (Residential Estates).]

[00:40:06]

SIGNED LAND USE COMMITTEE.

[AN ORDINANCE amending the zoning districts established pursuant to the Unified Development Code by rezoning a certain 20.00± acre tract from District AG (Agricultural) to District RR (Residential Ranchette).]

[AN ORDINANCE amending the zoning districts established pursuant to the Unified Development Code by rezoning a certain 70.00± acre tract from District AG (Agricultural) to District RR (Residential Ranchette).]

AT A SIGN, THE LAND USE COMMITTEE 6058 APPROPRIATING $636,425 FROM THE UNDESIGNATED

[AN ORDINANCE appropriating $636,425.00 from the undesignated fund balance of the 2026 Park Fund for construction services provided by Hartline Construction of North Kansas City, MO for use by the Parks + Rec Department.]

SIGN OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE. 6059 SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF JACKSON

[AN ORDINANCE submitting to the qualified voters of Jackson County, Missouri, at the general election to be held on April 7, 2026, a question to amend the Jackson County Charter, with an effective date.]

A QUESTION TO AMEND THE JACKSON COUNTY CHARTER WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE INTRODUCED BY SHAWNEE SMITH, SIGNED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 6060,

[AN ORDINANCE appropriating $264,216.00 from the undesignated fund balance of the 2025 Grant Fund in acceptance of the 2024 JAG Grant awarded to the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.]

SIGN OF JUSTICE AND LAW COMMITTEE. 6061 PROHIBITING ALL PERMIT AND ZONING APPROVALS

[AN ORDINANCE prohibiting all permit and zoning approvals for non-County or municipal government owned detention facilities.]

AND IF WE COULD ALSO ADD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS AS WELL.

THIS ISN'T PERTAINING TO BANNING POTENTIAL ICE FACILITY IN SOUTH KANSAS CITY.

I THINK SINCE THE TOPICS ARE SOMEWHAT ALIGNED, THAT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR US TO HEAR BOTH OF THOSE TOPICS NEXT WEEK.

[AN ORDINANCE waiving the reimbursement of acquisition cost required by section 1139., Jackson County Code, 1984, relating to the transfer of ownership of the Sheriff’s Office’s K-9 unit dog, Spy, to dog handler and companion Deputy Jessica Davidson.]

[AN ORDINANCE rescinding Resolution 22084 dated October 27, 2026 and transferring $818,068.00 within the County Improvement Fund and awarding a contract extension to Strategic Workplace Solutions, Inc. of Belton, MO at an actual cost to the County in the amount of $535,214.00 and JCDC Partners at an actual cost to the County in the amount of $282,854.00 for professional services provided in conjunction with the delivery of the New Jackson County Detention Center and requesting a fee schedule be attached.]

TO MY COLLEAGUES, I WOULD LIKE TO ADOPT THIS IF POSSIBLE TODAY. THIS IS JUST IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE ALREADY PASSED, BUT IT ALLOWS FOR THE FEE STRUCTURE TO ACTUALLY PAY THE INDIVIDUALS FOR THE WORK THAT THEY HAVE STARTED TO WORK ON.

SO I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF WE COULD.

SO MOVED. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? HAPPY TO PROVIDE MORE CONTEXT, BUT I THINK THIS WAS RELATING TO THE EMAIL I SENT YOU. ALL COMPLIANCE IS ASKING US TO PASS THIS. THIS IS THE THIRD PARTY COMPLIANCE VENDOR FOR THE JAIL ITSELF.

THEY'RE ACTIVELY DOING THIS WORK NOW, BUT CANNOT BE PAID BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FEE SCHEDULE ATTACHED. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS PERTAINING TO.

SO I'M EXPECTING IT TODAY.

SO TO INQUIRE. I SHAUN, SAID LEGISLATOR SMITH.

IS THERE ANYONE FROM COMPLIANCE TO PROVIDE CONTEXT? BECAUSE THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS READING, IT'S CITING A RESOLUTION THAT WAS DATED OCTOBER 27TH OF 2026. IS THAT A TYPO OR.

YES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO AND IF THERE'S TYPOS.

I MEAN, I THINK THOSE SHOULD BE CLEARED UP BEFORE WE VOTE ON ANYTHING. YEAH, IT WAS A TYPO. SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE NEED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THERE.

AND AGAIN, THIS WAS THIS ORDINANCE TO ALLOCATE THIS THESE FUNDS WERE ALREADY DONE.

THIS WAS SOMETHING THE PREVIOUS BUDGET CHAIR, LEGISLATOR FRANKLIN AND CHAIR EMERITUS MCGEE HAD SUCCESSFULLY PASSED.

THIS IS JUST ASSIGNING THE FEE SCHEDULE TO IT. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THIS IS THE EXACT SAME THING.

IT'S JUST ATTACHING A FEE SCHEDULE.

MISS MELINDA, DO YOU WANT TO COME AND SHARE ANYTHING WITH US.

YOU MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS.

MELINDA BOLING COMPLIANCE REVIEW OFFICE.

[00:45:02]

THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED, BUT THERE WAS NO FEE SCHEDULE IN THE RESOLUTION. ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT? ONE LEGISLATIVE VICE CHAIR SMITH.

SO CONSTRUCTION ON THE JAIL IS PRETTY MUCH COMPLETE.

AND WE GO LIVE IN MARCH, APRIL, I BELIEVE.

AND YET WE'RE STILL PAYING THESE FOLKS ALL THE WAY THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST, 2026. CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE CONTINUING COMPENSATION, THE CONTINUING WORK AND AND HOW WE KNOW WHAT THE APPROPRIATE FEES ARE BASED ON THIS TIME SCHEDULE. THE PAYMENTS ARE THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR, MOST LIKELY. EVEN IF THEY GET IN BY APRIL, STILL BE PAPERWORK ON THE COMPLIANCE SIDE FOR AT LEAST 6 TO 8 MONTHS AFTER THAT.

AS FAR AS PREVAILING WAGE AND GOALS GO, SO WILL BE ACCORDING TO THIS, PAYING THEM THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST, 2026, EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT BE CONCLUDING BEFORE THAT. I GUESS I'M JUST UNCLEAR WHAT THE PAYMENT METRIC ACTUALLY IS.

IF I MIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO REVISIT THAT ONCE THE JAIL IS UP AND RUNNING. YOUR CONCERNS ARE VALID.

LIKE WHY IF THEY'RE THERE AT APRIL MAY, WHY ARE WE STILL PAYING THEM? SO LET'S CAN WE GET TO THAT POINT AND THEN REVISIT THIS AND FIGURE OUT WHAT'S LEFT ON THE CONTRACT, WHAT'S LEFT FOR THEM TO PAY, AND WHY IT WOULD GO TO THE END OF THE YEAR.

WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE? YEAH, I'M JUST CONFUSED BY IT BECAUSE IT I MEAN, THE CONTRACT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH A YEAR.

IT'S GOING TO COMPLETE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. I THINK THAT THE END OF THE SERVICE IS NEEDED. IF IT'S APRIL OR MAY, I THINK WE SHOULD REVISIT THAT.

I'M OF THE SAME CONCERN OF YOU.

WHY WOULD WE BE CONTINUING TO THE END OF THE YEAR IF THEIR WORK WAS DONE IN MAY? SO I GUESS MY RESPONSE WOULD BE, CAN WE REVISIT THIS ONCE THE JAIL IS UP AND RUNNING AND FIGURE OUT IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE FOR THEM TO BE DOING? AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU'RE NOT PLAYING COMPLIANCE THEN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

AND THEY'RE ALREADY BEHIND TWO MONTHS. YES.

SO YOU'RE NOT PAYING YOUR COMPLIANCE STAFF WITH THE PAPERWORK.

MOST LIKELY WILL NOT BE DONE. AND THEY LAG 30 DAYS ALREADY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT YOU REPORT. CORRECT. SO LEGISLATORS MAGEE OR FRANKLIN, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS FROM THE PAST? AND BECAUSE THIS WAS A CHALLENGE TO EVEN GET PAST TO BEGIN WITH, I THINK.

NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. NO, I DON'T EITHER. I THINK WHAT I WOULD HAVE WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE ALL THAT GREAT FOR THIS THING.

BUT I THINK THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE COMPLIANCE OR NOT? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE 60 DAYS BEHIND ON PAYING THEM.

SO IF WE DON'T, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE ON THIS BODY UNDERSTANDS THAT.

AND IF YOU STOP AT APRIL, YOU STILL HAVE 30 DAYS BEHIND THAT, THAT YOU'RE NOT DOING COMPLIANCE SO WE CAN HOLD IT.

BUT MELINDA DOESN'T HAVE THE STAFF TO CONTINUE TO DO IT AT ALL, FRANKLY. SO YOU'RE TELLING A THIRD PARTY NOW THAT'S BEEN EMPLOYED FOR 60 DAYS NOT TO BE PAID, SO THEY HAVE AN EXISTING CONTRACT? WE'VE ALREADY EXTENDED IT. WHAT WHAT DOES THE CONTRACT SAY ABOUT WHAT WORK THEY DO IN ORDER TO GET PAID? OR WAS THE CONTRACT STRUCTURED ON A MONTHLY FEE BASIS? WAS HOW WAS THE CONTRACT STRUCTURED? IT WAS A LUMP SUM. SO THE ALTERNATIVE IS PAYING THEM IN FULL.

IT SAID AND I BELIEVE I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, I APOLOGIZE, BUT I BELIEVE IT SAYS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE FEE SCHEDULE.

AND THERE WAS NO FEE SCHEDULE.

THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO COME BACK, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FEE SCHEDULE ATTACHED.

YEAH. I JUST PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE THERE'S THERE'S SOME CONFUSION.

I MEAN, FIRST OFF, WITH JUST THE DATE, THAT'S SIMPLE.

BUT THEN KIND OF THE TIMING OF WHEN WE'RE PAYING THEM.

WE ALREADY APPROVED AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT TO ADD MORE MONEY WITH MAYBE A LITTLE LACK OF CLARITY.

I, I'D JUST LIKE TO GET MORE CLARITY, BUT IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS.

THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

I'LL BE A NO VOTE FOR THE MOMENT UNLESS WE WANT TO WITHDRAW THAT MOTION.

THERE WAS LOTS OF PROBLEMS WITH THIS, BUT I WOULD MOVE TO ADOPT.

OKAY, SO WE GOT A PERFECTED FIRST.

YEAH, THE FIRST IS TO PERFECT.

OR DO WE WANT TO AMEND THAT DATE JUST SO THAT WE HAVE IT, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONSIDER AN ERROR CORRECTION? OKAY, MR. CHAIR, TO INQUIRE, LEGISLATOR SMITH OF COMPLIANCE OR LEGAL OR WHOEVER CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO GET DONE.

MY CONCERN AND, AND KIND OF PAUSE IS THAT WHEN WE HAVE LEGISLATION COME BEFORE US, CERTAINLY IN THE AMOUNTS THAT WE SEE IN THIS ONE, AND WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE IT OR VOTE ON IT RATHER SAME DAY WITHOUT ANY PRIOR CONVERSATION OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.

WITH ALL THESE QUESTIONS THAT ARE COMING UP WHAT IS THE RISK OF HOLDING THIS UNTIL OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING NEXT MONDAY?

[00:50:02]

I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT THE CONTRACT NOW FOR WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY SIGNED.

I MEAN, THERE'S QUESTIONS THERE. I MEAN, WHY, WHY WOULD WE ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH SOMEONE OR WHY WOULD THEY ENTER INTO ONE WITH US WITHOUT A FEE SCHEDULE BEING PRESENTED OF SOME SORT? THERE'S JUST A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT I THINK MAYBE ANOTHER WEEK SINCE THIS IS BEING INTRODUCED TODAY.

AND KNOWING THAT WITH AN ORDINANCE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

LEGAL. THAT WOULD NEED A UNANIMOUS APPROVAL TO VOTE ON OR TO APPROVE.

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WHAT ANOTHER SEVEN DAYS WOULD DO TO GIVE US THE DUE DILIGENCE OR TO GIVE US THE ABILITY TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE.

I'LL ANSWER THAT. SO I HAVE HAD THREE PHONE CALLS FROM THE COMPLIANCE VENDOR SUGGESTING THAT SHE IS GOING TO QUIT BECAUSE THE COUNTY CONTINUOUSLY DOES THIS TO HER.

IF YOU HAVE A COMPLIANCE VENDOR TO QUIT MID-CONSTRUCTION, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ISSUES.

THERE ARE ALREADY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ITSELF, AND I THINK 136 VIOLATIONS THAT WERE SUGGESTED ALREADY OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS.

THE REALITY OF STOPPING COMPLIANCE AT THIS POINT MEANS PEOPLE ON THIS BODY WANT TO HIDE STUFF IN CONSTRUCTION.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENT, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE INTENT WE'RE GOING TO SEND IF WE CONTINUOUSLY DELAY, WE'VE ALREADY ADOPTED.

I THINK ALTERNATIVELY, WE CAN WITHDRAW THIS COMPLETELY AND EXECUTE THE FULL PAYMENT THAT WE'VE ALREADY ADOPTED AS OF LAST YEAR.

SO THIS ASSIGNS A FEE SCHEDULE THAT ALLOWS FOR AN UP TO TOTALITY OF THIS AMOUNT.

SO I ASK THAT FROM THE EMAIL THAT I SENT WEEK AND A HALF AGO, TWO WEEKS TO SAY THIS IS COMING BEFORE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT THE MOMENT FOR WHICH YOU WERE INFORMED THAT THIS WAS COMING.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR EXCUSES TO STOP COMPLIANCE, THAT'S ONE THING. THE DEPARTURE OF A COLLEAGUE ALSO SUGGESTS ANOTHER THING HERE.

SO I THINK THAT IS REALITY.

WE MUST LIVE WITH ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I AM FINE SIGNING OFF ON JUST PAYING IN FULL FROM THE PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.

IT WILL GO TO THE EXECUTIVE. HE COULD VETO IT OR COME BACK TO US.

WE MAY LOSE THE COMPLIANCE IN THAT TIME FRAME.

SO WE DO WITH WHAT WE WILL.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? YES, MR. CHAIR. LEGISLATOR SMITH SO MY QUESTIONS ARE NOT TO LOOK FOR AN EXCUSE EITHER WAY OR THE OTHER. MY QUESTIONS ARE TO PROVIDE CLARITY AS TO WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO AND WHAT'S BEFORE US.

AND AND NOW THAT WE HAVE THE OPTION TO ABIDE BY A FEE, SCHEDULE OR PAY IN FULL, WHAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS VERSUS DOING ONE OR THE OTHER? WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ON EITHER END OF THEM? THE ALTERNATIVE IS ONE QUITS AND ONE DOESN'T.

MY QUESTION WAS WHAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS VERSUS ADHERING TO A PAY SCHEDULE OR PAYING FOR THE FULL AMOUNT? YOU HAVE 12 MONTHS TO AUTHORIZE ONE MONTH AT A TIME, WHICH IS WHAT THE SAME SCHEDULE WE'VE HAD FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS WITH THIS.

THE ALTERNATIVE IS YOU PAY COMPLETELY IN FULL AND EXPECT THEM TO WORK THROUGH DECEMBER.

WELL, THE EXPECTATION WITH EITHER A SCHEDULE OR PAYING IN FULL IS THAT THEY THEY WORK THROUGH DECEMBER OR IS THAT A DIFFERENT DIFFERENT IT'S AN UP TO LEGISLATOR.

IT'S AN UP TO CONTRACT.

YOU PAY IN FULL, YOU DON'T GET UP TO ANYMORE.

YOU PAID FOR. SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE WANT TO TALK THROUGH HERE.

WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE AND WHAT OUR WHAT OUR RISKS OR WHAT OUR PROS AND CONS WITH EITHER OPTION IS SO THAT WE MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE INTO THE VOTE NOW. SO IF THERE'S ANY OTHER MOTIONS I'M HAPPY TO HEAR IT. BUT WE'VE ALREADY GOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO. PERFECT.

SO ANY OTHER MOTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

ANDERSON. AND THIS IS THE MOTION TO.

PERFECT. I'M SO SORRY. CORRECT.

YES. YES. PEYTON. YES.

SMITH. NO. HUSKY. YES.

FRANKLIN. YES. MCGEE. SAMSON.

LAUER. YES. SMITH. NO.

ABARCA. YES. I WILL TAKE HEED TO NO ONE ABSENT.

IF WE'D LIKE TO ADOPT, IT TAKES SIX OF US.

IF WE WANT TO WAIT, I'M FINE WITH THAT.

BUT THE REALITY AGAIN, EVERY DAY WE DELAY THIS CONTRACT IS GETTING WEARY BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS BEEN STOPPED. SADLY, OUR PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION HAD A SIMILAR ISSUE IN QUESTIONS, BUT THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW UP. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL DO, BUT JUST SUGGESTING THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER. WE ARE TEETERING.

I'M SO SORRY. YES, SIR.

MOVE TO ADOPT. IS THERE A SECOND? SO MOVED. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, MADAM CLERK.

TRYING NOT TO DO YOUR JOB HERE, ANDERSON.

YES, PEYTON. YES. SMITH.

[00:55:05]

YES. MCGEE. LAUER. NO.

SMITH. NO. IBAKA. YES.

FIVE. YES. THREE. NO. ONE ABSENT.

FAILS. I WILL LET THAT BE.

MADAM CLERK, ARE THERE ANY ADD ONS? TO VOTE? NO, MR. CHAIRMAN. ALL RIGHT.

INTRODUCTION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS TO COMMITTEE 22149.

MR. MCGEE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO REGISTER YOUR VOTE FOR THE LAST 6063? FOR ADOPTION? YES OR NO? FOR SIX. 663. YES. THANK YOU.

SO WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT.

SO THEN THAT CHANGES TO.

THANK YOU, SIR. MADAM CLERK, ARE THERE ANY ADD ONS? SIX.

YES THREE. NO. NO ADD ONS.

NO. ADD ON ORDINANCES.

[A RESOLUTION approving the 2026-2027 Jackson County Assessment and Equalization Maintenance Plan.]

APPROVING THE 2026 2027 JACKSON COUNTY ASSESSMENT AND EQUALIZATION PLAN INTRODUCED BY CHARLIE FRANKLIN. FINANCE.

LET'S. I'M LOOKING FOR ACTUAL CONSIDERATION TO LEAVE AT LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE FOR THE SAKE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND THE SAKE OF PROCESS.

IS ANYONE OPPOSED TO THAT? OKAY, LET'S LEAVE THE LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE. OKAY. RESOLUTION 22150,

[A RESOLUTION awarding a thirty-month term and supply contract, with three twenty-four-month options to extend, for the furnishing of information technology products and services for use by various County departments to SHI International Corporation, of Somerset, NJ under the terms and conditions of OMNIA Partners Contract Number 2024056-02, an existing competitively bid government contract.]

CONTRACT NUMBER (220) 240-5602 AND EXISTING COMPETITIVE COMPETITIVELY BID GOVERNMENT CONTRACT INTRODUCED BY CHARLIE FRANKLIN. SIGN OF PUBLIC WORKS.

[A RESOLUTION honoring the life and legacy of Anita J. Dixon-Brown.]

DIXON BROWN, INTRODUCED BY MEGAN L SMITH, DONNA PAYTON, AND VANESSA HUSKY. ANY.

MOTION. MOVE TO ADOPT.

MOTION TO ADOPT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING.

NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE BY THE SIGN OF I.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED. DO WE HAVE TO DO.

HERE'S THE AYES HAVE IT. THE EYES DO INDEED HAVE IT.

I ASSUME THE PRESENTATION WAS THIS PAST WEEK OR WILL BE PRESENTED.

NO, I HAVE IT. I'LL TAKE IT.

THANK YOU. NO PRESENTATION TODAY.

RIGHT. AND ACTUALLY, LEGISLATOR SMITH, THE LEAD SPONSOR, WANTS TO PRESENT THAT.

ALL RIGHT. 22152. I'VE BEEN AT.

[A RESOLUTION honoring Dr. Troy Nash and recognizing his appointment as Director of the Lewis White Real Estate Center.]

I BELIEVE THAT'S TO BE HELD.

JUST LEAVE IT. LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE. YES.

OKAY. TWO. TWO. ONE. FIVE.

[A RESOLUTION authorizing the County Executive to execute an Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement with the City of Independence, Missouri, for the use of certain County property for a civic event, at no cost to the County.]

INTRODUCED BY JAYLEN ANDERSON, ASSIGNING GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS 22154.

[A RESOLUTION authorizing the Prosecuting Attorney to execute a one-year agreement with the City of Grain Valley, with one twelve-month option to extend, to engage in anti-crime, anti-violence, and law enforcement school-based initiatives and purposes, at a cost to the County not to exceed $75,000.00.]

INTRODUCED BY DONNA PAYTON.

ASSIGNED TO ANTI COTTON COMMITTEE. SORRY, I WAS WAITING FOR THE CHAIR TO DO THAT. 22155

[A RESOLUTION honoring the Kansas City Public Schools Mentoring Program in recognition of National Mentoring Month.]

I BELIEVE THE REQUEST IS TO HOLD THAT LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE. CORRECT. ALL RIGHT.

22156. OH, I'M SORRY, WE'VE ALREADY PASSED THAT.

22157 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR OF THE JACKSON COUNTY DRUG TASK FORCE TO EXECUTE A LEGAL

[A RESOLUTION authorizing the Chair of the Jackson County Drug Task Force to execute a Legal Services Agreement with Williams & Campo, P.C., of Lee’s Summit, MO, to provide legal services for the Task Force, at a cost to the County not to exceed $3,500.00.]

HUSKY SIGN ANTI-CRIME COMMITTEE 22158 RECOGNIZING RAYTOWN QUALITY SCHOOLS DURING

[A RESOLUTION recognizing Raytown Quality Schools during Mentoring Month.]

ALSO HEARING ME HOLD THAT FOR LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE.

22159 DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE TO ESTABLISH,

[A RESOLUTION directing the Clerk of the County Legislature to establish, pursuant to RSMo 115.395 (2), a system of ballot name order by random drawing for candidates filing for County office.]

I THINK TO MAJOR OR LEGISLATOR SMITH'S CREDIT, SHE, I THINK, NEARLY SPENT THE ENTIRE NIGHT STANDING OUTSIDE OF THE FRONT ENTRANCE TO

[01:00:03]

THIS IS A PROCESS THAT THE STATE HAS KIND OF ORIENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE AND DRAWING NAMES FROM A BOWL OR NOT NAMES, DRAWING NUMBERS TO ASSIGN BALLOT INITIATIVE OR BALLOT PLACEMENT.

IT IS SOMEWHAT SEEMINGLY JUST AS ANONYMOUS, BUT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR PEOPLE TO SLEEP IN THEIR OFFICES TO TRY AND GET THE FRONT OF THE LINE, OR ALSO TO HAVE TO SLEEP OUTSIDE IN THE GIVEN THE WEATHER.

THE CLERK HAS ASKED THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO DO, THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER DOING IT RIGHT NOW. AND I HAD RECOMMENDED WE PUT THIS BEFORE OUR BODY FOR CONSIDERATION.

SO I SEEK A MOTION IF THEY.

THERE IS THOUGHT HERE THAT THIS IS A BETTER SOLUTION THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY DO.

HAPPY FOR DISCUSSION. HAPPY TO HOLD.

BUT I THINK IT REALLY HAMPERS THE CLERK'S ABILITY TO GET THINGS DONE.

AS WHAT, THE FIFTH WEEK IN THE YEAR.

THIS IS OUR SECOND MEETING LEGISLATIVE BODY. SO UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME TO CONSIDER THIS, BUT THAT'S THE OPTION.

SO I'LL SEEK A MOTION AT THIS POINT.

MOVE TO ADOPT. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? CONVERSATION.

JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK THE INTENT IS ANYBODY THAT GETS HERE, I'LL SAY IN THE FIRST HOUR, HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DRAW A NUMBER.

THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S.

IT'LL BE THE ENTIRE FIRST DAY.

THE ENTIRE FIRST DAY YOU PULL A NUMBER.

AND IF TWO CANDIDATES FILE FOR THE SAME OFFICE, WHICHEVER ONE HAS THE LOWER NUMBER IS THE ONE WHO WILL APPEAR FIRST ON THE BALLOT.

SO I UNDERSTAND THAT'S THAT'S I WAS JUST MAKING SURE I WAS CLEAR.

SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD ASK MR. COUNTY COUNSELOR. GIVE US THE AUTHORITY FOR THIS BODY TO DO THAT CHANGES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WHAT IS PROCEDURALLY SUPPOSED TO BE.

IF YOU SHOW UP, YOU GET FIRST.

IF THAT CHANGE. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

GENERAL COUNSEL, YOU ALL SIGNED OFF ON THE LANGUAGE.

YES. I'D HAVE TO. YEAH.

WE'VE LOOKED UP THE THE STATUTE THAT IT'S LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE, AND IT EXPLAINS IT AS I THINK LEGISLATOR SMITH HAS EXPLAINED IT.

THE CHARTER PROVIDES UNDER ARTICLE TWO, SECTION 12, SECTION SUBSECTION 16 THAT YOU GOT, THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP THE PROCEDURE FOR THE PROCESS OF ELECTION.

SO THAT'S HOW WE DETERMINE WE THOUGHT IT WAS PROPER.

SO YEAH. LEGISLATIVE POWER.

IS THERE AN A PRO OR CON LIST AS TO DOING IT RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION THAT WE HAVE COMING UP NOW CHANGING THE RULE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I ACTUALLY THROW THAT OVER TO OUR CLERK TO SUGGEST, YOU KNOW, SHE'S SHE'S CREATED ALL THE PROCESSES, PROCEDURES AT THIS POINT, SINCE NO ONE HAS FILED, NO ONE'S HARMED I THAT'S WHY I ASKED IT TO BE DONE SOONER THAN LATER, BECAUSE I WOULD NEED TO PUT SOME. I HAVE THE CURRENT PROCESS OUT ON THE WEBSITE, SO I NEED TO CHANGE THAT.

AND THEN ALSO THERE'S LETTERS THAT I SEND OUT THAT I WOULD GIVE TO ALL OF YOU AND ALSO THE CHAIRS OF THE COMMITTEES TO LET THEM KNOW IF THEY HAVE CANDIDATES COMING THAT THIS PROCESS HAS NOW CHANGED. THAT'S THAT'S WHY I'D RATHER IF YOU WERE GOING TO VOTE ON IT.

BUT THAT'S THAT'S UP TO YOU ALL.

CAN I ASK BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE RUNNING INTO PRETTY SHORT TIME FRAME HERE. THE OPENING DAY IS THE 24TH OF FEBRUARY AND TODAY'S THE SECOND.

YEP. VICE CHAIR SMITH.

YEAH. SO? SO CURRENTLY, THE PROCESS IS WHOEVER'S STANDING CLOSEST TO AN ENTRY DOOR IS PERCEIVED TO BE THE EARLIEST CANDIDATE.

PEOPLE QUEUE UP. HOW MANY PEOPLE AND WHAT'S IT MEAN TO YOUR OFFICE AND TO THE FACILITY TO HAVE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S DOZENS OR HUNDREDS.

I DON'T ASSUME IT'S HUNDREDS.

IT'S STATE CAPITAL. IT'S HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE QUEUED UP. SO IS THERE BEEN SOME CHALLENGES IN THE PAST AS FAR AS JUST LOGISTICS? I MEAN, THE WAY IT'S WORKED, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S JUST FOR THE CANDIDATES TO TO HAVE TO STAND OUTSIDE BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS AT SEVEN OR WHATEVER, MY, MY STAFF WOULD GO DOWN AND HAND OUT NUMBERS AS THEY ARE LINED UP.

OKAY. IT'S USUALLY AT THE WEST DOOR.

SO TO JUMP IN HERE, I THINK THERE HAD BEEN AT LEAST HISTORY IN THE PAST OF CURRENT ELECTED OFFICIALS SOMEWHAT JUMPING THE LINE THROUGH THEIR PRESENCE AT THE PHYSICAL DOOR OUTSIDE OF THE THE CLERK'S OFFICE.

AND I THINK, HONESTLY, THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO TRY AND MAKE THIS A LITTLE BIT LESS CHALLENGING FOR FOLKS OF ALL ABILITIES TO WITHSTAND A NIGHT IN THE COLD LEADING UP TO A FEBRUARY FILING DATE.

BUT THE OPTION EXISTS FOR US ON THE TABLE.

THAT'S WHY IT'S PUT FORWARD NOW.

YEAH. GO AHEAD. SORRY.

SO THE THING THAT I REALLY THINK IS IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT WHETHER SOMEBODY EMPLOYED, WHETHER THEIR EMPLOYMENT IS FLEXIBLE, THEY, THEY HAVE THE SAME,

[01:05:01]

AND TO THE EXTENT THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT MAYBE BEING FIRST ON THE BALLOT HAS SOME SORT OF STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE.

JUST IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS, THIS PROCESS WOULD SEEM TO BE MORE FAIR.

SO THAT MAYBE SOMEBODY WORKS AND THEY CAN GET OFF AN HOUR EARLY AND COME AT 4:00 PM AND FILE YOU KNOW, THAT THAT PERSON SHOULD ENJOY THE SAME RANDOM LUCK OF THE DRAW OPPORTUNITY TO BE FIRST ON THE BALLOT AS SOMEBODY WHO HAD A DIFFERENT SCHEDULE AND WAS FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO BE HERE FIRST THING IN THE MORNING. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY I'M IN FAVOR OF IT IS I JUST THINK FROM AN OVERALL FAIRNESS PERSPECTIVE THAT IT IS BENEFICIAL.

AND YOU KNOW, ANYTIME WE'RE CHANGING PROCESS 2 OR 3 WEEKS IN ADVANCE, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN ALL SAY, WELL, GOSH, I WISH WE'D DONE IT SOONER.

WE DIDN'T, BUT FAIRNESS TRUMPS SUFFICIENT NOTICE IN THIS CASE, AT LEAST IF THIS WERE THE WEEK BEFORE, I WOULD BE CONCERNED.

BUT WITH THREE WEEKS TO GO BEFORE FILING, I DON'T THINK IT'S TOO MUCH OF A RUSH.

LEGISLATOR PEYTON, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AT FAIRNESS IS THE REASON WHY WE WANT TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM.

THEN WE NEED TO CHANGE THE PROCESS.

AS PEOPLE AND I HAVE BEEN A BOARD SECRETARY AND INCUMBENTS HAVE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS ANYONE THAT IS NEW.

THAT'S COMING TO THE DOOR.

IF WE CAN'T CONTROL THAT, THAT'S ON US.

I AGREE WITH LEGISLATOR LA LA THAT AT THIS POINT, WHEN WE DO HAVE SOMETHING PUBLISHED, IT WOULD BE A CHANGE.

SO I WOULD SAY WE LOOK AT THE PROCESS AND FIX THE PROCESS.

IF SOMEONE IS ALLOWED TO STAY IN THEIR OFFICE AND THEN FILE, THAT IS UNFAIR. I AGREE TO THAT.

THE WAY IT WORKS NOW THOUGH, YOU HAVE TO BE AT THE WEST DOOR TO GET A NUMBER, OKAY? YOU HAVE TO HAVE A NUMBER.

AND THAT'S THE SAME FOR EVERYONE.

AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT WHAT ANYONE THAT IS RUNNING FOR ELECTION.

WHO WANTS TO BE A CANDIDATE IS NOT AWARE OF.

AND I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE WORK.

WHEN I RAN FOR SCHOOL BOARD, I COULDN'T BE THERE THE FIRST WELL WHEN I RAN FOR SCHOOL BOARD. RAYTOWN HAS THE LOTTERY SYSTEM AS WELL.

I THOUGHT IT WAS THE MOST UNFAIR THING IN THE WORLD.

SO I THINK THAT IF THE PROCESS IS INTACT AND WE'RE JUST THREE WEEKS OUT AND IF WE WANT TO CHANGE LATER, THAT'S FINE.

BUT I THINK UNFAIRNESS COMES AS WE ALLOW PEOPLE NOT TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS THAT'S IN PLACE. MR. CHAIRMAN LEGISLATOR ANDERSON, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MARY JO, WOULD THIS IF THIS GOES INTO EFFECT, DOES THIS ONLY APPLY FOR THE FIRST DAY OR IS IT THE ENTIRE JUST THE FIRST DAY I SEE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALSO HAPPY TO CHANGE IT FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS NOW SO THAT YOU'RE PROACTIVELY AWARE WELL BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION, WHICH WILL BE TWO AND A HALF YEARS FROM NOW.

BUT LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

MR. CHAIR, TO FOLLOW UP ON LEGISLATOR ANDERSON'S, WHY WOULD WE NOT MAKE IT DURING THE WHOLE PERIOD? RATHER THAN JUST THE FIRST DAY? BECAUSE THEN THERE'S USUALLY THERE'S NOT A LINE, THEN YOU JUST TAKE THEM AS THEY COME.

AND AGAIN, I CHECK WITH SECRETARY OF STATE AND THEY AGAIN, THEY ONLY DO IT ON THE FIRST DAY.

I'M NOT SURE IF RAYTOWN RAYTOWN WOULD ONLY DO.

RAYTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT WOULD JUST DO THE FIRST DAY.

EVERYBODY'S HERE AT 8 A.M.

TO TRY TO FILE BECAUSE AT THE STATE THEY DO IT ALL THE WHOLE PERIOD.

NO, YOU DRAW A NUMBER ONLY THE FIRST DAY.

NO, I TALKED TO I TALKED TO KRISTI PETERS AT THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE, AND IT'S ONLY THE FIRST DAY.

ON THE FIRST DAY. OKAY.

AND, MR. CHAIR, IF I. YEAH.

IT ALSO ADDS AN ADDED BURDEN.

WELL, I WON'T CALL IT A BURDEN BECAUSE YOU GUYS DO AN AMAZING JOB.

BUT IT ALSO, THERE IS A BELIEF THAT IF YOU'RE NOT FIRST ON THE BALLOT, THEN YOU SHOULD BE LAST.

SO ON THAT LAST DAY, IT CREATES ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR THERE TO BE A LINE.

CORRECT. CAN I JUST. YEAH.

SO DIRECTED TO LEGISLATOR PEYTON.

I, I THINK YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A PROCESS WHERE SOMEBODY WOULD DRAW A NUMBER IF THEY COME IN ON THE FIRST DAY, AND IF THEY HAVE THE LOWER NUMBER, THEN THEIR OPPONENT ON THE BALLOT WOULD BE LISTED FIRST.

AND YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING THAT RAYTOWN DOES IT AND, AND YOU UNDERSTAND NOW MAYBE THAT THE STATE DOES IT, BUT YOU SEEM TO FEEL LIKE THAT WASN'T FAIR.

I GUESS I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. DIDN'T SEEM FAIR. RIGHT. THE RIGHT TO OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATES DOES USE

[01:10:01]

I THINK THAT IT IS. AND THIS IS JUST A PERSONAL OPINION.

I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A HORRIBLE SYSTEM.

SO THANK YOU. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT. I JUST THINK THAT BASED ON THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE, BASED ON THE HISTORY OF HOW IT'S WORKED IN THE PAST AND BASED ON THE COMMITMENT THAT ONE MAKES WHEN THEY WANT TO BE A CANDIDATE, THAT THE PROCESS THAT'S IN PLACE IS THE CURRENT.

AND FOR ME, IT IS MERELY MY OPINION IS A FAIR PROCESS.

WHEN YOU HAVE TO GAMBLE TO SEE WHERE YOU ARE ON A BALLOT.

I JUST DON'T THINK I DON'T.

AND THIS IS A PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

I DON'T LIKE GAMBLING AS A PERSONAL AS TO GET ON A BALLOT AS THE MOST OPPORTUNE OPPORTUNITY, AND I DON'T LIKE WHAT IT CREATES ON THAT LAST DAY EITHER.

ONE MORE SO. SO THE OTHER REASON I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS IS JUST FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY PERSPECTIVE. WE'VE HAD ISSUES NEAR THE COURTHOUSE WITH RESPECT TO CRIME, MUGGINGS OTHER RANDOM ACTS OF VIOLENCE.

THE IDEA THAT WE'RE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO BE HERE IN THE DARK BEFORE THE SUN COMES UP, OR EVEN OVERNIGHT TO BE FIRST IN LINE.

UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, SEEMS TO ME TO BE NOT WITHOUT ITS CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF TRADITIONALLY HAD THE SHERIFF HAD EXTRA STAFF OR ANYTHING, BUT IT JUST IT HAVING I USED TO RUN TICKETMASTER OUTLETS WHERE WE WOULD SELL, YOU KNOW, VAN HALEN TICKETS AND WE USED TO HAVE PEOPLE LINE UP FOR TWO DAYS.

IT CREATED A PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD.

IT CREATED ISSUES WITH PEOPLE BEING INTOXICATED IN LINE.

I'M NOT SAYING CANDIDATES WOULD DO THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE TRASH AND REFUSE AND AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS.

WE WE SEEM TO BE ON A SMALLER SCALE ASKING CANDIDATES WHO ARE THE MOST MOTIVATED BUT ALSO PHYSICALLY CAPABLE TO, TO FOLLOW SOMETHING SIMILAR WHERE THEY SHOW UP AND SLEEP IN A SLEEPING BAG OVERNIGHT ON THE COURTHOUSE STEPS.

AND IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT AS LONG AS YOU'RE HERE DAY ONE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO BE AT WORK, BUT COULD TAKE AN HOUR OFF THAT, THAT HAVING AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO BE FIRST ON THE BALLOT SEEMS LIKE A FAIRER AND SAFER PROCESS THAN WHAT WE FOLLOWED TODAY.

LEGISLATOR PEYTON INQUIRE.

OH, AND I WILL GO BACK WAY BACK TO WHEN I WAS THE BOARD SECRETARY IN HICKMAN MILLS.

AND YES, THERE IS A CONCERN, OF COURSE, FOR THE SAFETY OF THOSE THAT ARE WAITING. AND YES, SECURITY IS NEEDED.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD SECURITY BEFORE, I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW SECURITY WOULD WORK HERE. THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE DOES WORK WITH US.

OKAY, SO IF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS HERE, I JUST AGAIN GO BACK TO THE PROCESS THAT'S IN PLACE. I DON'T SEE THAT IT'S BROKEN.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S NOT WORKING.

THERE MAY BE CONCERNS AND WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.

BUT TO SAY WE NEED TO THROW IT OUT IS NOT WHAT I WOULD PREFER DOING TODAY.

OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? OH, LEGISLATOR SMITH. YEAH.

YES. INQUIRE. HAS THERE BEEN ANY INCIDENTS IN THE PAST WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE WITH THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED WITH SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES THERE TODAY? CONCERNS IN WHAT WAY? WELL, THERE WERE CONCERNS OF I HEARD SAFETY AS ONE OF THEM POTENTIAL FAIRNESS HAS THERE, BECAUSE THIS SYSTEM THAT WE CURRENTLY ARE UNDER HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR DECADES.

SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ARE THERE HAS SOMETHING HAPPENED IN THE PAST THAT WOULD HAVE US CONSIDERING MODIFYING THE SYSTEM? WE HAVE ONE SHARE FOR THE PROCEDURE. WHO DID WE HAVE? ONE SHERIFF AT ONE POINT WHO LET HIMSELF IN AND SIT ON THE COUCH.

WAY BACK WHEN I FIRST CAME.

YEAH, THERE WAS AN ISSUE OF OF A SHERIFF CANDIDATE SPENDING THE NIGHT IN THE BUILDING.

AND THAT'S WHY WE WENT TO.

EVERYBODY NEEDS TO BE AT THE WEST DOOR AND GET A NUMBER.

SO I THINK OKAY, THAT FIXED THAT.

SO THE INCIDENT THAT, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, I GUESS, AN INCUMBENT OR JUST SOMEONE WHO WAS A PART OF WHO HAD ACCESS TO THE BUILDING AS A COUNTY EMPLOYEE CAME IN.

SPENT THE NIGHT INSIDE AND THEN.

RIGHT. AND THEN AFTER THAT THAT'S WHEN THAT PROCESS CHANGED TO WHERE EVERYONE HAD TO BE

[01:15:05]

OKAY. AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE SEQUENTIAL NUMBER OUT THERE BEFORE MOVING UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR. OKAY. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WAS REMEDIED.

SO SINCE THEN, HAS THERE BEEN ANY OTHER INCIDENTS WHERE SAFETY WAS A CONCERN OR ANY OTHER CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT PROCESS? NOT. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. OKAY.

SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WHAT'S WHAT'S THE NEXUS FOR THIS? WHAT'S THE PURPOSE FOR THIS? IF SAFETY HASN'T BEEN A CONCERN IN THE PAST? TO THE DEGREE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO HERE? I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO HOLD SO WE CAN COMPLETELY HAVE A FULL CONVERSATION, APPARENTLY, ABOUT THIS.

SO, ARE YOU WITH. ME? OKAY.

THEN WE'RE NOT ADOPTING IT THIS YEAR. IT'S PROBABLY A WAYS OFF.

OKAY. NO OTHER DISCUSSION.

MOVING TO A VOTE. I'LL LET MARY JO DO HER JOB.

ANDERSON. WAS THERE AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION I COULDN'T HEAR? I DON'T KNOW IF THE AUDIO CUT OUT. WE MOVED INTO A VOTE.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

I THINK I SPOKE OFF MIKE LEGISLATOR SMITH.

SO I SAID THAT I THOUGHT THAT THIS WOULDN'T GO INTO EFFECT THIS YEAR UNLESS WE VOTE ON IT NOW, AND THAT IF WE DON'T PASS IT NOW, IT WE'LL KEEP THE NORMAL SYSTEM AND WE CAN LOOK TO MAKE A CHANGE ON A MORE TIMELY BASIS IN THE FUTURE.

YES. SO WHAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR? WE'RE IN A VOTE. LET'S. MARY JO, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. MOTION TO ADOPT.

TO ADOPT. TWO. TWO. ONE FIVE.

NINE. THANK YOU. ANDERSON.

NO. PEYTON. NO. SMITH.

NO. HUSKEY. NO. FRANKLIN.

YES. MCGEE. NO. LAUER.

NO. SMITH. YES. ABARCA.

YES TWO. THREE. YES. SIX.

NO. RESOLUTION 2216022.

[A RESOLUTION authorizing the County Counselor to execute a Legal Services Agreement with certain lawyers and law firms at an aggregate cost to the County not to exceed $50,000.00.]

INTRODUCED BY DARREN MCGEE.

AT 22161, AWARDING A 12 MONTH TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT WITH 312 MONTH OPTIONS TO EXTEND FOR

[A RESOLUTION awarding a twelve-month term and supply contract, with three twelve-month options to extend, for the furnishing of body transportation services for use by the Medical Examiner’s Office to First Call, Inc. of Kansas City, MO, under the terms and conditions of Invitation to Bid No. 24-082.]

OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF INVITATION TO BID NUMBER 24 082, INTRODUCED BY CHARLIE FRANKLIN.

SIGN OF HEALTH ENVIRONMENT 22162.

[A RESOLUTION awarding a contract for annual software subscription for use by the Sheriff’s Office and Department of Corrections to Lexipol, LLC, of Frisco, TX, at an actual cost to the County in the amount of $60,169.00, as a sole source purchase.]

INTRODUCED BY VANESSA HUSKEY, SIGN OF JUSTICE AND LAW 22163.

[A RESOLUTION awarding a contract for the furnishing of items for resale by the Parks + Rec Department to Dunlop Sports of Dallas, TX, as proprietary purchases.]

INTRODUCED BY MEGAN L SMITH.

SIGN OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 22164 AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE FURNISHING OF SOFTWARE

[A RESOLUTION awarding a contract for the furnishing of software maintenance for use by the Public Administrator’s Office to SEM Applications, Inc., of Oregon, MO, at an actual cost to the County in the amount of $60,000.00, as a sole source purchase.]

ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE AND LAW COMMITTEE 22165.

[A RESOLUTION awarding a twelve-month contract, with three twelve-month options to extend, for the furnishing of independent auditing services for use by the Finance and Purchasing Department to Clifton Larsen Allen, LLP, of Kansas City, MO, under the terms and conditions of Request for Proposals No. 25-053, at a cost to the County for 2026 not to exceed $150,000.00.]

INTRODUCED BY CHARLIE FRANKLIN.

ASSIGNED TO FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE 22166.

[A RESOLUTION authorizing the County Counselor to execute a Legal Services Agreement with a certain law firm at an aggregate cost to the County not to exceed $120,000.00 as a sole source purchase.]

AS A SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE INTRODUCED BY MANUEL BARKER.

THE FOURTH I BELIEVE THERE'S A REQUEST FROM GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE.

SORRY. GO AHEAD. YES, YOUR HONOR.

THANK YOU. CHAIR. MR. CHAIRMAN. WHAT A MOTION.

YEAH. I WOULD APPRECIATE IF THE THE LEGISLATURE COULD TAKE THIS UP TODAY.

THIS IS A CASE WHERE IT'S AN EMPLOYMENT CASE.

THE COUNSEL'S OFFICE WILL BE CONFLICTED OUT ON THIS MATTER.

AND WE HAVE BEEN SERVED ON IT AS WELL.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GET OUTSIDE COUNSEL IN PLACE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SINCE THE TIME FRAME HAS ALREADY STARTED.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MOVE TO ADOPT. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK.

[01:20:03]

YES. SORRY. OKAY. PEYTON.

YES. SMITH. YES. HUSKEY.

YES. FRANKLIN. YES. MCGEE.

YES. LAUER. YES. SMITH.

YES. YES. YES. MY APOLOGIES.

YOU KNOW,. COUNCIL. WASN'T THERE A SECOND ONE THAT YOU WANTED THAT WAS OF EQUAL COMPARISON? YOU ALREADY ASSIGNED IT TO COMMITTEE. OKAY. ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT? NO.

OH. I'M SORRY. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS GOING TO BE IT WASN'T NEEDED.

IT WAS OKAY. YES. OKAY.

THANK YOU. TWO. 22167.

[A RESOLUTION awarding a contract for the furnishing of developer services for a mixed housing program and a 99-year lease to Pate-Campbell Properties, Inc of Olathe, Kansas, under the terms and conditions of Request for Qualifications No. 25-045.]

OF OLATHE, KANSAS. UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, NUMBER 25 045, INTRODUCED BY DONNA PEYTON AND CHARLIE FRANKLIN.

MISTER CHAIR. YES, LEGISLATOR.

THANK YOU. WE WOULD LIKE TO VOTE THIS ON THIS TODAY, PLEASE. I HAVE THIS ADOPTED TODAY.

AND PART OF THE. LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF THE REASONING WHY WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN COMMITTEE THIS PROJECT IN DEPTH.

THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN PROVIDED INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS AND HOPING TO GET THIS DONE FOR AT LEAST SINCE JUNE WHEN THE FIRST RFQ WENT OUT.

I THINK SEND A SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR PURCHASING DEPARTMENT FOR HELPING US TO WORK THROUGH THIS AND GETTING TO THIS POINT.

I THINK COUNTY EXECUTIVE LEVEL ADA CHIEF OF STAFF TERESA GARZA, AND ALSO STEVE ARBO, AND HELPING US WORK THROUGH THE COMPLEX DETAIL THAT IT TOOK TO GET US HERE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK OUR COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT.

THEY HAVE WORKED WITH THE THE COMPANY THAT WON THIS AWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS AN RBOH CERTIFICATION, REASONABLE BIDDER ORDER CERTIFICATION SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO BY THAT DEVELOPER. COMPLIANCE HAS ALSO MADE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE THE MISSOURI STATE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THE COUNTY ENFORCE PREVAILING WAGE LAWS ON ALL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS OF $75,000 OR MORE, THAT THEY WILL ENSURE, AS THEY DO WITH EVERY CONTRACT, WILL ENSURE THAT FAIR WAGES ARE PAID TO ALL WORKERS AND COMPANIES ARE COMPLYING WITH THE GUIDELINES OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI.

THE DEVELOPER HAS COMMITTED TO ADHERING TO ANY ANYTHING SUCH AS PREVAILING WAGE AND RBL.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT AS WELL, THAT THIS IS A RESOLUTION WHICH WILL JUST TAKE US TO THE NEXT STEP, WHICH WILL BE FOR OUR PURCHASING DEPARTMENT TO WORK ON A CONTRACT.

AND I AM HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN.

ANY QUESTIONS? LEGISLATOR LAUER.

YES. TO INQUIRE OF LEGISLATOR PEYTON, I APPRECIATE YOU WANTING TO GET THIS DONE RIGHT AWAY. I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT DOING IT WITHOUT HAVING A LITTLE BIT MORE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH THE CONTRACTOR UNDER TESTIFY UNDER TESTIMONY, AND FIND OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THEM.

WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.

THIS IS A RESOLUTION AND NOT AN ORDINANCE.

IT IS A RESOLUTION. AND I DO NOT FOR ONE SECOND DOUBT THE EVALUATION TEAM OR OUR PURCHASING DEPARTMENT AND THE DILIGENT WORK THAT THEY DID TO GET US TO THIS POINT.

IT IS NOT UNLIKE ANY CONTRACT.

IF WE WE RECEIVED A CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE WORK.

IT IS NOT UNLIKE THAT CONTRACT.

THIS IS A RESOLUTION THAT'S NOT UNLIKE THAT.

THIS IS NOT THE CONTRACT PHASE.

NOW, WE CAN WHEN COMPLIANCE GETS THE CONTRACT, WE CAN ENTERTAIN THOSE QUESTIONS AND MAKE SURE THAT COMPLIANCE LETS US KNOW OR LETS US REVIEW THAT CONTRACT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE THINGS ARE IN IT.

WE CAN BRING THE DEVELOPER IN THAT WON THIS AWARD BACK BEFORE THEY SIGNED THE CONTRACT.

THIS IS MERELY A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD ALLOW PURCHASING TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPING A CONTRACT. THANK YOU. I LOVE SARAH ANDERSON.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR HOWEVER WE NEED TO WORD THIS TODAY. THAT WOULD ADD IN THAT ALL WORK DONE IS PREVAILING WAGE.

THE REASON WHY I SAY THIS IS BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION ALSO CHALLENGES THERE

[01:25:01]

AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS THAT AS LEGISLATOR PATTON, I THINK THAT THIS IS A GREAT PROGRAM IN HOUSING AND GETTING THIS DONE BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. MY ONLY URGENCY HERE IS THAT UNDERSTANDING THAT IN THE 99 YEAR LEASE THAT'S PUT FORWARD, THAT THERE ARE GUARDRAILS FOR THE LAND NOT TO END UP BEING SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T WANT NECESSARILY IT TO BE I GUESS, YOU KNOW, TALKING OR MENTIONING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, I JUST, I ALL FOR THIS.

IT JUST IS THAT WE NEED, I BELIEVE, GUARDRAILS IN SOME WAY IN THIS CONTRACT. AND AS YOU MENTIONED, WE CAN TALK TO COMPLIANCE ABOUT THIS.

MY ONLY QUESTION IS THAT WE DON'T GET IT BACK IN FRONT OF US TO VOTE ON THE CONTRACT, IF I'M CORRECT ON THAT.

AND SO ONCE THAT'S GONE, THAT'S GONE.

SO THAT THAT'S MY TWO CONCERNS.

BUT THIS THIS HERE IS THE KEY THING THAT I SAW THAT I DON'T WANT US TO GO THROUGH AGAIN THAT THAT IT'S NOT PREVAILING WAGE OR IT GETS AROUND US THAT IT'S NOT PREVAILING WAGE.

AND I AM VERY AGREEABLE TO THAT.

AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT WITH THIS, AND I'M LOOKING DIRECTLY AT COMPLIANCE WITH THIS, WE'RE SETTING A PRECEDENCE BECAUSE THIS GOES OUTSIDE OF ANYTHING ELSE WE'VE EVER ASKED FOR FROM ANYONE WE'VE CONTRACTED WITH.

SO WE WILL BE SETTING A PRECEDENCE.

SO IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO, I'M FINE WITH IT.

I AM FINE WITH THE AMENDMENT.

SO I'LL LEAVE IT THERE.

MOTION TO OR TO INQUIRE.

EXCUSE ME. GO AHEAD. MY APOLOGIES.

YOU CAN'T HEAR ME NOW, LEGISLATOR SMITH.

HAGAN. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU.

AGAIN, MY CONCERNS WITH SOMETHING OF THIS MAGNITUDE IS NOT THE MERIT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. IT'S THAT THIS I MEAN, IT SAYS IT RIGHT IN THE LAST PORTION OF THIS RESOLUTION THAT IT'S AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR, THE INTERIM DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND PURCHASING TO AUTHORIZE AND MAKE OR TO MAKE ALL PAYMENTS, INCLUDING THE FINAL PAYMENT ON THE CONTRACT.

SO THIS RESOLUTION IS AUTHORIZING THE $3 MILLION THAT'S LISTED ON THE FISCAL NOTE AND AUTHORIZING ALSO INTO THE ENTERING OF A 99 YEAR LEASE.

AGAIN, I'M NOT ARGUING WHETHER THAT'S WORTHY OR NOT.

MY CONCERN IS THAT WE'RE BYPASSING THE COMMITTEE PROCESS ON SOMETHING THAT IS A LARGE SCALE PROJECT WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE NOT ONLY JUST THE BIDDING PROCESS, BUT ALSO OF THE CONTRACTOR.

THAT OR EXCUSE ME, THE DEVELOPER THAT WAS SELECTED IN THIS PROCESS.

I THINK THOSE, THOSE PROCEDURES ARE IN PLACE BY THE LEGISLATURE FOR A REASON.

AND IT GIVES ME A LOT OF PAUSE WHEN WE LIKE TO LEAPFROG OVER THOSE PROCEDURES.

AND I WILL SAY THAT I HAVE NEVER WITNESSED A RESOLUTION IN COMMITTEE DICTATING THAT WE BYPASSED PURCHASING AND ALLOW THEM TO PROVIDE THEIR INPUT.

SO ONCE IT GOES TO COMMITTEE, IT WOULD BE OUR PURCHASING DEPARTMENT THAT COMES AND TALKS WITH US.

AND THAT IS JUST THE COMMON PRACTICE THAT WE'VE HAD.

NOW WE CAN INVITE THE DEVELOPER AS WELL.

BUT THE POINT OF IT BEING IN COMMITTEE IS NOT TO INTERVIEW THE DEVELOPER, BUT TO CONFIRM THE PROCESS THAT PURCHASING HAS DONE.

AND WE HAVE SENT THIS OUT.

WE'VE ASKED AND REQUESTED MORE THAN ONCE FOR QUESTIONS.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY.

UP UNTIL NOW, EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE OF LEGISLATORS.

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT.

I APPRECIATE US BEING ABLE TO COLLABORATE AND WORK TOGETHER.

NOW, WE HAVE PASSED SEVERAL THINGS TODAY THAT HAVE NOT GONE TO COMMITTEE, AND THAT SEEMS TO HAVE NOT BEEN A BIG ISSUE.

SO I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION.

I ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT.

EXCUSE ME, I ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT.

SO SO WE HAVE TO. AS A MATTER OF FACT, LET ME BACK UP.

YOU'RE RIGHT, BECAUSE I DO AGREE WITH YOUR AMENDMENT.

[01:30:03]

AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE WILLING TO DO IS SET THAT PRESENTS FOR FUTURE RESOLUTIONS AS WELL. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT TO.

OKAY, SO THIS IS ACCEPTING LEGISLATOR ANDERSON'S AMENDMENT IS WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

DISCUSSION. ANYONE HAVE DISCUSSION ON ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENT TO THIS EFFORT? LEGISLATOR PEYTON, I WOULD ASK, IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY HERE TO ADD AN ANOTHER PROVISION WHERE THE CONTRACT IS TO COME BACK BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE? IT SEEMS LIKE THAT MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO SEEM NOT TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS EFFORT, TO SEE THIS OPPORTUNITY ONE MORE TIME.

AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT'S WITHIN OUR LEGAL ABILITIES OR IF OUR EXECUTIVE IS SUGGESTING THAT AS WELL.

BUT I WANT TO MAKE THAT AS AN OPPORTUNITY, MAYBE SINCE WE'RE AMENDING TO CHANGE THAT AND MAYBE GET MORE STAKEHOLDERS ON BOARD.

AND I ACTUALLY THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULD DO THAT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES BY INCLUDING THIS IN THE.

SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD GO BACK AND LOOK AT.

BUT I DO WANT TO SAY I DO WANT TO PROCEED WITH THIS.

I DO WANT TO ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT.

I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THERE BEING PREVAILING WAGE.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS EFFORT.

AND I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO, AS YOU JUST DID, TO THE COUNCILORS, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MIGHT HAVE AN EXECUTIVE QUESTION AS WELL.

SO I WANT TO MAKE THAT TIME AVAILABLE TO YOU IF NEED BE. BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION ASKED, BASICALLY, IF WE CAN IF WE CAN SUGGEST THE CONTRACT COMES BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE FOR ACCEPTANCE IN ITS FINAL FORM AS A WAY TO KIND OF MEDIATE THE DISCUSSION POINTS THAT WERE MADE. I'M OPEN TO EITHER OF YOUR WEIGHING IN AS YOU'RE ALL LAWYERS OVER THERE.

SO. THE CURRENT LANGUAGE OF THE LEGISLATION AUTHORIZES THE CONTRACT.

SO AS IT STANDS NOW, THERE WOULD BE NO RETURN TO THE LEGISLATURE WITH CONTRACT LANGUAGE THAT COULD BE AMENDED TO, TO PUT THAT IN.

I MEAN, AS I BELIEVE AS IT'S WRITTEN NOW, IT'S AWARDING A CONTRACT AND AT THE TYPICAL PRACTICE IS NOT TO COME BACK WITH A CONTRACT.

TYPICALLY THE CONTRACT WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN DRAFTED AND ATTACHED. SO THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE. BUT VICE CHAIR SMITH SO I SEE THE WORD. AND HERE IN THE INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH.

SO IT SAYS THAT WE'RE AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR DEVELOPER SERVICES AND A 99 YEAR LEASE TO THIS PARTICULAR COMPANY.

SO WE ARE TO, TO MY KNOWLEDGE LORD AND HERE SAYS THAT THIS IS US APPROVING A 99 YEAR LEASE TO WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE VENDOR WHO GOT THE WORST TOTAL SCORE. AND I GUESS I'D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT AS WELL.

SO THERE WAS ANOTHER VENDOR THAT HAD 92 POINTS.

ANOTHER VENDOR THAT HAD 88 POINTS.

ALL THE VENDORS ARE LISTED HERE, BUT THE ONE THAT WE SELECTED HAD 75 POINTS.

AND I GUESS JUST WAS THE WAS THE SELECTION COMMITTEE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS SELECTED BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE. HOW DID THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.

I SEE, MR. GADDY IS LISTED AS ON THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.

I DON'T SEE HIM HERE. SO, I MEAN, OFTENTIMES WHEN WE GO WITH A NOT HIGH SCORING VENDOR IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE, WHY THEY MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION IF IF THIS WASN'T HOW THE SCORING CAME OUT.

SO THAT'S NOT GERMANE TO THIS SPECIFIC AMENDMENT, BUT TO THE IDEA OF PASSING THIS TODAY.

IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE COMMITTING TO A 99 YEAR LEASE FOR THE LOWEST SCORING VENDOR, WHICH SEEMS VERY STRANGE TO ME, AND I'D LOVE TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT FROM THE SELECTION COMMITTEE. FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, I WANT TO AGREE WITH YOU THAT AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS WITH THIS LANGUAGE, IT IS AUTHORIZING THE LEASE AND THE CONTRACT.

SO HYPOTHETICALLY, THEY COULD SAY, WELL, WE COULDN'T COME TO CONTRACT TERMS, BUT YOU AGREED TO LEASE THIS PROPERTY FOR 99 YEARS.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO DO WHAT WE WANT WITH IT, AND WE COULD BE EMBROILED IN A LEGAL BATTLE. I GUESS THAT'S THAT'S JUST HOW I'M READING IT AS A PERSON.

IS THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN? WE'RE DOING THAT. SO I'M CONCERNED I WILL THROW IT BACK TO THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE.

THE ONLY ISSUE I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF THIS INITIATIVE.

I JUST NOTICED HERE. THAT'S WHY I TALKED TO MY COUNTY COUNCIL ABOUT THIS CONTRACT,

[01:35:02]

THAT'S ONE THING I'M INTERESTED.

IF YOU PASS THIS AS IT'S WRITTEN, YOU'RE IN ASKING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE PURCHASING TO ENTER THIS CONTRACT. I'M NOT SURE THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO AGREE TO A 99 YEAR LEASE AND THAT. SO I WOULD WANT THAT CLEANED UP AS ALL I THINK THAT COULD BE AMENDMENT YOU COULD DO HERE. I'M NOT HERE TO SPEAK ON THE PROCESS, BUT THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT I LOOKED AT THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE GIVING ME THE AUTHORITY TO DO BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO ASK ME ABOUT IT INSTEAD OF A DIRECTOR OF FINANCE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MOTIONS, LEGISLATIVE PAGE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND THANK YOU, EVERYONE, BECAUSE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. AND I KNOW THAT EVERYONE SUPPORTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

BUT I DO THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT, BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE DONE THIS AND WE WANT TO DO IT RIGHT.

THIS VENDOR AND WAS SELECTED BECAUSE ONCE THE SITE WAS SELECTED, THIS WAS THE ONLY VENDOR THAT CHOSE TO BUILD ON THE SITE.

ONCE THAT WAS MADE KNOWN BECAUSE THIS WAS AN RFQ THAT WENT OUT, A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, BUT I WILL FOR THE AMENDMENT.

BUT WE CAN POINT OF INFORMATION.

LEGISLATOR MEGAN SMITH HAS THE $3 MILLION FOR THIS PROJECT.

HAS THAT ALREADY BEEN APPROPRIATED? YES, YES, IT IS IN THE BUDGET FOR 2026.

AND OKAY, SO IS TO BE USED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PURPOSES.

OKAY. SO MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE SO SINCE IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROPRIATED IN THE BUDGET A RESOLUTION WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP IN ORDER TO AUTHORIZE THOSE MONIES.

AND SO THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS RESOLUTION IS DOING.

SO AGAIN, BACK TO THE CONCERN THAT I STATED, WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE PROPER COMMITTEE PROCESS WE'RE ESSENTIALLY AUTHORIZING THE MONEY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROPRIATED FOR THIS PURPOSE, FOR THAT TO GO AHEAD AND BE SENT OUT TO THE DEVELOPER WITHOUT THE FULL COMMITTEE OR THE FULL LEGISLATURE HAVING DONE DUE DILIGENCE WITH CHECKS AND BALANCES.

IS THAT THAT IS ALL DEFERRED TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL IF THERE'S ANY CLARIFICATIONS THERE.

IS THE QUESTION. SO THE MONEY WAS ALREADY APPROPRIATED IN THE BUDGET.

AND THIS IS AUTHORIZING THE CONTRACT AND THE EXPENDITURE IS THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? RIGHT. I'M JUST I'M JUST GOING THROUGH THE STEPS OF FISCALLY, YOU KNOW, ONCE IT'S IN THE BUDGET, IT'S BEEN APPROPRIATED AND THE LEGISLATURE SAY, HEY, THIS IS HOW MUCH MONEY IS GOING TO WHICH LINE OF ACCOUNTING.

IN THIS CASE, IT'D BE THE $3 MILLION FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT.

SO I'M JUST I'M JUST I'M JUST SAYING OUT LOUD THE STEPS OF THE MONEY HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED.

THE $3 MILLION HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED.

SO THE NEXT STEP IN ORDER TO SPEND THAT MONEY IS TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION AND THEREFORE PASS THAT RESOLUTION. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT PASSING THIS RESOLUTION WILL THEREFORE AUTHORIZED AT $3 MILLION, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROPRIATED TO BE SENT WITHOUT THE LEGISLATURE HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS? SO ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH CONTRACTS AND, AND BEING ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE DEVELOPERS AND ALL THOSE THINGS AFTER THE FACT I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, GOING TO PROVIDE US ANY SUBSTANCE BECAUSE IN A SENSE, THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN PAID.

I'M JUST ASKING THAT WE DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE WE SEND MONEY OUT THE DOOR FOR THE PROCESS. I MEAN, LEGISLATOR SHAUN SMITH ALREADY BROUGHT UP THAT WE HAD THE LOWEST SCORER RECEIVING THE AWARD.

I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT DESERVES US TO BE ABLE TO LOOK INTO THAT AS A BODY AND HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.

BYPASSING THE COMMITTEE IS JUST IT GIVES ME CONCERN.

THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

SO THE CHAIR HAS STEPPED AWAY, SO I'M TAKING OVER FOR A MOMENT.

RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT,

[01:40:02]

WOULD WE LIKE TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT, OR WOULD WE LIKE TO MAYBE MOVE FOR A HOLD? I WAS JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. SORRY. OKAY.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD.

I DO TOO. THERE'S A MOTION AND SECOND TO HOLD.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? BY SIGN OF I, I, I, I WOULD ASK FOR A ROLL CALL.

VOTE. OKAY, WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL.

VOTE, MADAM CLERK. ANDERSON.

ABSTAIN. WHAT ARE WE VOTING ON? WE'RE VOTING TO HOLD TWO.

TWO. TWO. ONE. SIX. SEVEN.

ABSTAIN. PEYTON. NO. SMITH.

YES. IBAKA. YES. HUSKY.

YES. FRANKLIN. YES. MCGEE.

NO. LAUER. YES. SMITH.

YES. AND AGAIN I REITERATE THIS WAS THIS IS THE MOST I'M ASKING.

THIS WAS A MOTION TO HOLD ON APPROVING THE AMENDMENT.

CORRECT? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

FIVE. YES. TWO. NO. NO.

FIVE AND ONE. ABSTAIN.

SIX. YES. TWO. NO ONE.

ABSTAINING. SO WE HELD ON THE AMENDMENT AND THE CHAIR IS BACK.

THANK YOU. SORRY. SO ANY FURTHER ACTION ON I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY IN A VOTE, IF I'M CORRECT. MOVED AND SECONDED.

DISCUSSION OF. CORRECT.

CORRECT. JUST A MINUTE.

JUST AMENDMENT. OKAY, SO THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN HELD. CORRECT.

OKAY. SO WE'RE BACK INTO THE MAIN MOTION OF ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING AT THIS POINT.

MOVE TO HOLD. MOTION TO HOLD.

SOUNDS LIKE IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED.

DISCUSSION ON A HOLD. ALL RIGHT.

NONE. MADAM CLERK ANDERSON.

ABSTAIN. PEYTON. THIS IS A MOVE TO HOLD THE TWO.

TWO. ONE. SIX. SEVEN. YES.

SMITH. YES. HUSKY. YES.

FRANKLIN. YES. MCGEE. NO.

LAUER. YES. SMITH. YES.

IBAKA. YES. SEVEN. YES.

ONE. NO ONE. ABSTAINING.

LEGISLATORS. WE'LL KEEP IT, MR. CHAIR. POINT OF PRIVILEGE. YEAH.

THERE WERE SEVERAL QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED TODAY.

IF WE COULD HAVE THOSE QUESTIONS AVAILABLE TO US BEFORE WE GO INTO SESSION ON MONDAY, I WOULD TRULY APPRECIATE THAT SO THAT WE CAN GET ANSWERS FROM THE PROPER DEPARTMENTS AND SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE INCLUDE ALL OF THESE CONCERNS AND ISSUES.

GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO RESOLUTION 22168.

[A RESOLUTION authorizing the Jackson County Legislature to hold a closed meeting on Monday, February 2, 2026, for the purpose of conducting privileged and confidential communications under section 610.021(12) of the Revised Statutes of Missouri and closing all records prepared for discussion at said meeting.]

IN REFERENCE TO NEGOTIATIONS IS WHAT I'LL SAY.

AND I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS EFFORT SO WE CAN HEAR ANY PRUDENT UPDATES FOR VERY IMPORTANT MATTERS RELATING TO THINGS THAT WE OWN.

MOVE TO ADOPT. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY THE SIGN OF I, I I ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

OKAY. WE WILL HAVE TO RETURN BECAUSE WE DO HAVE ONE ADD ON, APPARENTLY. OH. GO AHEAD.

YEAH. NO, NO, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. YEP. THANK YOU. YEAH.

THANK YOU. SORRY. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING INTO CLOSED SESSION MEETING.

[AN ORDINANCE appropriating $20,683.00 within the 2026 General Fund and awarding a contract to LCPtracker of Orange, CA, for an additional single software package for use by the Compliance Review Office for non-profit partnership grants, at an actual cost to the County in the amount of $20,683.00, as a sole source purchase.]

APPROPRIATING $20,683 WITHIN THE 2026 GENERAL FUND AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO LCP TRACKER OF ORANGE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA, FOR AN ADDITIONAL SINGLE SOFTWARE PACKAGE FOR USE BY THE COMPLIANCE REVIEW OFFICE FOR NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP GRANTS AND AN ACTUAL COST TO THE COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,683 AS A SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE INTRODUCED BY CHARLIE FRANKLIN. OKAY I'LL ASK OUR DIRECTOR OF COMPLIANCE TO COME UP AS WELL TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THIS. THIS IS LEGISLATION THAT WAS NECESSITATED BY OUR NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP GRANTS AND PER OUR WONDERFUL COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR, MISS BOWLING. I'LL LET HER TAKE IT OVER FROM THERE.

MELINDA. BOWLING COMPLIANCE REVIEW. THE NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP GRANTS LED TO ABOUT 67

[01:45:09]

WE CURRENTLY USE LCP TRACKER FOR OUR PROJECTS, AS WELL AS THE JAIL. AND THE EASIEST WAY TO CONTINUE USING LCP TRACKER TO DO THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR THE NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP GRANTS.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR MISS BOWLING? VICE CHAIR WATTS. SO WE USE IT TODAY.

WHAT'S THE INCREMENTAL COST? ARE WE PLANNING TO ADD ANSWERS TO THE SYSTEM, OR IS IT BASED ON A NUMBER OF CONTRACTS? HAVE TO BE A USER. EACH AGENCY IS A USER.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S INCURRING THE EXTRA $20,000 IN COSTS.

UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THAT.

MISS BOLLING, DO YOU WANT TO SAY WHY IT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT OUR CURRENT PROCESS IS IN TERMS OF SEPARATION OF THESE VERSUS OUR COUNTY PROJECTS? THAT WAS ANOTHER GOAL YOU HAD SUGGESTED? YES. SO THE AGENCIES WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING IN THE PAYROLLS AS WELL AS MONITORING THEM.

BUT ON TOP OF THAT, THE COMPLIANCE REVIEW OFFICE ALSO HAS TO MONITOR.

AND THIS WILL BE KEPT SEPARATE FROM OUR PARK PROJECTS OR COUNTY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

AND SO YOU CAN ISOLATE THESE SPECIFIC GRANT APPLICANTS TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

SO YES. SO YES. ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS.

YES. POINT OF INFORMATION, LEGISLATOR SMITH, WHEN DID WE REALIZE THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE WERE WE WOULD NEED? SO WHEN WAS IT REALIZED WE DIDN'T KNOW? HOW MANY PROJECTS WERE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WE WOULD NEED? LCP DOES CHARGE BY THE AMOUNT THAT YOU THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT YOU ARE USING THAT YOU ARE TRACKING. SO WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE UNTIL AFTER THE RESOLUTION PASSED.

WHAT AFTER WHICH RESOLUTION PASSED? SO THE 31ST OF DECEMBER, I WANT TO SAY WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T DO THIS? IT IS A MISSOURI STATE LAW THAT WE DO THIS.

CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? OKAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE MIC IS. I'M SORRY.

IT'S A STATE LAW THAT WE THAT WE MONITOR THIS PREVAILING WAGE.

AND WE KNEW DECEMBER 31ST THAT WE WOULD BE ASKED TO APPROPRIATE TO OUR 2026 BUDGET, AN ADDITIONAL 20,000 PLUS DOLLARS.

WE KNEW THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IT.

WE DID NOT KNOW THE AMOUNT.

AFTER THE AWARDS WERE GIVEN IN THAT RESOLUTION, WE THEN HAD TO ASK THE AGENCIES TO READJUST THEIR BUDGETS TO FIT THEIR AWARD AMOUNTS.

AND THEN THAT TOOK A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO GET THOSE BACK IN.

AND THEN WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE TOTAL AMOUNT TO TO ASK FOR A QUOTE.

YEAH. OKAY.

SO YOU SAID WHEN THE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED. WHAT RESOLUTION? WHAT RESOLUTION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I'M TRYING TO JUST FOLLOW THE THE PAPER TRAIL HERE. SORRY. NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP GRANTS, WHICH WAS PASSED ON THE 31ST OF DECEMBER.

WE THEN ASKED THE AGENCIES TO REDO THEIR BUDGETS BECAUSE ALMOST I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WAS FULLY FUNDED. SO THEY HAD TO TELL US HOW THEY WANTED TO SPEND THAT MONEY.

AND WE DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL AFTER THEY TURNED THOSE IN, WHICH WAS ABOUT TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT, HOW MUCH THE ACTUAL DOLLAR FIGURE THAT WE WOULD BE NEEDING LCP TRACKER FOR.

THAT'S HOW THEY CHARGE. OKAY, THAT'S MY QUESTION.

SO OKAY, SO I UNDERSTAND YOU KNEW 31ST DECEMBER THAT SOMETHING WOULD BE REQUIRED.

WHEN DID THE NUMBER COME? WHEN DID THE AMOUNT COME? ABOUT TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT.

MAYBE YOU GOT THE THREE.

YOU GOT THIS NUMBER LAST WEEK THOUGH, DIDN'T YOU? YES. YEAH. WE JUST RECEIVED THE QUOTE BACK FROM LCP TRACKER LAST WEEK.

OKAY. SO LAST WEEK IS WHEN YOU WERE MADE AWARE THAT THE $20,683 NEEDED TO BE APPROPRIATED FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

YES. TO TO BACKFILL THIS LCP TRACKER.

YES. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? THOUGHTS? OKAY. SEEING NONE, MADAM CLERK.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION? OH.

FAIR ENOUGH. SEEKING A MOTION TO ADOPT.

OH, WE DID HAVE A I'M SORRY.

I BELIEVE IT WAS. WE DID?

[01:50:02]

MOVE TO ADOPT. THANK YOU.

SECOND. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE $20,000 FOR THE VENDOR THAT WE.

FOR PERFECTION. THIS ONE MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE.

SO THERE'S A MOTION BY SHAUN.

YES. SECOND BY ME. A SECOND.

OH, OKAY. OKAY. OH. I'M SORRY.

GO AHEAD. NO. ANDERSON, I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR.

SINCE THIS IS AN ADD ON, IF WE TRY TO ADOPT THIS TODAY.

WHAT WHAT DO WE NEED TO COUNCIL? I JUST CHECKED, AND IT IS ON THE POSTED ONLINE AGENDA.

OH, IT IS OKAY. WELL THEN WE'RE GUCCI, AS YOU CAN SAY.

OKAY. GO AHEAD. AND. THE KIDS.

LEGISLATOR ANDERSON AND BELOW IS 67.

I'M NOT SURE I TAKE THAT BACK.

IT WAS JUST POSTED PRIOR TO THE OH NINE GUCCI.

IT WAS POSTED THIS AFTERNOON.

YEAH. OKAY. SO IT IS NOT IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE PERFECTING IT.

SO IT WILL REQUIRE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OR TO WAIT UNTIL NEXT WEEK.

CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION OF OUR.

SO. IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS TEED UP THIS WEEK, IS IT IS IT CATASTROPHIC IN TERMS OF YOUR ABILITY TO GET THESE CONTRACTS LINED UP? IF WE ARE TRYING TO GET TRAINING TO THE AGENCIES AS QUICK AS WE CAN.

THERE'S A MARCH 1ST DEADLINE TO THE AGENCIES TO HAVE ALL OF THEIR DOCUMENTATION TURNED IN THAT WAS SET BY CONTRACTS? YES, THAT'S IN THE CONTRACT.

SO WE WERE TRYING TO GET THE TRAINING OUT QUICKLY SO THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. SO I THINK SOME OF THE AGENCIES PROBABLY ARE NOT REALISTIC HOW MUCH WORK THIS IS. OKAY. I WOULD OFFER EVEN THOUGH NO ONE ASKED, THAT WAS A COUNTY IMPOSED DEADLINE.

IF IF THERE WAS A DESIRE BY THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE LEGISLATURE TO DO SO, WE COULD EXTEND THAT TO MAYBE MARCH 15TH OR SOMETHING.

SINCE IT IS OUR OWN. WE CAN DEFINITELY REVISIT THAT IF THAT'S AN ISSUE.

OKAY. I WOULD ASK COLLEAGUES TO PERFECT TODAY.

WE CAN ADOPT TOMORROW. NO, IT'S IT'S JUST IT'S ADOPT O JUST ADOPT.

SO MOVED. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADOPT STAKES.

UNANIMOUS. IS THAT WHAT WE DECIDED? YEAH, I WOULD SAY LET'S DON'T DO THAT.

BUT YOU CAN WITHDRAW. I'LL WITHDRAW.

ALRIGHT, WELL, YOU CAN TRY TO GET IT APPROVED NEXT WEEK.

ALRIGHT, SO WE'LL HOLD ANY OBJECTIONS? GREAT. JUST WITHDRAWING MY LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE.

YEAH, LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE. I JUST WITHDREW MY MOTION TO ADOPT.

IT'S NOT MY LEGISLATION, I CAN'T WITHDRAW. ALRIGHT.

COUNTY EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

[EO 26-02 Appointments-Reappointments CSF]

APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE CHILDREN'S SERVICES FUND. BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

AMY HARRIS IS HEREBY REAPPOINTED TO COMPLETE HER TERM.

HER CURRENT TERM AS A DISTRICT ONE DIRECTOR, WHICH IS SET TO EXPIRE ON MARCH 31ST, 2027. HER RESUME IS ATTACHED.

BRIAN CAROLINE IS HEREBY REAPPOINTED TO FINISH HIS CURRENT TERM AS THE DIRECTOR.

AS THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR, WHICH IS SET TO EXPIRE ON MARCH 31ST, 2027. HIS RESUME IS ATTACHED.

MONICA MEEKS IS HEREBY REAPPOINTED TO A SUCCESSIVE TERM AS THE DISTRICT SIX DIRECTOR, WHICH IS SET TO EXPIRE ON MARCH 31ST, 2029.

HER RESUME IS ATTACHED.

JUDY MORGAN IS HEREBY REAPPOINTED TO FINISH HER CURRENT TERM AS DISTRICT ONE DIRECTOR, WHICH IS SET TO EXPIRE ON MARCH 31ST, 2028.

MISS MORGAN'S RESUME IS ATTACHED.

DANIEL NELSON IS HEREBY REAPPOINTED TO A SUCCESSIVE TERM AS DIRECTOR.

AS DISTRICT DIRECTOR, AS DISTRICT ONE DIRECTOR, WHICH IS SET TO EXPIRE ON MARCH 31ST, 2029.

HIS RESUME IS ATTACHED.

JESSICA RAMIREZ IS HEREBY REAPPOINTED TO FINISH HER CURRENT TERM AS THE DISTRICT FIVE DIRECTOR, WHICH IS SET TO EXPIRE ON MARCH 31ST, 2028. HER RESUME IS ATTACHED.

RALPH TURAN IS HEREBY REAPPOINTED TO FINISH HIS CURRENT TERM AS DISTRICT ONE DIRECTOR, WHICH IS SET TO EXPIRE ON MARCH 31ST, 2028.

HIS RESUME IS ATTACHED.

ANITA J TEMPLETON IS HEREBY REAPPOINTED TO A NEW TERM AS DISTRICT FOUR DIRECTOR.

THIS APPOINTMENT FILLS A PREVIOUSLY VACANT SEAT, AND THE TERM IS SET TO EXPIRE ON MARCH 31ST, 2029.

HER RESUME IS ATTACHED.

SHEREE HONEYCUTT IS HEREBY APPOINTED TO A NEW TERM AS THE DISTRICT TWO DIRECTOR.

THIS APPOINTMENT FILLS A PREVIOUSLY VACANT SEAT AND THE TERM IS SET TO EXPIRE ON MARCH.

I'M SORRY ON JANUARY 31ST, 2029.

HER RESUME IS ATTACHED.

[EO 26-03 Frazier Oil]

THIS IS FOR FRAZIER OIL TO PROVIDE GASOLINE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $90,000 FOR

[01:55:07]

NEXT ONE IS 2600 FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH FUND.

[EO 26-04 Appointment Community Mental Health Fund]

CRYSTAL HART JOHNSON IS HEREBY APPOINTED TO A NEW TERM SET TO EXPIRE JANUARY 31ST, 2029. THE SEAT WAS PREVIOUSLY VACANT.

MISS AND MISS HART JOHNSON'S RESUME IS ATTACHED.

CAN I INQUIRE THE EXECUTIVE MR. EXECUTIVE EMERGENCY PURCHASE OF GASOLINE? IS THAT IS.

CONTRACTS. UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

[13 UNFINISHED BUSINESS]

[14 NEW BUSINESS]

THERE SHOULD BE NOT BE ANY LEGISLATION NEEDED TO VOTE ON THIS CONCLUSION.

WE WILL RETURN TO ADJOURN IMMEDIATELY AFTER.

IF I COULD ACTUALLY. BEFORE WE DO THAT JUST MAKE ONE QUICK STATEMENT.

I HAVE ASKED MARY JO AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO PROVIDE US WITH A HOME RULE CHARTER.

I ASKED YOU ALL TO TRULY GO BACK AND REVIEW THIS CHARTER.

I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE ARE A VERY POWERFUL BODY THAT WE SHOULD EMPOWER OURSELVES TO BE AND NOT TO JUST ENCOUNTER OF ANYTHING WHAT THE EXECUTIVE IS.

I GLAD THAT WE HAVE AND HERE BUT I WANT US TO FEEL THAT AUTHORITY AND UNDERSTAND THAT OUR, OUR ABILITIES ARE VERY BEST.

I THINK THIS LAST ADMINISTRATION, PARTICULARLY, HAS DIMINISHED OUR LEGISLATIVE POWERS AND MADE US BELIEVE THAT WE ARE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT, AND WE HAVE SEVERAL.

11. IN FACT, PAGES IN THIS BOOK THAT I THINK IT'S TIME FOR US TO REVIEW AND WORK COLLABORATIVELY IN THAT WAY. SO WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY, LET'S GO HEAR ABOUT SOME POTENTIAL NEGOTIATIONS.

WE'LL ADJOURN UNTIL WE.

OKAY. I'M GONNA STAND RIGHT HERE. WE WILL RECALL RE ADJOURN.

THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE MEETING IS SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9TH, 2026, AT 3 P.M. AT THE EASTERN JACKSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE, EIGHT WEST KANSAS, INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI GROUND FLOOR LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS. IS THERE A MOTION TO

[15 ADJOURNMENT]

SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? WE ARE ADJOURNED.

THANK.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.