[00:00:01]
THE TIME IS 1 0 7 AND I AM CALLING THE BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING TO ORDER.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN GETTING THIS MEETING STARTED.
WE HAVE WITH US COMMITTEE MEMBERS, JAYLEN ANDERSON, VANESSA HUSKY, AND DERON MCGEE.
[RESOLUTIONS IN COMMITTEE]
[A RESOLUTION authorizing the County Executive to execute Cooperative Agreements with certain outside agencies that provide public health related and other public services to citizens of Jackson County, at an aggregate cost to the County not to exceed $3,000,000.00.]
THE PURPOSE OF THIS SPECIAL MEETING IS TO DISCUSS RESOLUTION 2 2 2 0 4.UM, AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS DISCUSS, UM, RESOLUTION 2 2 2 0 4.
LET ME BEGIN BY SAYING THAT, UH, I AM VERY THANKFUL TO BELINDA BOWLING WHO HAS WORKED WITH ME TIRELESSLY,
AND THIS LIST IS BEING PRESENTED TODAY AS AN AMENDMENT.
SO HOW DO WE GET TO AN AMENDED VERSION? UM, IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE BUDGET CHAIR'S ATTENTION THAT ONE OF OUR LEGISLATORS HAD NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT A LIST BECAUSE DURING THAT TIME, UM, THERE WERE REASONS THAT, UM, MEDICAL REASONS THAT PROHIBITED HIM FROM DOING SO.
AND, UM, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE CHAIR OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT, UM, WE HEAR FROM AS MANY VOICES AS POSSIBLE.
SO WE EXTENDED A TIMEFRAME FROM OUR LAST MEETING UNTIL FOUR O'CLOCK ON TUESDAY FOR ANY LIST TO BE SUBMITTED.
AND ANYONE THAT HAD NOT SUBMITTED A COMPLETE LIST FOR THEM TO SUBMIT THE COMPLETE LIST, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, I AM BEING VERY TRANSPARENT IN, UM, HOW WE GOT THERE.
SO EACH OF YOU HAVE ALSO BEEN, UM, PROVIDED WITH A LIST OF THOSE AGENCIES THAT WE PRESENTED AS A LIST WITH THE PREVIOUS CALCULATION FOR FUNDING, UM, OF THAT $3 MILLION.
AND YOU ALSO HAVE, AND THAT'S CALLED OPTION ONE.
AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE AN AMENDMENT.
AND YOU HAVE BEEN EMAILED THE LIST OF WHAT WE ARE REFERRING TO AS OPTION TWO.
SO I, AND I KNOW THAT THIS CAME OUT LATE, IT CAME OUT AS SOON AS WE WERE ABLE TO GET IT OFF THE PRESS, BUT I HOPE THAT EVERYONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT BOTH LISTS.
I WILL ASSURE YOU THAT EVERY, TO MY, THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,
THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY EIGHT ADDITIONS TO OPTION TWO.
WHEN YOU'RE CALCULATING THE FUNDING PER THE AMENDMENT.
YOU ALSO HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, UM, SOME CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
MOUNTAINTOP INC IS A CONFLICT FOR ME.
UM, SO I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO VOTE ON THE AMENDED VERSION OF THE LIST.
AND, UM, CALVARY COMMUNITY OUTREACH NETWORK AND GREATER KC LINK IS A CONFLICT FOR ANOTHER LEGISLATOR.
SO THESE THREE ORGANIZATIONS WILL BE PRESENTED AS TWO SEPARATE RESOLUTIONS BEING NEWLY INTRODUCED AT OUR MEETING ON MONDAY.
BUT IT IS MY HOPE THAT WE CAN, UM, DISCUSS RESOLUTION 2 2 2 0 4 AND REVIEW THE AMENDED VERSION.
HAVE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT AND VOTE.
UM, THIS OUT OF THE COMMITTEE AS APPROVED IS MY HOPE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, BUT IS MY HOPE I'M OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
OR CAN WE HAVE, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE AMENDMENT? USUALLY DISCUSSION COMES AFTER THE MOTION.
DID WE, UH, MOVE TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT MIC, PLEASE? COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE MIC? I WOULD MOVE THAT WE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT, UH, AS PRESENTED.
CAN I SEEK A LITTLE CLARITY JUST SO I'M, ARE WE VOTING ON THIS ONE? ON THE TWO? TWO, THANK YOU.
UM, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
ALL IN FAVOR? OH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE DISCUSS, EXCUSE DISCUSSION.
UM, I WANTED TO, UM, MADAM CHAIR, I WANTED TO ASK, UM, HOW, UH, I KNOW YOU HAVE YOUR CALCULATIONS THAT YOU HAD PUT FORWARD, UH, ON MONDAY, AND I JUST WANTED TO ASK, UM, WHAT WERE, WERE THOSE THE SAME CALCULATIONS THAT YOU DID FOR THIS SECOND ROUND? THEY WERE NOT, BECAUSE WHEN THE LIST CHANGED MORE WEIGHT AS FAR AS THE CALCULATIONS WAS GIVEN TO THOSE ORGANIZATIONS, ONCE THE NEW LIST WAS PRESENTED TO THOSE THAT HAVE FOUR OR MORE LEGISLATORS THAT WANTED TO FUND THAT, UH, ORGANIZATION AND THREE OR MORE SO BECAUSE OF THAT HEAVIER WEIGHT, WE DID RECALCULATE.
BUT AS I SAID, I ASSURE YOU THAT EVERY ORGANIZATION FROM THE FIRST LIST IS ON THIS SECOND LIST.
[00:05:01]
AND SO WHEN THE DEDUCTIONS WERE DONE, WHAT WAS THE, LIKE WITH THE DIFFERENT DEDUCTIONS, HOW DID THAT COME ABOUT? WITH THE DIFFERENT DEDUCTIONS FROM DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY, THAT ARE STILL ON THE LIST, BUT THAT THEY RECEIVED A DEDUCTION? UH, BECAUSE THE CALCULATION CHANGED THE CAL.UH, BECAUSE THE CALCULATION CHANGED.
WE TOOK THEIR ASK AMOUNT AND GAVE THEM, ACCORDING TO THE CALCULATIONS, UM, DID YOU HIT THIS, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS INDICATED.
AND THOSE CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT.
AND, UM, CAN I GET A, I SEE LEGISLATOR, MEGAN SMITH'S HAND IS UP ON THE, OH, I'M SORRY, TEAM.
LEGISLATOR SMITH AND LEGISLATOR MEGAN SMITH.
YEAH, WELL I DIDN'T, I I JUST RAISED MY, I KNOW I'M NOT ON THE COMMITTEE, SO I APPRECIATE YOU LETTING ME CHIME IN.
UM, JUST A FISCAL QUESTION, 'CAUSE I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE TO BE, UH, PIECEMEALED OUT SO THAT UM, THOSE WHO HAVE CONFLICTS, YOU KNOW, CAN VOTE FOR EITHER ONE.
UM, BUT ON THE, THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU ALL HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU WHERE IT SAYS THE UM, AMOUNT IS NOT TO EXCEED OR THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS, UH, 2,905,000, UM, SHOULD NOT THE FISCAL NOTE MATCH THAT? 'CAUSE THE FISCAL NOTE SAYS NOT TO EXCEED 3 MILLION.
SO THAT KIND OF GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT 95,000 CAN STILL BE PUT INTO THAT SPECIFIC RESOLUTION SOME KIND OF WAY.
SO JUST A FISCAL QUESTION, RIGHT.
IF SOMEBODY'S IN THE ROOM TO ANSWER THAT RIGHT.
I DID MENTION, AND I DID NOT, I MAY NOT HAVE MENTIONED THE AMOUNTS THAT THERE WERE THREE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT WE TOOK MM-HMM
UH, ONE WAS 55,001 WAS 40,000.
LET ME MAKE SURE ONE WAS 55,000.
THE OTHER REQUEST WAS 40,000 THAT WE WERE INTRODUCE AS SEPARATE, UM, LEGISLATION NOW.
AND I DO APOLOGIZE, LEGISLATOR SMITH, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION OR CAN YOU ASK, DID YOU HEAR WHAT YOU SAID SAYING? I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT.
I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD CATCH ACTUALLY.
NOT ACTUALLY, OF COURSE IT WAS A GOOD CATCH.
LEGISLATOR SMITH
THE REMAINING AMOUNT WILL BE IN THOSE OTHER TWO.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE MOVE QUICKLY? OKAY.
REPEAT, DO WE NEED TO? AND THEN ON, SO ON PAGE ONE AND THE TITLE, AND THEN ON PAGE SIX IN THE FISCAL NOTE, UM, 2,905,000 WILL BE THE, THE AMOUNT.
LEGISLATOR SMITH, UH, WE HAVE, UM, VOTED TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT.
DO WE NEED TO AMEND THE AMENDED? GO AHEAD AND HAVE, I WOULD RECOMMEND HAVING A VOTE TO ACCEPT, ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT OF THOSE CHANGES AND THEN YOU CAN VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU SO MUCH LEGISLATOR SMITH.
I DO APPRECIATE THAT IMMENSELY BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN RUNNING AROUND
UM, I'D LIKE THE CHAIR IS SEEKING A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CORRECTED AMENDMENT.
JUST TO INQUIRE OF, OF OUR COUNSEL IS SHOULD IT BE THAT WE GO BACK TO THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS JUST PASSED OR HOW WHAT, BECAUSE NOW WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT, IT'S JUST ANOTHER AMENDMENT YOU CAN CONTINUE TO AMEND.
SO IT'S JUST A NEW A THAT WE CHANGE THAT JUST THE REASON WHY I ASK IS THAT SINCE IT'S NOT ON THE ACTUAL BILL, WE HAVEN'T PUT IT ON THERE.
SO CAN WE AMEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT? WE'RE AMENDING A CORRECTION AND I DO HAVE A WRITTEN VERSION SINCE ASKED TO BE IN WRITING.
I'VE WRITTEN, UM, INSTEAD OF 3 MILLION, IT WILL SAY NOT TO EXCEED 2,905,000 ON THE TITLE.
AND THEN ON PAGE SIX IT WILL SAY NOT TO EXCEED 2,905,000.
SO IS THIS THE CORRECTED AMENDED? CORRECT.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND, UH, THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS JUST PASSED TO ADD 2 MILLION TO CORRECT THE LINE ITEM THAT SAYS $3 MILLION THAT IT'LL NOW SAY $2,905,000 ON PAGE ONE AND PAGE SIX.
AND ON PAGE SIX, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
COULD WE GET A SECOND? I APPRECIATE SECOND.
THE AMENDMENT, UM, HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY
[00:10:01]
THIS COMMITTEE.THE CHAIR WILL NOW ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CORRECTED AMENDED VERSION OF 2 2 2 0 4.
I MOVE THAT WE WILL ACCEPT THAT WE WILL, UM, MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION 2 2 2 0 4 AS AMENDED.
AND OPPOSED? THANK YOU SO MUCH.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, MY VOTE WAS AYE.
ON EVERY VOTE THAT WE HAD AS WELL.
IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, I WANT TO THANK NOT ONLY THIS COMMITTEE, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I, AGAIN, THANK MELINDA BOWLING AND THANK ALL OF THE LEGISLATORS FOR ALLOWING US TO HAVE A PROCESS THAT IS TRANSPARENT, THAT INCORPORATES EVERYONE'S VOICES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION.