* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] IT IS 2 0 6 AND IT'S TIME FOR THE, UH, MEETING OF THE 9 1 1 OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. I'M JEANNE LAUER AND I'M THE CHAIR I HAVE WITH ME LEGISLATORS, SEAN SMITH AND JAYLEN ANDERSON. AND LEGISLATOR FRANKLIN, WOULD YOU JOIN IN AS WELL? SURE. THANK YOU. [6136 AN ORDINANCE appropriating $377,492.00 from the undesignated fund balance of the 2026 E-911 System Fund and authorizing the County Executive to execute agreements for assignment of 911 funds with certain municipalities within Jackson County and awarding a contract for technology services to Carahsoft Technology Solutions of Reston, VA as a sole source purchase at a cost to the County not to exceed $4,277,492.00.] YEAH. BEFORE US, UM, ORDINANCE 6 1 3 6, AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING THREE, UH, 377. UM, A $492 FROM THE UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE OF THE 2 20 26 E 9 1 1 SYSTEM FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR ASSIGNMENT OF 9 1 1 FUNDS WITH CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN JACKSON COUNTY AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR TECHNOLOGY SERVICES TO CARESOFT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS OF RESTON, VIRGINIA AS A SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER PURCHASE, AND A COST TO THE COUNTY NOT TO EXCEED FOR 1,000,200 $77,497. SO, MR. EXECUTIVE, WOULD YOU KICK IN? I'D LOVE TO MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I HAVE A COPY OF THE AMENDED, UM, ORDINANCE, IF WE COULD PASS THAT OUT. UM, LET LOWRY YOU THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE FIRST DRAFT OF THIS CAME AROUND. UM, YOU HAD SOME, SOME, UH, ISSUES THAT WE WANTED TO RAISE AND WE'VE ADDED THIS TO THE AMENDMENT. SO LET ME JUST, LEMME BRIEFLY GO THROUGH AND GIVE A LITTLE HISTORY OF WHERE WE ARE WITH THE 9 1 1 FUND. OKAY. SO WE ALL KNOW, UM, THE START OF THIS YEAR, EXCUSE ME, WE HAD APPROXIMATELY 15 $4.4 MILLION IN THE 9 1 1 FUNDING. I'M SORRY, HOW MUCH FIF? 15.4 MILLION. OKAY. CURRENTLY, THAT WAS WHAT WE HAD AT THE, THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR. OKAY. WE FOUND OUT THAT $7.4 MILLION OF THAT IS KANSAS CITY'S PORTION OF THAT THAT WE COLLECT. THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF THIS BODY RIGHT NOW IS TO SPEND 4.3 MILLION, AND I WANNA GO GET BACK TO THAT IN A MINUTE, BUT THAT'S GONNA LEAVE $3.1 MILLION LEFT. SO IF WE, AND WHAT I, I AM PROPOSING THAT WE DO IN THE FUTURE AFTER WE GET THIS PASSED IS START ANOTHER ROUND AND HAVE APPLICATIONS FOR EVERYBODY IN JACKSON COUNTY. ANYONE, ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WANT TO APPLY FOR THE REMAINING 3.1. WE DO THAT IN THE NEXT ROUND OF THIS. AFTER THIS GETS PASSED, SPECIFICALLY THIS ORDINANCE IS DEALING WITH, UM, I I WANNA SAY, UH, FOUR DIFFERENT AGENCIES. AND NUMBER ONE IS SUGAR CREEK, WHICH IS, UH, THE RADIOS. THEY, UH, HAD SOME RADIOS AT 140,000 AND THEN NEW NEWER ONES AT 175,000. AND WE SAID, HOW ABOUT WE GIVE YOU 1 52 AND YOU MAKE A DIFFERENCE? AND THEY SAID, FANTASTIC. THE OTHER ONE'S THE CITY OF BUCKNER FOR THEIR 9 1 1 NEEDS OF $145,000. THEN THE NEXT ONE IS THE CITY OF LEE SUMMIT, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S TO THE CITY OF THE SUMMIT. BUT THE CITY OF LEE SUMMIT IS DOING, I DON'T WANNA SAY, UH, A DUPLICATE, BUT A BACKUP 9 1 1 PROCESSING CENTER THAT IT WOULD BE, UH, EFFECTIVE TO ALL OF EASTERN JACKSON COUNTY IN CASE SOMETHING WOULD GO AWRY WITH THEIRS AND IT CAN, HAS THE ABILITY TO TAKE CARE OF ALL OF EASTERN JACKSON COUNTY. AND THEN THE FINAL ONE IS PEREGRINE. AND PEREGRINE IS THE SOFTWARE THAT ALL THE POLICE AGENCIES ARE CURRENTLY USING FROM KANSAS CITY AND LEE SUMMIT, WHERE THEY SHARE TECHNOLOGY. WE HAD SOMEONE COME IN HERE A COUPLE MONTHS AGO TO KINDA SHARE THAT WITH YOU. UH, FOR EXAMPLE, IF, UH, A KANSAS CITY POLICE OFFICER WRITES A REPORT AND HE PUTS DOWN, I RAN INTO SOMEONE NAMED, AND I ALWAYS USE THIS 'CAUSE IT WAS FROM MY OLD CASES, A GUY NAMED POOKY AND HE HAD A, A NECK TATTOO THAT LOOKED LIKE THIS. HE JUST PUTS IT IN HIS REPORT. ALL THAT STUFF SCANNED IN AND ANY ANY POLICE AGENCY WANTS TO DEAL WITH THAT PUNCHES INTO THERE, HEY, UH, NECK TATTOO NAMED POOKIE, AND IT POPS UP AND THERE ARE SOME AMAZING STORIES OF HOW IT'S HELPING LAW ENFORCEMENT, UH, BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN THAT. SO IN THIS ROUND, THIS WOULD INCLUDE, UH, ADDING THE JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE RAYTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE BLUE SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE INDEPENDENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE GRANDVIEW POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE GRAND VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND THE JACKSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO HAVE A ONE YEAR SUBSCRIPTION TO THE PEREGRINE SYSTEM. UM, WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HELP THEM DO IT ALL OF THEIR POLICE AGENCIES, THE CAPTAINS, THE CHIEFS, AND UH, THE MANAGEMENT LIKED IT. THEY WEREN'T SURE HOW THEY'D FIND THE MONEY TO START FUNDING IT FIRST. SO THIS PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF YOU IS TO FUND IT FOR ONE YEAR FOR ALL THOSE AGENCIES. AND AFTER THAT THEY'RE DONE. I MEAN, IF THEY, THEY CAN ALWAYS COME BACK TO THIS BODY AND ASK FOR MORE MONEY OF COURSE, BUT WE CAN GET 'EM STARTED. THEY CAN SEE THE BENEFITS OF THIS AND THEY WOULD GET STARTED AND, AND FOR THE NEXT YEAR MOVING FORWARD. SO THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE FIRST UH, UH, DRAFT OF THIS LEGISLATION DIDN'T SHOW THAT. AND SO LEGISLATIVE LIAR BROUGHT THAT TO OUR ATTENTION. LIKE, LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHO ALL IS INVOLVED AND MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW, [00:05:01] UH, WHO'S GETTING THE BENEFIT OF THIS. AND THAT'S GOOD. AND THEN ALSO, UH, WE MENTIONED THAT LISA WAS ALREADY CURRENTLY PARTICIPATING AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT LISTED IN THERE. AND THEN ALSO FINALLY IN WITH THE AMENDMENT WE'VE ADDED IS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS JUST ONLY FOR ONE YEAR. SO THAT'S KIND OF AN OVERVIEW OF THIS. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, I NOTICED THAT THE, YOU CHANGED THE AMOUNT FROM 377 TO 400 AND, UH, 84. WHAT, WHAT IS THAT ABOUT? THAT IS ACTUALLY TAKING, WE DIDN'T DISCUSS THAT. YEAH, THAT'S TAKING THE, THE, THE JUST MOVING FUNDS AND IT'S JUST THE MINUSCULE, I SAY MINUSCULE, IT'S 377,000 OF THE 4.2 MILLION. WE HAVE AN E NINE ONE SYSTEMS FUND AND A 9 1 1 INITIATIVES. IT'S JUST MOVING THE, THE OVERAGE OF THE THREE, OF THE FOUR, APPROXIMATELY $400,000 FROM ONE FUND TO THE OTHER FUND TO BE ABLE TO ADD UP TO 4.2. IT'S NOT ANY, I'M SORRY. WHY THE TOTAL WOULD CHANGE THAT MUCH FOR 500,000 FROM 3 77 TO 4 84? YEAH. I, I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT NUMBER IS, IS EXACTLY DIFFERENT THERE. I KNOW THAT, THAT WHEN THEY WENT BACK TO DO IT, I KNOW THAT THEY WERE ADDING THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE IN THIS LAST AMENDMENT. THEY DID NOT HAVE THAT. AND I CAN GIVE YOU SOME MORE INFORMATION YEAH. OF WHY THAT IS, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ADD UP. 'CAUSE EVEN ON PAGE TWO, UH, WHERE YOU HAVE, UM, THE TOTAL RECOMMENDATIONS I, BEFORE, BEFORE IT COMES TO THE 4,000,003, THERE'S 4 MILLION 2, 7 7. SO I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU'RE EVEN ASKING FOR MORE THAN WHAT THE ACTUAL IS. YOU'RE EXACTLY. I'LL, I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO MY DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSELOR WHEN THAT PUT TOGETHER. DOES THAT NUMBERS CHANGE MAKE SENSE TO YOU? BECAUSE THE, WE HAVE ONE SOME IN BRACKETS AND SOME HERE YOU GO. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE EXTRA 400,000 PLUS IS COMING FROM OR WHERE THAT'S AT OR WHERE IN THAT LIST. IT, IT'S BEEN ADDED. IT IS WHITNEY MILLER AT THE COUNTY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE. SO PREVIOUSLY WE WERE TRANSFERRING 377 AND FROM THE UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE TO INTERGOVERNMENT AGREEMENTS AND NOW WE ARE TRANSFERRING 484,000. SO IT'S NOT AN ADDITIONAL 484,000 IF THAT'S THE QUESTION. THE, THE DIFFERENCE IS THE AMOUNT BETWEEN 484,000 AND THE 377,000. AND THAT IS BECAUSE WE ADDED THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE TO THAT AMOUNT. UM, WHICH ADDED THEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT DOESN'T, WHY THAT DOESN'T MATCH PAGE TWO, WHICH PA I WAS LOOKING AT PAGE TWO. WHICH PAGE WERE YOU LOOKING AT? WELL, PAGE ONE HAS THE 484 AND THE PAGE TWO HAS 4 34. 3 84, 4 84. I AM ALMOST TO THE POINT OF CHECKING THE MATH AND MAKING IT MAKE SENSE OR NOT. SO, SO I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE ORDINANCE SAYS 484 3 42. YES. AND THEN PAGE TWO SAYS 484 3 42, BUT THERE'S SOMEWHERE ELSE YOU'RE SEEING IT DIFFERENT. THE TOP OF PAGE TWO, IT HAS TOTAL RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURES OKAY. OF 4.384. SO THAT IS AN INCREASE BECAUSE WE ADDED, UM, FOR THE PEREGRINE CARESOFT, THEY ADDED MONEY FOR THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY. SO IT WENT FROM 7 0 4 TO EIGHT 10. OKAY. SO IT SHOULD BE THAT THESE FOUR LINES ADD UP. THE, THE DIFFERENCE IS $106,000, $106,850. SO THAT'S THE CHANGE IN WHAT THE JOURNAL ENTRY SHOWS AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO. MM-HMM . THAT'S THE SAME AS THE CHANGE IN THE GRAND TOTAL. AND THAT'S THE SAME AS THE CHANGE IN THE 7 0 4 VERSUS EIGHT 10 FOR PEREGRINE CARHARTT ALL ON PAGE TWO. OKAY. THOSE SAME NUMBERS ARE REFLECTED ON PAGE ONE. I I THINK IT'S CONFUSING. YOU THINK IT'S OKAY, BUT IT, BUT I, OKAY. I'M PRETTY CERTAIN IT'S RIGHT. OKAY. IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T SPELL IT OUT THAT WAY. YES. I UNDER, I I I UNDERSTAND IT'S, IT, IT WAS CONFUSING TO ME TOO. THAT'S WHY I WAS SITTING OVER HERE WITH MY CALCULATOR, MAKING SURE IT WAS OKAY. SO THE PEREGRINE, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE TWO, THE PEREGRINE CAR SOFT WAS ORIGINALLY 7 0 4. THAT'S BEEN BRACKETED OUT UHHUH . SO NOW INSTEAD IT'S THE EIGHT TEN NINE FIFTY, WHICH IS THE INCREASE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ADDITIONAL MONIES GOING TO THAT FOR PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE. UH, AND THEN THAT IS WHY THE TOTAL RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURE INCREASES BY THAT SAME AMOUNT. SO WE TAKE OUT THE 4,000,002 [00:10:01] AND CHANGE IT TO THE 4,000,003 TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT ADDITIONAL MONIES GOING TO THE PROS FOR OKAY. TO THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE FOR USE OF THAT PRODUCT BY THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE. IS THAT A FAIR WAY? I GET THE 4.3. I GET THAT ONE. OKAY. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE ENDED UP WITH 4.8 ON PAGE ONE. SO THE 4.8 IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT IS BEING, WAIT THERE NOT 4.8? NO, THE, YOU MEAN DO YOU MEAN 484,000? YEAH. OKAY. THE 484,000 IS THE AMOUNT COMING OUT OF THE UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE. OKAY. GOT IT. OKAY. YEAH. GOT IT. ALRIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, WE ALSO TALKED, UM, MR. EXECUTIVE ABOUT HAVING A STATEMENT ABOUT THEM TAKING OVER AFTER THE FIRST YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION. YES. AND I THOUGHT WE HAD INCLUDED THAT IN HERE. THAT SHOULD BE ADDED IN THERE. IS THAT, OH GOSH, I THINK WE DIDN'T PRINT THE FINAL COPY. I HAVE MISSED IT, BUT I DIDN'T SEE IT. UM, NO, JUST THIS ISN'T A FINAL COPY. UM, SHOOT, THAT WAS ONE OF THE DIRECTIVES WE SPOKE ABOUT. YEAH. YEAH. THAT'S ADD IT IN. UM, THIS, IT, WE WILL MAKE SURE IF, IF THE BODY WOULD LIKE TO MOVE AND MAKE A DECISION IN LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE, I'LL MAKE SURE WE HAVE ACCURATE COPIES. UM, BUT I WILL PULL THAT UP RIGHT NOW AND I CAN READ TO YOU WHAT THE LANGUAGE WAS. UM, ONE SECOND. BASICALLY THAT THE COUNTY'S ONLY PAYING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IT AND THEN ANYTHING AFTER THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE OVER THEMSELVES, UM, WHICH I ADDED IN THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED HERE IS WHEREAS THIS WOULD BE A ONE-TIME FUNDING OPPORTUNITY TO INITIATE THE COLLABORATION, MUNICIPALITIES WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FUTURE YEAR FUNDING. YEAH. I WILL GET COPIES, UM, RIGHT NOW OKAY. OF THE VERSION THAT, UM, AND THEN TODAY I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM, UM, SHERRY ROBERTS, SHE'S THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM BUCKNER, AND SHE SAID THAT, UM, SHE ATTACHED A REQUEST AFTER THEY WERE GIVEN THE CRITERIA AND SO IT WAS ON THE AGENDA FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AND SO FORTH. UM, I SUBMITTED AN UPDATE VERSION ON JULY 27TH, AND OF COURSE IT'S BEEN TOLD EVERY WEEK IT WOULD BE ON THE AGENDA. UM, AND SO, UM, IT SAYS THAT I ALSO NOTICED THAT IN THE REQUEST STATED THAT WE HAD REQUESTED 145,000 FOR THESE ITEMS AFTER I SUBMITTED OUR REQUEST. MR. LAVOLTA SAID THAT HE WOULD SUBMIT IT FOR 145, I'M NOT SURE. AND WHY OUR DOCUMENTATION WAS NOT INCLUDED. AND THEN SHE ATTACHED DOCUMENTATION THAT SHOWS THEY WANT, UM, UH, $320,000, 500, 300, $20,558, WHICH IS IS THAT A MUCH BIGGER REQUEST? YEAH, IT IS THAT A QUESTION FROM, UH, YEAH, I'M NOT SURE I JUST GOT THIS TODAY. YEAH. UH, THE UH, CITY OF BUCKNER, WELL, LET'S GO BACK. THE CITY OF BUCKNER WAS PROMISED SOME FUNDS, UH, NOT BY THIS LEG, BY ANOTHER LEGISLATOR. YEAH. AND, UM, FOLLOWING ALONG AS WE MOVED ALONG. RIGHT. WE HAVE PROPOSED 145,000. UM, THEY'RE NOT HAPPY WITH THAT. THEY WOULD LIKE MORE, I UNDERSTAND IF I WAS WORKING FOR THE CITY OF BUCKNER, I'D WANT MORE TOO. YEAH. THEY, THERE IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER ROUND FOR THEM TO APPLY FOR. YEAH. GOOD. UM, BUT WE, IN EVALUATING WHAT'S AVAILABLE THERE, WE CAME TO THAT NUMBER OF 1 45. OKAY. AND WE'VE ALREADY GIVEN THEM MONEY PRIOR TO THIS TOO. CORRECT? YEAH. OKAY. AND JUST AS A SIDE NOTE, THEY HAD, UH, LISTED MOBILE DATA COMPUTERS FOR $33,954 AND THEY ADDED LABOR. LABOR IS NOT A QUALIFYING EXPENSE. WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH OUR, OUR FRIENDS IN BUCKNER IN THE FUTURE. YEAH. SOME OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF THEIR REQUEST TOO, I THINK WE SPOKE TO ABOUT THE 9 1 1 IN IN MISSOURI SAYING, WELL YOU CAN'T USE THAT. SO THIS IS WHERE WE GOT TO NOW. UM, STILL GONNA BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF FUNDING IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE WANNA GET THIS ACROSS THE FINISH LINE OKAY. ON THIS ONE AND THEN GO TO THE NEXT ROUND. OKAY. I'M FINISHED WITH MY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BODY SMITH? JUST, JUST ONE. SO IN YOUR OPENING REMARKS, YOU SAID, UM, WE'RE GIVING $7 MILLION TO KANSAS CITY. THAT'S NOT IN THIS LEGISLATION, BUT I'M, I'M UNCLEAR ON WHERE THAT COMMENT CAME FROM. THE, THE, THE 9 1 1 TAXES WE COLLECTED, WE COLLECTED ALL AND SOME OF THAT MONEY IS NOT JACKSON COUNTY. IT'S KANSAS CITY'S COLLECTION. THAT'S CORRECT. I MEAN WE, THAT'S PART OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT THAT WAS PASSED. SO WE, WE AUTOMATICALLY GIVE MONEY TO MARK EVERY YEAR. THAT'S WHAT OUR SERVICES. YEAH. I DON'T, I [00:15:01] DON'T, I WAS A 9 1 1 SHARE AND WE DISPERSED FUNDS AND I DON'T REMEMBER EVER SEEING A REGULAR DISBURSEMENT TO KANSAS CITY. WE DIDN'T GIVE DUBIN MONEY. THAT'S WHY IT'S SO BIG. WE JUST SAT ON IT. CAN CAN I GET THE SOURCE ON THAT FROM WHOEVER? YES. JUST THAT'S SO, SO WE'VE BEEN COLLECTING IT. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO GET IT. IS IT A PORTION OF THE TOTAL? CORRECT. AND IT'S BY CONTRACT BY LAW, LIKE BY THE LAW DISBURSEMENT OF COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY AND KANSAS CITY AS PART OF THE FUNDS THAT COLLECT ON A 9 1 1 TAX. THEY GET A PERCENTAGE OF THAT. I MEAN WE'RE SO IS INDEPENDENCE. SO IS I, I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW IT I DON'T KNOW THAT INDEPENDENCE DOES, I DON'T THINK INDEPENDENCE. I THINK KANSAS CITY JACKSON? NO, I'M SAYING THAT THEY'RE PART OF THE COUNTY. WE COLLECT IT, BUT WE DON'T AUTOMATICALLY PASS IT ALONG TO INDEPENDENCE. WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY IS PASSING IT OUT AND KANSAS CITY HAS THEIR OWN, THAT'S WHY IF THEY WANTED SOME 9 1 1 FUNDS, IT'S A DIFFERENT BALL OF WAX. BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, I'LL GET, I'LL GET JOHN GORDON HERE IN YOUR LEGISLATURE A WHOLE, 'CAUSE I I DO KNOW WE GAVE THEM A MILLION OR 1,000,005 TO UPDATE THEIR SERVERS THAT THEY'RE YEAH, WE GAVE 'EM THAT IN ADDITION. THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO OR SOMETHING. YEAH. OKAY. I JUST, I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND THE SOURCE OF THAT. YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF LIKE THESE, THE OPIOID SETTLEMENTS TOO. WE FOUND OUT THIS YEAR THAT WE HAD, UH, TO THE TUNE OF, UH, WE HAD $13 MILLION IN OPIOID FUND. FOUND OUT THAT $6.7 MILLION, 6.3 MILLION WAS ACTUALLY KANSAS CITIES. WE HAD TO WRITE THEM A CHECK THIS YEAR. 'CAUSE WE HAD BEEN COLLECTED THE OPIOID SETTLEMENTS. IT WASN'T OUR FAULT OR KANSAS CITY. THE, THE, UH, THE FIRM COLLECTING IT FROM THE CLASS ACTION FROM THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT WAS SENDING 'EM TO US AND NOT TO KANSAS CITY. HMM. FASCINATING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOPE. OKAY. I LET SARAH ANDERSON. THANK YOU. UH, MR. EXECUTIVE, COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME MORE OF THE CITY OF LEE SUMMIT? SO THEY'RE BUILDING A OR THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A SYSTEM THAT CAN HELP THE ENTIRE 9 1 1 SYSTEM ITSELF IN JACKSON COUNTY. IF OURS GOES DOWN A WHOLE DISPATCH A WHOLE, I WANNA SAY DUPLICATIVE, DUPLICATIVE DISPATCH SYSTEM, BUT IT'S SUPPOSED TO ENHANCE THAT. AND THESE FUNDS ARE, UH, AND UH, IF MY COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS WATCH THIS ON TV, HE CAN COME IN HERE AND TALK TO THE SPEAK TO THIS. UM, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE EXTENT THAT I CAN TELL YOU WITHOUT GETTING SOMEONE ELSE TO, TO RESPOND FURTHER. UM, AND IT'S NOT FOR THE STAFFING, IT'S ONLY FOR THE EQUIPMENT FOR THEIR 9 1 1 DISPATCH IN LEASE SUMMIT. I SEE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S A WHOLE BACKUP SYSTEM IN CASE YES MA'AM. THINGS FALL APART IN OTHER COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. IS THERE, UM, A MOVEMENT FOR ACTION? I'LL MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE UM, IS THIS A FLOOR SUBSTITUTE OR AN AMENDMENT? AMENDMENT? I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT FOR UH, ORDINANCE 6 1 3 6. CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? YEAH. UM, AS AMENDED, ARE YOU INTENDING THAT IT INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE THAT I READ OUT LOUD OR NOT? YES. THAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED. OKAY. DOES ANYONE WANT ME TO READ IT AGAIN? I HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT SAY WE KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO DRAFT IT. OKAY. WE GOT IT. WE GOT IT. I GOT IT. IT'S OKAY. I GOT IT. I GOT IT. I GOT IT. THANK YOU. GOODBYE. YEAH, COULD YOU, OKAY. JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S WRONG. OKAY. SO, OKAY MR. SMITH, I'M TOLD THAT 45% OF OUR 9 1 1 COLLECTED TAXES GOES TO KANSAS CITY BY STATE STATUTE. BY STATE STATUTE. I DON'T HAVE THAT CITATION EXACTLY, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M TOLD. OKAY. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT THAT I HANDED OUT TO YOU ON PAGE ONE, YOU'LL SEE A WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT SAYS, UM, THAT STARTS WITH WHERE LEE SUMMIT YEP. MM-HMM . SO RIGHT UNDER THAT THERE, THERE SHOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT SAYS THIS WOULD BE A ONE-TIME FUNDING OPPORTUNITY TO INITIATE THE COLLABORATION, MUNICIPALITIES WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FUTURE YEAR FUNDING. OKAY. GOT IT. OKAY. AS LONG AS THAT'S IN THERE, SO YEAH. YEAH. GOOD. OKAY. OKAY. SO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO, OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? OKAY. THE AYES HAVE IT MADAM CHAIR. I WILL MOVE TO PERFECT. UH, ORDINANCE 6 1 3 6 AS AMENDED. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? RECOMMEND PERFECTION. RECOMMEND PERFECTION. THANK YOU. HONOR. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO UM, RECOMMEND MOVE FORWARD AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? OKAY. WE, THE AYES HAVE IT. SO WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE, UM, ORDINANCE TO THE BODY AND 6 1 3 6 AND, UH, DISCUSS THAT THEN FOR, UH, MOVEMENT THERE AS WELL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MEETING AS ADJOURNED. YEAH, [00:20:01] I, I'D STILL LIKE. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.