Lawmakers spar over 2026 levy ordinances as executive warns of veto
September 28, 2026 | Jackson County, Missouri
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Jackson County lawmakers spent a prolonged portion of their Sept. 28 meeting debating proposed 2026 tax levies and related amendments, focusing on several fractional changes that together move the county’s aggregate levy by a small amount.
Legislators discussed Ordinance 6,131 (the county tax levy) and companion ordinances affecting the Jackson County Community Mental Health Fund and the Board of Services for the Developmentally Disabled. Fiscal staff and the vice chair summarized the changes: the community mental health fund would move to a rate of 0.1018 producing roughly $17.93 million (up from about $17.725 million), the developmentally disabled levy would increase from 0.0728 to 0.0765 (raising revenue from approximately $13.3 million to about $13.476 million), and the senior services levy rate would remain unchanged at 0.050 but—because assessed values declined—its projected revenue falls from $9.1 million to $8.8 million.
Some legislators pressed that optics matter: the county executive said he did not recommend the increases and warned directly, "I will be sharpening my veto pen on these 2," referring to ordinances 6,133 and 6,134. The body considered motions to suspend rules and undo the perfection of two ordinances so they could be amended; those motions failed (the suspension vote failed on recorded roll: 4 no, 3 yes, 1 abstain, 1 absent). A subsequent motion to rescind perfection on one ordinance failed as well (6 no, 2 yes).
Other members offered a compromise amendment to reallocate levy rates across county‑controlled funds (reducing the general fund rate while raising park and special road and bridge levies) so the aggregate levy would remain effectively unchanged. That amendment to Ordinance 6,131 was adopted and the ordinance was perfected to the consent agenda; the clerk recorded votes on multiple motions and the consent agenda later passed (8 yes, 1 abstain).
Several legislators requested that the county executive provide explicit guidance on vetoes and suggested reworking rates collaboratively before any potential veto to avoid missing statutory deadlines. The meeting concluded with officials noting a possible special meeting would be scheduled if the county executive vetoes any levy ordinances.
Legislators discussed Ordinance 6,131 (the county tax levy) and companion ordinances affecting the Jackson County Community Mental Health Fund and the Board of Services for the Developmentally Disabled. Fiscal staff and the vice chair summarized the changes: the community mental health fund would move to a rate of 0.1018 producing roughly $17.93 million (up from about $17.725 million), the developmentally disabled levy would increase from 0.0728 to 0.0765 (raising revenue from approximately $13.3 million to about $13.476 million), and the senior services levy rate would remain unchanged at 0.050 but—because assessed values declined—its projected revenue falls from $9.1 million to $8.8 million.
Some legislators pressed that optics matter: the county executive said he did not recommend the increases and warned directly, "I will be sharpening my veto pen on these 2," referring to ordinances 6,133 and 6,134. The body considered motions to suspend rules and undo the perfection of two ordinances so they could be amended; those motions failed (the suspension vote failed on recorded roll: 4 no, 3 yes, 1 abstain, 1 absent). A subsequent motion to rescind perfection on one ordinance failed as well (6 no, 2 yes).
Other members offered a compromise amendment to reallocate levy rates across county‑controlled funds (reducing the general fund rate while raising park and special road and bridge levies) so the aggregate levy would remain effectively unchanged. That amendment to Ordinance 6,131 was adopted and the ordinance was perfected to the consent agenda; the clerk recorded votes on multiple motions and the consent agenda later passed (8 yes, 1 abstain).
Several legislators requested that the county executive provide explicit guidance on vetoes and suggested reworking rates collaboratively before any potential veto to avoid missing statutory deadlines. The meeting concluded with officials noting a possible special meeting would be scheduled if the county executive vetoes any levy ordinances.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
