Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident tells commissioners public safety sales tax measure is unlawful under Kansas statutes
Summary
A Westwood Hills resident told the board that the county's public safety sales tax proposition conflicts with Kansas statutes and statutory definitions, urging commissioners to reconsider the resolution; the claim was presented as public comment and not debated formally by the board.
Ben Holbert of Westwood Hills addressed the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners during public comment, asserting the board's public safety sales tax proposition adopted in "Resolution 50‑225" is unlawful under Kansas statutes.
Holbert, who identified himself as a lawyer with 39 years of tax practice, cited Kansas statutes by KSA reference and said the county's current resolution goes beyond the statutory authorization. He told the board: "I am of the confident opinion... a court of competent jurisdiction fully apprised of the facts would hold that your public safety sales tax proposition is unlawful."
Holbert said the statute authorizing a public safety sales tax (which he cited as KSA 12‑187) clearly authorizes taxes for "construction and operation cost of public safety projects" and lists facilities; he argued the board's proposition unlawfully expands the authorized uses to support operational programs alone. He also said the legislature specifically defined health care services in subsection 5 of KSA 12‑187 to include mental health services and emergency medical services, and that the county's proposition "unlawfully reclassifies those costs as public safety costs in direct conflict with statutory definitions." He concluded by saying, "It is truly distressing to see the board engage in financial shenanigans in a manner which, in my judgment, is a violation of the law."
Why it matters: The claim, presented during public comment, alleges a legal conflict between a county resolution and state statute. The statement reflects the opinion of a private commenter; the board did not debate or rule on the legal assertion during the meeting.
Charlotte O'Hara also spoke during public comment on unrelated topics including a parental book guide; her remarks did not prompt formal board action.
No legal finding was made on the record; any legal determination would require review by the board's counsel or a court.
