Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants And Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County executive urges fast ARPA awards, draws calls for transparent evaluation
Summary
The county executive proposed quickly awarding a portion of Jackson County's ARPA nonprofit funds to long‑standing community organizations and announced a 15% cap on some assessment increases; several legislators urged a transparent evaluation process and requested names and selection criteria for outside evaluators.
At the Dec. 8 Jackson County legislative session, the county executive reviewed his office’s tax‑relief measures and a proposal to accelerate distribution of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) nonprofit awards, prompting a forceful back‑and‑forth about process, fairness and speed.
On taxation, the executive outlined a policy to cap certain assessment increases at 15% for affected 2023 residential assessments and to extend similar relief to commercial property owners under $5,000,000 for the 2025 tax bills, noting the county will issue refunds and credits over multiple years where adjustments apply. He also announced a tax hotline and centralized email for questions: taxquestions@jacksongov.org and (816) 881‑4455, to begin Dec. 15.
On ARPA, the executive said the county received 332 nonprofit applications requesting about $240,000,000 for a $35,000,000 nonprofit bucket and proposed selecting a base list of roughly 150 long‑standing community organizations to receive approximately $15,000,000 immediately. He said outside scoring and vetting of every application risks delaying awards beyond the end of the year: "I am picking and choosing ... because of their community service," he said, arguing urgency to get funds to well‑known providers.
Several legislators applauded the desire to distribute funds quickly but pressed for a transparent, consistent evaluation process that applies due diligence and avoids favoritism. Legislator Payton and others said the process should be fair and transparent and cautioned that institutions without a long record may still provide critical services and deserve a fair review. Legislators asked the legislative auditor to provide the names and selection criteria of outside evaluators; the auditor said outside evaluators were proposed by various committee chairs and that an initial set of outside reviewers (described as seven people in the hearing) will score applications and forward averaged scores to the compliance office and the budget committee for legislative review.
The exchange also covered sunshine (public‑records) requests. The executive said he will convene a task force (county clerk Mary Jo, county counselor Brian Kavinsky and others) to centralize and improve responses to records requests, acknowledging the county had been late in responding under prior practice.
What’s next: Legislators asked for a list of outside evaluators, disclosure of any compensation and the evaluation rubric. The legislature retained final authority on award decisions; the administration said it would collaborate with the budget committee to move awards forward while respecting due diligence and contracting requirements.
