Archive for the ‘Taxation’ Category

Since the approval and signing of the Lease Agreement with UMB Bank to pay for the purchase and “button up” costs for the King Louie Building totaling $3,600,000 8788metcalfleaseagreement on February 9, 2012 the here until now question loomed.  How was the $2,900,000 Principal payment due on September 1, 2015 going to be paid?

Base Rentals

We must first ignore that when we hurriedly purchased King Louie in December 2011 with ca$h from Reserves we threatened our Bond Rating.  Less than two months later we leased King Louie to UMB Bank for ca$h returned to Reserves saving our Bond Rating.  Now let’s ignore for a brief moment that we have already paid $120,576 Interest Only for a vacant non-tax generating building with yet another $17,400 Interest Only due.  Let’s ignore for another brief moment that this vacant non-tax generating building consumed several hundred hours of County Staff time and tens of thousands more dollars in consultant fees to find this once asbestos laden building a purpose. We still end up with the lingering question…………….

How was the $2,900,000 Principal payment due on September 1, 2015 going to be paid?

Earlier today June 4, 2015 King Louie shared the answer with us peasants.


NO JOKE FOLKS vote scheduled for June 11, 2015 67574906042015101756410

June 11, 2015

Safe to say that the “Court Jester” positions have been filled.

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It”

Ken Dunwoody                                        GOD
Henpecked Acres                                       
One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062

Read Full Post »

Kansas lawmakers call out county commissioners over proposed tax increase

07/29/2014 10:43 AM

07/29/2014 12:36 PM

Kansas legislators came calling at the Johnson County Commission budget hearing Monday night to tell commissioners they did not care much for being painted as the bad guys in the county’s first mill levy increase in eight years.

Four state lawmakers and the chairman of the Kansas State Banking Board came prepared with a press release and documentation asserting that the state’s phase-out of the mortgage registration fee should not be to blame for the proposed 0.683 mill increase.

“I just want to make sure the public knows this is a sham,” said Kurt Knutson of Overland Park, the banking chairman.

Denning, of Overland Park, is also the brother of Johnson County Sheriff Frank Denning.

Fourteen people spoke at the hearing. Others came to laud the Sheriff’s Department and Johnson County Enterprise Center and to give their thoughts on how Heritage Trust Fund money should be spent.

Bankers and real estate companies pushed for an end to the mortgage registration fee, but it has been controversial with the commissioners because of its fiscal impact. County Manager Hannes Zacharias has said the loss of fee revenues could cost the county $49 million over the next five years.

But lawmakers at the hearing Monday disputed that. The fee, charged at closing as a percentage of the amount borrowed, is being phased out over a 5-year period. In its place will be higher fees on individual pages of mortgage documents filed. That plus $10 million in increased revenue from higher home values should more than make up for the loss of the fees, they said.

Commissioners have doubted publicly that those fees will make up much of the loss because people will tend to file fewer documents to save money. Sen. Denning, however, disputed that, saying the page filings would not decrease in real estate’s secondary market.

The legislators put the first-year impact to the county budget at $1.7 million.

Kansas Sen. Greg Smith of Overland Park said he was disappointed that the county manager portrayed the mortgage registration fee as the culprit for a tax increase. “At best, his comments are in error,” Smith said.

“Make no mistake that this budget is a tax increase on the citizens of Johnson County,” Smith said. “I caution the commissioners to remember that the money belongs to the citizens. It doesn’t belong to the commission.”

Sen. Denning argued a few other points as well. He said it’s too early to know for sure whether changes in the rules for contesting property values will negatively affect county revenues.

He also took issue with the county’s plan for a 3 percent salary raise pool for its employees. The Kansas State Extension service did not give its employees as large an increase, so during budget discussions the commission decided to include $18,622 for extension employees.

“That just doesn’t smell right,” said Denning. “If we had that damn much money to do things like that then let’s take another look at our property tax. I just don’t think we need to pull the trigger in ’15.”

The budget currently under discussion is changed a bit from the county manager’s proposal of early June. The original proposal was for a tax increase of 0.814 mills, bringing the total county levy to 24.061 mills. The commission lowered that increase after a series of meetings with department heads. Now the increase brings the total mill levy to 23.930 in 2015 over the current 23.247. That translates into $1.64 a month more on the average $249,000 house.

Also included is a 6.25 increase in wastewater charges and a $5 fee for renewing a motor vehicle in person.

The tax increases are for the general part of the budget and not parks or the library system. Those departments have their own levies, which remained unchanged.

The total county budget for 2015 is $873 million, with $697 million in expenditures and $176 million in reserves.

The commission made several changes before approving its final spending figures in early July, most notably in the sheriff’s department. Sheriff Denning ultimately got approval to hire 22 new deputies, as he had requested earlier in the spring. The commission earlier had approved hiring 20 civilians and spending $1.3 million in overtime. Instead, the $1.3 million will be used to hire the deputies.

Sen. Denning mentioned the controversy over the sheriff’s department funding, saying his brother was made a scapegoat to justify property tax increases and to draw a challenger the next time he runs for office.

Sheriff Frank Denning is not up for re-election this year.

Sen. Denning repeatedly told commissioners he didn’t understand why they wouldn’t include a $5 fee to register vehicles. Such a fee would improve the budget and lessen the need for property tax increase, he said.

In fact, the $5 fee has always been part of the 2015 budget proposal.

Other speakers came to support the sheriff’s department. “Sheriff Denning’s staff cannot run operations on a shoestring,” said Sherry Cross, an Olathe resident who volunteers at the department.

And three board members of the Heritage Trust fund urged the commission to allow them to distribute reserves to various groups that apply for grants. The commission decided during budget talks to put the reserves, estimated to be $700,000 to $800,000 by 2016, toward the Johnson County Museum.

The commissioners did not discuss the budget or take any action. They will vote on a final budget on Aug. 14.

Read Full Post »


Read Full Post »


Former lawmaker, Brownback appointee square off in tax dispute

Changes to language on Olathe sales tax ballot issue may result in KOMA complaint

Posted: November 29, 2013 – 11:12am

Former legislator Benjamin Hodge says he is contemplating a Kansas Open Meetings Act complaint against the Olathe City Council and Mayor Michael Copeland, who also works for the Department of Commerce and Department of Labor.

Hodge says the Olathe council changed the language of a recent sales tax ballot measure without properly informing the public.

“They only just oh-so-barely actually voted on the final language,” Hodge said. “They made those changes the night before.”

Hodge, whose Kansans for State & Local Reform PAC opposed the ballot measure, said council members added three words that broaden the possible uses for the new sales tax revenue during a work session that Hodge called “a quasi-legal public meeting nobody attended.”

Tim Dannenberg, a spokesman for Copeland, says the changes were minimal and everything was done on the up-and-up. He also released a statement from Copeland emphasizing that citizens will be able to track the new tax revenues and ensure that they are all going to their stated purpose of road improvements.

“I regret that anyone would believe the revenue generated by the street maintenance tax will go to anything other than street maintenance projects,” Copeland said. “That is absolutely not the case, and this has been made abundantly clear by the Olathe City Council. This process will be transparent. All sales tax revenue and projects where it is used will be easy for our residents to track, and an outside committee (is) being formed for additional review and reporting. We strongly encourage anyone interested in this issue to closely track where street maintenance tax revenue is being spent throughout the life of the tax.”

Gov. Sam Brownback last year appointed Copeland, who is a part-time mayor, to be deputy secretary of the Department of Labor after ousting secretary Karin Brownlee.

Cassie Sparks, a spokeswoman for the department, said via email that Copeland is now a full-time deputy secretary of work force services with the Department of Commerce but the labor department “is continuing to share some of Mr. Copeland’s services.”

Hodge is a conservative firebrand who served in the House in 2007 and 2008. He also spent four years as a trustee for Johnson County Community College from 2005 to 2009, during which time he asked the district attorney to investigate the board of trustees for possible KOMA violations when discussing budget issues behind closed doors.

Hodge’s latest KOMA beef involves the Olathe council changing one of the last lines of the road work ballot measure from “and such other work as necessary to maintain, repair and renew city streets” to “and such other work as necessary to maintain, repair, renew, upgrade and improve city streets.”

“The council just wanted it to be clearer, and it was a minor change,” Dannenberg said. “Certainly, in talking to legal, the interpretations had the same meaning.”

Dannenberg said some of the predictions that the money will be used for purposes other than road maintenance stem from fears of United Nations’ Agenda 21.

Ken Dunwoody, a blogger in Olathe, posted council member emails obtained through an open records request that he says showed the words “upgrade and improve” were added in order to appease the bicycling lobby by allowing tax revenue to be used to add bike paths to the road.

Dunwoody linked that effort to Agenda 21, a 20-year-old nonbinding sustainability resolution that, in some conservative circles, has sparked fears of private property usurpation.

“Agenda 21 (United Nations) is alive and well in your back yard,” Dunwoody posted online.

Hodge said his complaint has nothing to do with Agenda 21, but rather with the way the council changed the ballot language and its subsequent failure to inform the public of the change. He noted that the city’s website wasn’t updated with the new language until shortly before the election.

“In reality, almost nobody knew the correct language until they got a ballot in the mail,” Hodge said. “I honestly don’t think it was intentional immediately, but it’s hard to believe the city never knew the website was incorrect.”

Dannenberg said city officials “deeply regret the original language error.”

“Fortunately, only 88 unique viewers actually visited the page,” Dannenberg said via email. “There is not a way to tell if those viewers were Olathe voters, but I’m aware of at least one who is not. There were some 23,000 ballots cast, and the issue passed with 57 percent of the vote.”

Hodge said he doesn’t believe Dannenberg’s assertion that the city’s legal department deemed the ballot language changes insignificant. He said the passage of the ballot measure barely passes legal muster, given the changes, and the process in which the changes were made doesn’t follow the law.

“There still may be a KOMA case coming down the pike,” Hodge said.

Andy Marso can be reached at Capital: (785) 233-7470; Office: (785) 295-5619 orandy.marso@cjonline.com.
Follow Andy on Twitter @andymarso.

Read Full Post »

Admittedly we are a few days early in providing this information, but with the next Olathe City Council Meeting scheduled in less than 24 hours to discuss their voter approved 30% tax increase, we feel compelled to share what we can prove as factual.

August 6, 2013 Olathe City Council publically discusses this proposed tax increase during a total of 5 min and 20 sec (we apologize for both the quality of video and audio, we work with and are thankful for what we can access): 

The Agenda  http://www.olatheks.org/Council/Agenda/2013-08-06  refers to item Sales+Tax+Election+for+Street+Preservation+CAI which states:

“Shall the City of Olathe, Kansas, pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 12-187, be authorized to levy a three-eighths of one percent (.375%) special purpose citywide retailers’ sales tax within the City of Olathe, Kansas; such additional tax, if approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon, to take effect on April 1, 2014, or as soon thereafter as permitted by law,  and to end ten years after its commencement on March 31, 2024; the revenue from the additional tax to be used for the sole purpose of financing in whole or in part with any other funds, the cost of repairing, rebuilding and rehabilitating streets in the City of Olathe (the “Street Preservation Program”); such program shall include the repair, reconstruction and rehabilitation of street pavement, curb and gutters, sidewalks and such other work as is necessary to maintain, repair and renew city streets; and be in addition to the one and one-eighth percent (1.125%) citywide retailers’ sales tax currently levied within the City?”

Do you see anything about adding bike paths?

After the lawful vote, this approved Ordinance went to the JoCo Election Office 13-32

“Shall the City of Olathe Kansas, pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 12-187, be authorized to levy a three-eighths of one percent (.375%) special purpose citywide retailers’ sales tax within the City of Olathe, Kansas; such additional tax, if approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon, to take effect on April I, 2014, or as soon thereafter as permitted by law, and to end ten years after its commencement on March 31, 2024; the revenue from the additional tax be used for the sole purpose of financing, in whole or in part with any other funds, the cost of repairing, rebuilding, rehabilitating, upgrading and improving streets in the City of Olathe (the “Street Maintenance Program”); such program shall include the repair, reconstruction and rehabilitation of street pavement, curb and gutters, sidewalks and such other work as is necessary to maintain, repair, renew, upgrade and improve city streets; and be in addition to the one and oneeighth percent (1.125.%) citywide retailers’ sales tax currently levied within the City?”

As previously posted https://nolathe.net/2013/11/09/truth-in-political-advertising-long-gone/ there are two different wordings.

Missing words

Furthermore the City of Olathe website discribed the ballot as-

Olathe Wording

While the Johnson County Election Office described it as

Ballot Wording

Again, the change of two words makes a major difference.

NOlathe (NO back into Olathe equals NOlathe) has placed several Kansas Open Record Act (KORA) requests to discover the following from the City of Olathe.  Resulting in many fact disclosures  Dunwoody

We now know that during an unrecorded meeting August 5 (day before the vote) changes in the wording was discussed.  We now know that pressure from Council members Vogt and Randall changed the language the day of August 6 to include “bike paths”.

Vogt nada

Vogt yes



We now know the actual Ordinance was not read in public view prior to the vote.  We believe the Council members did in fact vote on an Ordinance that was not made public prior to, during but only after their vote.  Fast foreward two months just prior to the Election.  The City of Olathe put bike paths paid through increased taxes on the ballot without telling the electorate.

City of Olathe encouraged the electorate to go here:


and here:



One needs to look no further than:  http://marc.org/About-MARC/General-Information/Board-of-Directors.aspx

MARC Transportation  goals:  http://marc.org/Transportation/Special-Projects/Regional-Initiatives/Complete-Streets


MARC Chair Marge Vogt:  Olathe City Council

MARC Second Vice Chair Ed Peterson:  JoCo Commissioner (running for JoCo Commision Chair 2014)

Some in the media say NOlathe wears a “tin hat”.   You look, you decide please.  Before it’s too late.

Agenda 21 (United Nations) is alive and well in your back yard.

This will be updated once The City of Olathe completes KORA requests yet unanswered and following The Councils Meeting scheduled Noverember 19, 2013 to discuss this topic.

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It”
Ken Dunwoody                                                     GOD
Henpecked Acres                                 
One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062


Read Full Post »

If this substantial sales tax increase is truly for the people, why lie?  “If you like your streets, you can keep your streets.  Period!

http://www.jocoelection.org/  Actual wording on ballot.

Ballot Wording


http://www.olatheks.org/PublicWorks/Streets/StreetPreservation/VoterInformation  What City of Olathe says on their web site.

.Olathe Wording

Missing words


This is more than an innocent mistake and more than maintaining existing streets.

This is about bike paths and sustainable streets.

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It”
Ken Dunwoody                                                             GOD
Henpecked Acres                                        
One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062

Read Full Post »

Lets look at facts: http://online.wsj.com/news/interactive/IVCostsprint?ref=SB10001424127887323884304578328173966380066

State by Stae

Sorted looks like this: State HC per capita  Enough said?

Rank State  Cost per person
1 D.C.  $  10,349.00
2 Mass  $    9,278.00
3 Conn  $    8,654.00
4 Maine  $    8,521.00
5 Del  $    8,480.00
6 N.Y.  $    8,341.00
7 R.I.  $    8,309.00
8 N.H.  $    7,839.00
9 N.D.  $    7,749.00
10 Pa  $    7,730.00
11 W.Va.  $    7,667.00
12 Vt  $    7,635.00
13 N.J.  $    7,583.00
14 Md  $    7,492.00
15 Minn  $    7,433.00
16 Wis  $    7,233.00
17 Fla  $    7,156.00
18 Ohio  $    7,076.00
19 S.D.  $    7,056.00
20 Neb  $    7,048.00
21 Wyom  $    7,040.00
22 Mo  $    6,967.00
23 Iowa  $    6,921.00
24 Hawaii  $    6,856.00
25 Alaska  $    6,856.00
26 Miss  $    6,795.00
27 Wash  $    6,782.00
28 Kan  $    6,782.00
29 Ind  $    6,756.00
30 Ill  $    6,756.00
31 N.M.  $    6,651.00
32 Mont  $    6,640.00
33 Mich  $    6,618.00
34 Ky  $    6,596.00
35 Ore  $    6,580.00
36 La  $    6,571.00
37 Okla  $    6,532.00
38 N.C.  $    6,444.00
39 Tenn  $    6,411.00
40 S.C.  $    6,323.00
41 Va  $    6,286.00
42 Ala  $    6,272.00
43 Calif  $    6,238.00
44 Ark  $    6,167.00
45 Colo  $    5,994.00
46 Texas  $    5,924.00
47 Nev  $    5,735.00
48 Utah  $    5,658.00
49 Idaho  $    5,658.00
50 Ga  $    5,467.00
51 Ariz  $    5,434.00

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »