Today's Feature
Council
Bill No. 00-77.
The following is the airport
property condemnation ordinance to be in first
reading this evening at the regular Council
meeting in City Hall at 7:30. A vote on the
ordinance is not expected until the October 10
regular meeting.
"An Ordinance declaring a
public necessity for the acquisition by
condemnation proceedings of real estate in Jasper
County, Missouri, to be used for a Carthage
Municipal Airport.
WHEREAS, the City of Carthage
is now in the process of attempting to relocate a
previously existing Carthage Municipal Airport,
and
WHEREAS, it is necessary that
the City of Carthage have ownership of land for
the purpose of relocating a Municipal Airport,
and
WHEREAS, there is not
sufficient land within the city limits of the
City of Carthage within which to relocate a
Municipal Airport, and
WHEREAS, a proposed site near
the City has been selected by the Carthage City
Council, but the parties have not been able to
agree upon sales prices and the City has been
unable to obtain title from the owners of the
said real estate.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CARTHAGE, JASPER COUNTY, MISSOURI
as follows:
SECTION I: That a public
necessity exists for a condemnation and
appropriation of the real estate set forth on the
exhibit attached hereto, which is incorporated
herein by reference, to acquire fee simple
absolute title to Tracts Numbered 1, 2, and 5,
and to acquire the necessary air space easements
as to Tracts 3, 4, and 6.
SECTION II: That the City of
Carthage is and has been unable to agree with the
owners of said property on the amount of
compensation be paid for such real estate.
SECTION iii: That the City
Council be and is hereby authorized to hire
counsel to file suit in the Circuit Court of
Jasper County, Missouri for the purpose of
condemning the above described property for the
uses and purposes set out herein.
SECTION IV: This ordinance
shall take effect and be enforced from and after
its passage and approval."
The legal descriptions of the
property include Tract 1 containing 86 acres,
Tract 2 containing 92 acres, Tract 3 containing
4.82 acres. Air rights property includes Tract 4
containing .066 acres, Tract 5 containing 15.8
acres and Tract 6 containing .349 acres.
Commentary
Martin
"Bubs" Hohulin
State Representative, District 126
In the ten
years that I have been writing this column, there
have been a few that created a tremendous amount
of response from you. However, the column that
has caused more of you to get in touch with me
wasn’t written by me. It was a recent column
that was written by outdoor columnist Larry
Dablemont concerning the Missouri Dept. of
Conservation.
In his column, Mr. Dablemont
wrote about how the DOC was shoveling thousands
of taxpayer dollars at a land owner in Vernon
County with no apparent return of benefits. Mr.
Dablemont has been somewhat critical of the DOC
and I might add, rightfully so. Many of you
contacted me about the article and asked if it
was true. You then wondered if there was anything
that could be done about it if it was. The
answers, in order, are yes, and, no.
It is indeed true. It is one of
the programs the DOC has offered over the years.
Can anything be done about it? For now, no. Back
in 1992 I offered a constitutional amendment to
take away some of the money the DOC operates on.
As long ago as then, I saw the raw abuses of
power and money the DOC was wielding. I got
nowhere with my proposed legislation. The hearing
room was full of people to testify against it and
I even received calls and letters from local
folks telling me they were going to vote against
me in the next election for daring to take on the
DOC.
The way this all started was
when there was a proposal placed on the ballot to
change the way the DOC was funded. Before, the
DOC had to make its case to the Legislature for
funding. A citizens’ group gathered
signatures and placed a constitutional amendment
on the ballot which created a 1/8 of one cent
sales tax to be used only to fund the DOC.
That proposal passed, and
without a sunset clause, will go on forever until
changed again. That can only happen by putting it
back on a statewide ballot. That is what I
attempted to do back in 1992.
The time may be right to try it
again. With no oversight, the DOC has made some
real blunders because they consider themselves to
be untouchable.
I need to clarify that I think
most, and I emphasize the word most, local
employees of the DOC are good folks that take
their work seriously. The problems stem from the
leadership in Jefferson City and specifically the
appointments made by current Gov. Mel Carnahan.
Many of the folks that beat on me back in 1992
have since called to register various complaints
against the DOC. Like I said, maybe the time is
right to try it again.
As usual, I can be reached at
House Post Office, State Capitol, Jefferson City,
MO 65101, or 1-800-878-7126, or
mhohulin@services.state.mo.us for your questions,
comments, or advice.
Letters to the
Editor.
Opinions expressed reflect
those of the writer
and not necessarily those of the Mornin' Mail.
Dear Editor,
I have been reading about
the Council wanting to change the ordinance on
keeping livestock inside the City limits. Instead
of increasing the distance that these animals can
be kept, why not just prohibit them altogether?
Everyone currently with animals will be
grandfathered anyway.
With the diversification of our
citizens, and what some have been used to; I
think it would be easier not to allow livestock
period.
It would be easier to say NO,
than to explain the distance factor. Most of the
chickens, etc., are running loose anyway, so
"housing" them at a distance would not
take care of the problem.
Just a thought,
Donna Harlan
In response to
Just Jake Talkin’ I believe that Jasper
county does not have a financial problem but
rather a management problem. Specifically if the
Jasper county commissioners managed the county
financial affairs like a private corporation I
believe the financial picture of the county would
be totally different. Let me give you a few
examples. First, Jasper county presently does not
have a grants writer. Last year the grants writer
brought in over $1 million dollars for Jasper
county. This year Jasper county does not have a
grants writer. What has this cost the taxpayers
of Jasper county this year in lost revenues?
Secondly, Jasper county does
not have centralized purchasing. The volume
discounts which would be realized if centralized
purchasing was implemented in Jasper county I
estimate at between $500,000 and $1,000,000 per
year. Shouldn’t centralized purchasing be
discussed before additional taxes are discussed?
I am confident that the other elected officials
would be eager to give up departmentalized
purchasing authority in return for pay increases
for their employees.
Thirdly, the county commission
does not award contracts to the best and lowest
bid. Specifically, an excellent example of this
practice was well reported this spring during the
county asphalt bid. The additional cost to Jasper
county taxpayers in this specific situation is
approximately $124,000. The group health
insurance bid is also another excellent example
of this practice. Had the best and lowest bid
been accepted the cost to the county would have
been approximately $10,000 less. Additionally,
the cost to the 277 employees due to the increase
in the individual deductible from $250 to $500
resulted in a total increased cost to the
employees of approximately $69,250.
There are many more examples of
areas that urgently need attention in Jasper
county. These few examples outlined above
combined with many other numerous examples will
add up to millions of taxpayer dollars that could
be more effectively utilized to alleviate
budgetary concerns presently being experienced in
Jasper county. Jasper county does not need a law
enforcement sales tax. Jasper county needs to
manage the taxpayers dollars it presently has
more responsibly and the millions of dollars of
savings that would result would more than
compensate for the growing needs of the county.
Sincerely, Trisha Burgi
|
