Jackson County Open Letter Asks Missouri AG For Property Tax Rollback Intervention

Today's EPIC message from the courthouse . . .

Courtesy of GOP Legislator Sean Smith who also garnered a bit of bipartisan support amid this ongoing legal debate . . .

CHECK LEADERS ON THE LEGISLATURE ASKING MISSOURI AG BAILEY TO INTERVENE AGAINST EXEC FRANK WHITE'S PROPERTY TAX ROLLBACK BLOCK!!!

Here's the word and peek at the ongoing effort to oust the Exec .  . .

On Monday April 21 st Legislator Smith, Legislator Abarca and Legislator Huskey sent the attached open letter to Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey. The legislators are calling on the state and the authority within the Attorney General’s office to investigate the legality of recent actions of County Executive Frank White. Sean Smith says that after the recent veto of Ordinance 5958 that supported that Missouri State Tax Commission’s Rollback Order, he is ready to call on the state for continued investigations.

At 3:30 PM on Wednesday April 23rd Smith will join community volunteers to turn in thousands of
additional resident signatures for the Recall Frank White Petition.

Here's the text of the letter via www.TonysKansasCity.com . . . 

Open Letter To Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey

Dear Attorney General Bailey,

We hope this letter finds you well. We are writing to bring to your attention several concerning actions taken by Jackson County Executive Frank White and your professional review of the legality of those actions.

#1 – Failure to Devote Himself Full-Time to The Office of County Executive

As required by the Jackson County Charter Article III Section 7, the County Executive shall work full time. Mr. White has violated this mandatory requirement. The Chief of Staff has been unable to account for Mr. White’s whereabouts when asked during our weekly legislative meetings that have taken place from May 2024 to present. It is widely known that Mr. White holds a position as a coach for the minor league baseball team, the Monarchs. This role appears to consume a significant amount of his time, on a seasonal basis rendering him unable to fulfill his duties as County Executive effectively.

#2 Budget – Failure to Provide Required Information to the Legislature

As required under Jackson County Code 537.1 & 537.2, annual budget documents must contain complete and specific information. In November 2024 the County Executive presented to the Legislature a recommended budget. County Code requires this budget document include “corresponding figures for the last completed fiscal year and the current fiscal year.” This would mean the 2025 budget document must include actual numbers for 2023 and the most up-to-date numbers for 2024 that were available at the time the budget document was prepared. To date, accurate numbers for 2023 and 2024 corresponding to the County Executive’s 2025 budget recommendation still have not been produced. It defies reason that the Legislature would be asked to approve a 2025 budget without accurate information for the prior years.

#3 Enabling Unlawful Disbursement of Funds in 2025 Without an Approved Budget

As of today, April 21, 2025, the county is currently in a dispute related to the 2025 budget. On December 31, 2025, the Legislature voted 5-4 to approve the County Executive’s recommended budget with a handful of amendments. The County Executive subsequently vetoed that budget.

The matter of whether or not there is a lawfully enacted budget is currently in the court system. In the meantime, the County Executive directed staff to upload the 2024 budget as though it is the 2025 budget.

This removed critical financial controls meant to prevent expenditure of funds that have not been lawfully appropriated.

The Majority of the Legislature is operating in accordance with the premise that the budget that was uploaded was not lawfully enacted, therefore we have restricted our expenditures to those items permissible under the County Code of Ordinances 530.2 which states that we can temporarily utilize the prior year budget amounts “so far as they relate to salaries.” However, the County Executive didn’t limit the use of the prior year budget to only salaries as prescribed by County Code. Nor did he limit it to the more liberal state statute spending categories of “Operations and Maintenance.” There are numerous examples of expenditures that are unlawful, most egregiously a disbursement to an NGO for $5,000 for a “scholarship”. Such expenditure is clearly outside the scope of “Salaries” and would not be included within the scope of “Operations and Maintenance” as prescribed by Missouri statute.

These actions raise serious concerns about the adherence to both county and state fiscal regulations.
 

Finally, Mr. White’s Veto of Ordinance 5958 on April 18, 2025 truly shocks the conscience.

While the County Executive does have the authority to veto an ordinance, this veto is particularly troubling because the Ordinance simply directed White Administration to follow the law with respect to the State Tax Commissions August 2024 Order concerning the 2023 bi-annual reassessment. By vetoing 5958, Mr. White signals his intent to defy compliance with the STC Order, even after it was challenged in court by the administration and was upheld.

The reason this is critically urgent is that the 2025 bi-annual assessment is now coming very near the statutory deadline for the county to share valuation notices with property owners. Such notices are subject to statutory limits on increases that are predicated on the prior assessment values being lawful. By ignoring the STC Order, Mr. White is placing another assessment year in serious jeopardy with grave consequences for our property owners, our taxing jurisdictions and even the fiscal stability of the county.

These actions by Mr. White not only undermine the legal framework and financial integrity of Jackson County but also pose significant risks to the well-being of our community. I respectfully request that your office reviews these actions and considers their lawfulness to ensure that the interests of Jackson County residents are protected.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your prompt response.
##################

Developing . . .