Jackson County could charge $500 towing licensing fee
KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Jackson County could start licensing tow companies. It's a FOX4 follow up to our coverage of predatory tow companies taking advantage of unsuspecting drivers.
Three of the four counties that include the city have such an ordinance for this. As of Monday afternoon, the county did not.
Franklin County crash kills 8 people, including high school student from Oklahoma
Despite that, the county legislature heard from tow companies and attorneys who represent them that said the fees the county was proposing were too much. In the original ordinance, early Monday afternoon, a fee for a tow company to operate in the county would have been $1,000 a year plus $250 per vehicle that they have.
'If you look at your neighbors to the north in Platte County and Clay County, their fees there are anywhere between $75 to $100 dollars per business,' Porto Law Firm founder Nicholas Porto said to a Jackson County Committee Monday afternoon. 'So, Jackson County is, you know, conservatively ten times that amount.'
Porto was representing people like Jared Innis, the president of the Missouri Tow Truck Association, who also owns All Star Towing. Tuesday, April 29, FOX4 found out that the city can't require a business license or permit for a tow company. Only a county can. Regardless, Innis did not like the large amount the county was proposing.
'If my business was totally located here in Jackson County, my fee would be right at $10,000 a year for a business license, and we pay a couple hundred to the other two counties,' Innis said.
'I mean, it's got the making of a lot of these other counties, but it just stretches it a little bit too far in our estimation,' Porto continued right after that. 'So it's a good start.'
Then, Republican Legislator Sean Smith and Democratic Legislator Megan Marshall said that there was an amended ordinance being proposed that would cut down the licensing to $500 a year per business instead of $1,000.
'But even at $500, I mean, $500 is literally five times what Clay County charges for the same things,' Porto replied.
The committee advanced the ordinance with a recommendation of not passing it. Then, at the legislative meeting that same afternoon, FOX4 learned more about the ordinance changes. Companies will have to pay that $500 licensing fee. They'll also have to pay $100 per vehicle they use instead of $250. That ordinance passed by a vote of 9-0.
Second person charged with murder in KC sports reporter Adan Manzano's death
When it comes to the much larger amounts Jackson County could charge, than say a county like Clay, Democratic Legislative Chair DaRon McGee said you have to look at the population of Jackson County. It is more than 2 1/2 times the size of Clay County.
'So, our residents are much higher in population than the other surrounding communities around us,' he said. 'So, I think that the fee structure is appropriate with our large urban size.'
There is no word whether Democratic County Executive Frank White will sign this. He was not at the committee or full legislative meeting. If he does, it will go into effect Jan. 1, 2026.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'
Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, said Wednesday he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president, after the pair's public falling-out last week. "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far," Musk wrote on his social media platform X. Musk's expression of regret came just days after Trump threatened the tech billionaire with "serious consequences" if he sought to punish Republicans who vote for a controversial spending bill. Their blistering break-up -- largely carried out on social media before a riveted public since Thursday last week -- was ignited by Musk's harsh criticism of Trump's so-called "big, beautiful" spending bill, which is currently before Congress. Some lawmakers who were against the bill had called on Musk -- one of the Republican Party's biggest financial backers in last year's presidential election -- to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that," Trump, who also branded Musk "disrespectful," told NBC News on Saturday, without specifying what those consequences would be. Trump also said he had "no" desire to repair his relationship with the South African-born Tesla and SpaceX chief, and that he has "no intention of speaking to him." In his post on Wednesday, Musk did not specify which of his criticisms of Trump had gone "too far." - 'Wish him well' - The former allies had seemed to have cut ties amicably about two weeks ago, with Trump giving Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship cracked within days as Musk described the spending bill as an "abomination" that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back at Musk's comments in an Oval Office diatribe and from there the row detonated, leaving Washington stunned. "Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore. I was surprised," Trump told reporters. Musk, who was Trump's biggest donor to his 2024 campaign, also raised the issue of the Republican's election win. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," he posted, adding: "Such ingratitude." Trump later said on his Truth Social platform that cutting billions of dollars in subsidies and contracts to Musk's companies would be the "easiest way" to save the US government money. US media have put the value of the contracts at $18 billion. With real political and economic risks to their falling out, both appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, with Trump telling reporters "I just wish him well," and Musk responding on X: "Likewise." Trump had spoken to NBC on Saturday after Musk deleted one of the explosive allegations he had made during their fallout, linking the president with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Musk had alleged that the Republican president is featured in unreleased government files on former associates of Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while he faced sex trafficking charges. Trump was named in a trove of deposition and statements linked to Epstein that were unsealed by a New York judge in early 2024. The president has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case. "Time to drop the really big bomb: (Trump) is in the Epstein files," Musk posted on X. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not reveal which files he was talking about and offered no evidence for his claim. He appeared to have deleted those tweets by Saturday morning. bur-sco/dhc
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk: I apologise for some of my Trump posts
Elon Musk has made a public apology to Donald Trump for posting incendiary comments on social media that imploded their relationship. The billionaire Tesla founder, who had been one of Mr Trump's closest advisers, called for the US president to be impeached and claimed he was named in the Epstein files. 'I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far,' Mr Musk wrote on Wednesday morning. He did not specify which ones, although he has since deleted the claim about Mr Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Mr Trump said that Mr Musk had 'lost his mind' in the meltdown, which started with a disagreement over the Republican's so-called 'big, beautiful' spending bill. Mr Musk had been hired as a 'special government employee' to head up the new Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), controversially tasked with downsizing the federal workforce and slashing spending. While he enjoyed some success in his mission, he was upset with Mr Trump's decision to open the spending taps in his bill, saying it was undoing his team's work. Mr Musk exited the White House at the end of May, ending a turbulent 130-day stint in Mr Trump's team, just days after he said he was 'disappointed' with the new budget. A acordial public farewell to the man who appointed himself as Trump's 'first buddy', both said Mr Musk would stay on as an adviser. He was handed a gold key to the White House. But the simmering dissent went public last week when the pair began trading insults online, with Mr Musk denouncing the president's budget as 'a disgusting abomination' that will bankrupt the US. The Tesla billionaire called on Americans to help 'kill the bill', which includes multi-trillion-dollar tax breaks and a boost to defence spending. Mr Trump was quick to hit back, claiming that the Tesla billionaire had been irked by the legislation ending tax credit worth billions of dollars to his electric vehicle company. Credit: Reuters Their spat rapidly intensified when Musk called for the president's impeachment and claimed the Republican was 'in the Epstein files' – the dossier of US government information held on the late paedophile financier. In response, Mr Trump threatened to cancel US government contracts with Mr Musk's companies, which include SpaceX. By Saturday, Musk had deleted the worst of his tweets, in an apparent sign he was hoping to repair the rift between them. Yet, the damage was done. Mr Trump declared his relationship with the South African-born tech tycoon was over and that he had 'no desire' to mend it, accusing Mr Musk of being 'disrespectful to the office of the President'. Mr Trump also warned that there would be 'serious consequences' if Mr Musk switched his allegiance to the Democrats and funded rival candidates who would vote against the bill. JD Vance, the US vice-president, said Mr Musk had made a 'huge mistake' in picking a fight with Mr Trump. Over the weekend, he said he hoped he would 'come back into the fold', but acknowledged that might be difficult after he went 'nuclear' during the row. Credit: YouTube/ Theo Von Mr Musk bankrolled Mr Trump's election run to the eye-watering tune of $250 million (£185 million) and was rewarded with his 'special government employee' role. For months after Mr Trump's inauguration, Mr Musk rarely left his side, travelling on Air Force One, moving into Mar-a-Lago and having the president babysit his four-year-old son in the Oval Office. The night of the election, Mr Trump declared of Musk 'a star is born'. Weeks later, Mr Musk confessed he loved the president 'as much as a straight man can love another man'. The messy breakdown of their bromance, however, had been heavily predicted. Mr Trump, who has now refocused attention elsewhere including to the deployment of troops to the LA riots, recently told reporters he wasn't even thinking of Mr Musk. According to reports, he is considering giving away the red Tesla he bought from Musk earlier this year. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
