Laserfiche WebLink
<br />financial officers of the cities. This entity would take a look at where revenues come <br />from and to look at some of the loop holes discovered in which the State is not assessing <br />the cities equally. An example of legislative discussions in the past year was the <br />entrance into the video field and the control or lack of control the cities would have in the <br />placement of this equipment and who would be offered the service. Other discussions <br />were: money earmarked from red-light camera revenue, defense for cities of their own <br />property tax control, mandated overtime ordered for all employees, and relocating water <br />lines on commercial projects. Mr. Fischesser said the board thought it would be easier <br />for the allocation to come from the cell phone tax settlement received from the League <br />and cities’ sponsored litigation than to increase the cities’ membership dues. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner said that the issue was not if the St. Louis County League needed the <br />money, but rather that it was the process of how it was tagged onto the acceptance of <br />the cell phone agreement. He felt this did not allow the Council to be able to discuss the <br />allocation in the future after the City’s budget became more apparent. <br /> <br />Ms. Brot said it was extremely important to stay vigilant on bills in front of the <br />State Legislators which might be very harmful to cities and would be open to a <br />discussion of an allocation of a lower amount. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams reaffirmed the need to fight against legislation and the need to have the <br />resources upfront for that fight rather than trying to scramble to find them on the back <br />end. <br /> <br />Introduced by Mr. Price and seconded by Ms. Ricci to accept version (b) which read <br />without any wording for a settlement to St. Louis Municipal League as stated below. <br />1. BILL 8975 <br />— An ordinance approving a settlement agreement with AT&T Mobility. <br /> <br />Introduced by Ms. Ricci, version (b) which read without any allocation to St. Louis <br />Municipal League which read without any wording for a settlement to St. Louis Municipal <br />League as stated below. <br />2. BILL 8976 <br />— version (b) An ordinance approving a settlement agreement with Sprint <br />Nextel <br /> <br />Introduced by Mr. Sharpe, Jr. <br />3. BILL 8977 <br />— An ordinance amending Chapter 10.36 of the University City Municipal <br />Code, relating to regulations for specific streets, by repealing Section 10.36.030 <br />thereof, relating to one-way street designated, and enacting in lieu thereof a new <br />Section to be known as “Section 10.36.030 one-way streets designated,” thereby <br />amending said Section so as designation of Westgate Ave to be one-way street <br />southbound from Olive Blvd. to North Ave; containing a saving clause and providing a <br />penalty. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner stated that this came through the Traffic Commission but a quorum was not <br />present for vote. He stated the issue was that the County had jurisdiction of this <br />intersection. The County removed the traffic signal and now it became dangerous to take a <br />left turn. The options the County presented were to make it one way or to totally block off <br />the north lane. <br /> <br />CITIZEN COMMENTS <br /> <br />