My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/11/05 Budget Study
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
2005
>
05/11/05 Budget Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/20/2005 12:32:40 PM
Creation date
6/20/2005 12:32:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
5/11/2005
SESSIONNUM
1965
TYPE
BUDGET STUDY
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Budget Study Session <br />May 11, 2005 <br /> <br /> <br />COMMENTS <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner asked about the request two days ago for the “unencumbered analysis and <br />what it would be.” He said he hoped it would be ready for the Budget meeting next <br />week, including a statement of his analysis and not “just the bottom line.” Mr. Wagner <br />was especially interested in the policy. He said Mr. Norfleet needed to analyze the <br />figures and to inform the Council about them. It is the analysis that is of special interest <br />to him. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams said SBC advised State legislators of a “one word amendment” which <br />has destroyed a bill by inserting the word “wireless.” This will halve the revenue stream. <br />The problem is that the senate approved it with that change, but the house would not <br />accept it with any amendment. He provided some additional details relating to this <br />situation. Mr. Wagner asked what the impact would be and was advised that it would <br />be reduced revenue by half. Mr. Wagner wanted to know into which sentence the word <br />“wireless” was inserted and was advised by Mr. Ollendorff that “The total definition of <br />what is covered by this was changed to leave out the cell phones.” Mr. Wagner wanted <br />more details to explain this situation, but was willing to wait for another time. <br /> <br />CITIZEN’S COMMENTS <br /> <br />Richard Dockett, thanked the Council for accepting citizen’s comments at these budget <br />hearings and for the good job done by them in improving the quality of life in University <br />City. He said social integration works well in University City. Then he mentioned the <br />topic of economic integration, by which he meant proportional representation and <br />taxation with representation, which he feels has not been dealt with in respect of the <br />black African-American community. He said there must be a plan to do this. There is <br />nothing in the Five-Year Plan for University City which addressed this issue. Currently <br />the black African-American population is forty-five per cent and within a decade that <br />group could become a majority. <br /> <br /> He referred to the Economic Development Advisory Board report discussed at the <br />th <br />March 15 meeting, noting that it was “done by all white males and they did not mention <br />anything about economic integration.” He asked that this be looked at “so that there not <br />be a continuation of a good old white boys club and them coming up with a Boss Hall to <br />rule over these predominately black areas and the majority black communities that have <br />developed in the northeast triangle.” He asked that Parkview Gardens and other areas <br />receive the “pennies left from the CDBG Funds.” He also asked that the five stations for <br />the Metro be considered, with input from the black African-American community. He <br />noted that there all ready were ties with the Asian community, but they had not <br />addressed the issue he raised today, about economic integration. He offered his <br />services and said that he was “an expert on it.” <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.