Laserfiche WebLink
<br />North & South; to eliminate tree removal, which she has been trying for the past four <br />years to have the forestry department remove a maple tree in the front. Ms. Borg <br />stated that on June 10, Mr. Crow stated he would remove the tree and nothing has <br />been done. She was appealing to the Council to have both the Maple and Sweet <br />Gum tree removed in the front of her house. <br /> <br />Paulette Carr, 7901 Gannon <br />Ms. Carr stated she was apposed to Proposition S, the only issue on the ballot for <br />August 4, 2009. She stated the City has taken $100,000 from the Economic <br />Development Sales Tax Fund to help the FY 10 deficit budget proposal, which was <br />not recommended by the Economic Development Sales Tax Board. Also the City is <br />counting on revenues to be produced in the sales tax increase. There has been no <br />public discussion of Proposition S and late July and August is typically when people <br />are on vacation. Ms. Carr stated the scare tactics of the brochure were misleading, <br />as funding is in place to pay for many of these services. She felt that there were <br />many items in the budget that needed to be revisited to balance it. <br /> <br />Tom Sullivan, 758 Kingsland <br />Mr. Sullivan stated the Proposition S brochure violated the law as you can’t spend <br />public funds to support or oppose a ballot proposal. He said that the brochure does <br /> <br />not give the positive and negative presentation of facts. He mentioned future sales <br />tax that will be proposed, as in November a one percent to be enacted in the Loop, <br />in April a one-quarter percent sales tax for the Children’s Fund, in November a one <br />percent sales tax for St. Louis County and Metro is looking for a quarter percent <br />sales tax increase next April. Mr. Sullivan asked who authorized the brochure. He <br /> <br />talked of a temporary restraining order if the City planned in continuing on with <br />Proposition S. <br /> <br />Ms. Feier stated that all the information on the tax proposal has been shared with <br />the full Council. She said the brochure was given to Council in four different <br /> <br />sections and asked for their feed back, there were twenty-four different meetings to <br />discuss the tax, and it was drafted and paid for by the City. Mr. Sullivan asked if it <br />was formally approved by the Council and the City Manager stated that the Council <br />was only asked for their feed back. <br /> <br /> <br />Jen Jensen , 706 Pennsylvania <br />Ms. Jensen read from the brochure what would happen if the proposition did not <br />pass, a question she had asked at the previous meeting, and now saw the answer. <br />She compared Prop S to Prop K brochure and stated that the Prop K was strictly <br />informational whereas the Prop S brochure was not. Ms. Jensen stated she would <br /> <br />work for the defeat of Prop S. <br /> <br />Elsie Glickert, 6712 Etzel <br />Ms. Glickert mentioned that the Council again voted on a public hearing without first <br />listening to the constituents. She had understood scholarship to mean use for a <br />cadet in the police department not for recreational purposes. Ms. Glickert asked <br />about the Central Garage account and wanted to know if the proposed fee on the <br />refuse was going to be an account. Central garage account use to buy vehicles and <br />heavy equipment as needed. Ms. Glickert asked about the Prop S brochure she <br />received and wanted to know who paid for it, was it University City Fire Dept. She <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />