Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Wagner moved to approve Bill 9057 and was seconded by Mr. Crow. <br /> <br />Roll Call Vote was: <br />AYES: Mr. Crow, Mr. Glickert, Mr. Sharpe, Jr. Mr. Price, Ms. Ricci, Mr. Wagner and <br />Mayor Adams <br />NAYS: none <br /> <br />Bill 9057 became Ordinance 6802 <br /> <br />K. NEW BUSINESS <br />BILLS <br />Introduced by Mr. Price <br />1. <br />BILL 9058 – An ordinance calling a General Obligation Bond Election in the City of <br />University City, Missouri and authorizing certain actions in connection therewith. <br /> <br />L. CITIZEN COMMENTS <br />Jan Adams, 7150 Cambridge <br />Ms. Adams spoke in opposition to Bill 9058 stating that it is least likely to pass in the April <br />election in light of the current administration. The concerned citizens expect an answer to <br />their audit petition in approximately six months. She thought that would give the City time to <br />get their house in order. Ms. Adams stated an example of the City Manager giving <br />representation to the City Council during the, August 31, 2009 meeting regarding <br />compensation Ordinance 9046. She stated that Councilmember Ricci was right when she <br />said that the Civil Service Board had not issued a recommendation for this ordinance and <br />the City Charter requires a recommendation before the City Council votes on it. Ms. Adams <br />stated the City Manager challenged Ms. Ricci’s statement and represented to the Council <br />that the ordinance had been approved by the Civil Service Commission at its August 3 <br />meeting which was attended by Ms. Watson. Councilmember Glickert inquired why the <br />Commission’s recommendation was not included in the material to the Council. She stated <br />that Ms. Feier assured the Council that there were minutes showing the Council’s approval. <br />Ms. Adams stated that there are no such minutes, that the Board declined to make a <br />recommendation until such time it was provided with additional supporting documents. She <br />stated that no documents have been produced hence no recommendation has been made. <br />Ms. Adams stated that if the State Auditor determines that there has been a <br />misappropriation of funds as a result of this Council’s vote, each member will be held <br />accountable. She suggested this ordinance be placed on the agenda again to correct the <br />mistakes. <br /> <br />Paulette Carr, 7901 Gannon Ave <br />Ms. Carr is against the Bill 9058 as it stands right now. She stated that there is an <br />upcoming pending election and the City will have a new Mayor and some new <br />Councilmembers. Ms. Carr said it would be well advised to wait to after the election for the <br />new Council to take action of this bill. She felt no bond issue should be on the ballot until <br />the state audit provides a new blueprint on how to proceed. <br /> <br />Lawrence Taylor, 7472 Stanford <br />Mr. Taylor rose to the timing of this ordinance. He stated that the residents will be unclear of <br />the constitution of the Council, unclear of the budget requirements for the coming year and <br />they remember the clear defeat of Proposition S. His concern is if the City needs the bond <br />issue and it is defeated then the City is zero for two and would not set up well for it to appear <br />again in the fall. Mr. Taylor suggested waiting till the fall for a bond issue. <br /> <br />