Laserfiche WebLink
<br />LEGISLATIVE DOCKET <br /> <br />Bill with an Emergency Clause - all three readings <br />1. BILL 8894 - AN ORDINANCE FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO THE <br />FIRE CAPTAINS AND FIREFIGHTERS AS ENUMERATED HEREIN FROM AND <br />AFTER JUNE 28,2006, AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 6647 CONTAINING AN <br />EMERGENCY CLAUSE. <br /> <br />Ms. Brot felt Council should have been more informed on this so as not to feel they were being <br />forced into making a decision without having all the facts. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff said that he was in the process of negotiation when the original bill was passed <br />by the Council. An agreement has now been reached making a new ordinance needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe asked how the new figures would affect the budget for 2006 - 2007. Mr. Ollendorff <br />said that it amounted to $2700 and the line items had adequate funds to cover this increase. Mr. <br />Wagner thought that Council should have had a comprehensive study of this instead of being <br />mandated for emergency approval this night. Mr. Price agreed with the emergency clause and <br />the amount was a small percentage increase from what was previously passed. (Emergency <br />clause requires all Councilmembers to approve after the three readings at one time,) Mr. <br />Wagner felt that this bill did not need to mandate an emergency clause and could be passed at <br />the next Council session. Mr. Sharpe said that Mr. Wagner was not against the salary change <br />but he objected more to the use of the emergency clause. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner moved to amend the bill by removing the emergency clause. There was no second, <br />thus killing this proposed amendment. <br /> <br />Bill 8894 had all three readings but Mayor Adams chose not to take a vote on its passage. This <br />bill will have a second and third reading at the next Council meeting, without the emergency <br />clause. <br /> <br />BILLS FOR SECOND AND THIRD READINGS <br />BILL 8890 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6.04 OF THE UNIVERSITY <br />CITY MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO ANIMALS GENERALLY, BY <br />REPEALING SECTION 6.04.025 THEREOF, RELATING TO CHICKENS- <br />PERMIT REQUIRED, AND ENACTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW <br />SECTION TO BE KNOWN AS "SECTION 6.04.025 CHICKENS - PERMIT <br />REQUIRED", THEREBY AMENDING SAID SECTION SO AS TO <br />PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF ANY NEW PERMIT FOR A PERIOD OF <br />ONE YEAR, PROHIBIT THE SALE OFR CHICKENS OR EGGS, REQUIRE <br />QUARTERLY INSPECTIONS OF PREMISES WHERE A CHICKEN IS <br />KEPT, AND SPECIFY A MINIMUM FINE FOR KEEPING A CHICKEN <br />WITHOUT A PERMIT; CONT AINING A SAVING CLAUSE AND <br />PROVIDING A PENALTY. <br />Mr. Price felt the fine was not stiff enough and suggested it be changed to $300. Mr. <br />Wagner would agree that the fine was not high enough but felt $300 was too much but <br />would settle with a $200 fine. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner moved for approval and was seconded by Ms. Brungardt. <br />