2011-08-22 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Introduced by Mr. Sharpe 3. BILL 9130 – An ordinance amending Chapter 2.28 of the University City Municipal Code, Relating to Commissions, Authorities, Boards and Committees generally, by repealing Section 2.28.050 thereof, relating to the Tax Increment Financing Commission, and enacting in lieu thereof a new section to be known as “Section 2.28.050 Tax Increment Financing Commission”, thereby amending said section so as to Update it to reflect changes in state law. Introduced by Mr. Crow 4. BILL 9131 – An ordinance declaring the 6600 block of Bartmer and Crest Avenues redevelopment area blighted under the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority law; approving a redevelopment plan for the area; and finding that the redeveloper is qualified for tax abatement. Introduced by Mr. Kraft 5. BILL 9132 – An ordinance to establish a procedure to disclose potential conflicts of interest and substantial interests for certain Municipal Officials. Mr. Kraft asked to make a motion to amend this bill with three minor changes. The first was in Section 3. He moved to remove the parenthesis “(if employed full time)”. He thought it was irrelevant for the City Attorney and thought it should say disclose in writing, whether full time or part time; Mr. Kraft stated if there was a conflict it should be disclosed. The second suggested amendment was in Section 2. Mr. Kraft said RSMo 105.461.1 contained no definitions and should be removed. The final phrase he asked to be struck was also in Section 2, “within 24 hours” and thought it could be a trap. The motion to amend the three sections was seconded by Ms. Ricci. Ms. Ricci said on the 24 hour section she would prefer to have it read as “the earlier of within 24 hours or prior to any vote”, so if they found out within twelve hours, one would still have to disclose their conflict of interest. Mr. Crow stated he was under the impression that on ordinances, the amendments were made on the second or third reading. Mayor Welsch said that has happened in the past but in checking with the City Clerk, it was determined that there was nothing stated in the Charter that amendments could not be made after the first reading of a bill. Mr. Kraft said he did not have any preference as to when, he just wanted to bring up the discussion. Mr. Sharpe asked if Mr. Mulligan had the opportunity to review the suggested changes and Mr. Walker said the City Attorney did not review the changes suggested by Mr. Kraft. Mr. Glickert said he thought extra time to review the suggested amendments would be good. Mr. Kraft withdrew his motion to amend Bill 9132. 5