2013-10-28 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

broken-out separately. Mr. Crow asked if this was a multi-year funding request. Ms. Riganti stated that while the Chamber indicated that they may approach the Economic Retail Sales Tax Board in future years, this was a single year funding request for this fiscal year. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Riganti if EDRST would be required to submit progress reports that could also be reviewed by Council. Ms. Riganti stated that there would be several processes in place to measure milestones and this information would also be provided to Council. Mr. Glickert stated that information regarding sales tax receipts can be obtained from the State of Missouri who is usually about a month ahead of UCity. He stated that he was confident that the City is a part of the increase which he believed the State had programmed at five percent, so the $100,000 increase appeared to be a reasonable number. Mr. Glickert stated that this week he and a number of his colleagues attended Casino Night which was sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. When he looked at the resolution and what was offered, he did not see anything but good value. He stated that he wished that this Council was able to get along like the members of the Chamber of Commerce, because he has never seen a group of people more energetic and on fire about UCity in such a short period of time. Mr. Glickert noted if they are this charged up in their year and a half history there was no telling what they can do as spokespeople evangelizing for UCity. He stated that he would like to see the members of Chamber leave tonight’s meeting knowing that the City is working with them, because if Council did not allocate this funding they could very easily change their tune. In his opinion, $32,000 is a good value. Mr. Glickert stated that another philosophical issue was the Economic Development Retail Sales tax money being used for the parking lot. He stated that he did not believe that when the taxpayers allocated this tax increase, it was the intent of this organization, so he would rather see the money for the parking lot come out of the City’s own fund. Mr. Glickert stated that his belief was that the intent of the sales tax was more along the lines of what Mr. Price has alluded to, brand new brick and mortar on Olive Street Road from one end to the other. The Loop is the City’s core commercial district, and is doing very well, so if all we need was more parking, what a nice problem to have. Mr. Glickert stated that since there is a need for Council to act on the resolution in front of them and since there are still a number of unanswered questions, he would like to inquire as to if this item could be postponed until the next meeting. Mr. Walker advised Mr. Glickert that the resolution could be referred back, although it would have to be submitted within 30 days. Mr. Glickert stated that with the exception of the money going to the parking lot, he could vote on this resolution tonight. He moved to postpone Resolution 2013 - 18 until the next meeting in order to give members of Council an opportunity to pose any questions or concerns they might have to the City Manager with the hope of gaining a better understanding of the issues prior to taking a vote. The motion to postpone was seconded by Mr. Sharpe. Mr. Walker requested that any additional questions with respect to this budget transfer be submitted by the end of this week so that staff will be in a position to provide any additional information that might be needed. 16