August 27th Hearing and Special Meeting
On August 27th, 2007 the Overland City Council met for a hearing to set the tax levy for the coming year as well as hold a special Council meeting, primarily to swear newly elected Mayor Schneider into office.
There were a few issues raised by people in attendance concerning what should have happened following the swearing in of Mayor Schneider. The first was that they should have named a President Pro Tem of the Council. Actually, we already have one. Councilperson Jerry May of Ward One is the President Pro Tem of the Council. As you can see in City Ordinance 110.240 (you'll need to scroll down to find it) the City Council elects the President Pro Tem of the Council following each year's municipal election. The Council elected Councilperson May to President Pro Tem in April 2007 and the election of a new Mayor has no impact on this. The only way this might have been impacted would have been if Mayor Schneider had been the President Pro Tem prior to being elected Mayor.
Another issue raised was that the Mayor should have re-appointed Linda Downs as the City Clerk (or appointed someone else which would be very unlikely). A look at 115.020 of the Ordinances makes it pretty clear that the City Clerk is "elected by the City Council immediately following the election and installation of a new Mayor". This was an issue we raised following Mayor Purzner's election. Though the ordinance does not distinguish between special or regularly scheduled Council meetings this appears to be nothing more than a simple oversight, which is understandable considering that this has all come about because of Overland's successful mayoral recall, the first one in our County in 25 years, which leads to some uncharted, or at least confusing waters at times. Considering that appointments were not on the agenda for this meeting, even if the Council caught this oversight they could have run afoul of the Sunshine Law if they attempted to add appointments to the agenda. I am sure this will be resolved at the September 10th Council meeting without issue.
During the Tax Levy hearing portion of the meeting Councilperson Peggy Keller of Ward Three took issue with an increase in the personal property tax rate. Last year's residential personal property tax rate was 7.7 cents, which was increasing to 9.7 cents per 100.00 of assessed value. Along with this small increase was a small reduction in the residential real property tax rate from last years 7.5 cents to 6.9 cents per 100.00 of assessed value. The first thing to consider here is that this is only affecting the small municipal portion of our tax bills. The city's portions of our property taxes is one of the smallest items on the list of where the money goes, and that is all this change affects.
To put this in perspective this change would add 22 cents to the personal property tax bill for every $1,000.00 in assessed vehicle value. For example, the county assesses my family's two vehicles at 4,200 combined, meaning this would increase my personal property taxes by a whopping 93 cents (rounded up). The reduction in real property taxes would reduce a homeowner's property taxes by six dollars ($6.00) per 100,000.00 of assessed value. For example, the county assesses my home at 78,300.00 so the decrease in municipal real property taxes would reduce taxes by $4.69 (rounded down). That means this tax "increase" is actually reducing my combined taxes by $3.76. I imagine most homeowners will have similar results. The above examples do not take into account the additional 2.3 cent per 100 reduction of the city police pension real property tax line item.
Councilperson Peggy Keller said at this hearing "Do not raise taxes if you do not need to". While I have to agree with this statement in general I also have to admit that I'm all for future tax "increases" that actually reduce my combined tax burden.
This personal property tax increase will have some impact on local businesses. Commercial interests pay personal property tax on a host of items above and beyond commercially owned vehicles. They pay personal property taxes on store fixtures, computers, and desks just to name a few. However, there is also an 8 cent reduction in Commercial real property taxes (as well as another 8 cent reduction of the commercial real property tax city police pension line item). More Overland businesses lease their business property than own it. As a result, in some cases there will be no accompanying real property tax deduction to negate the impact of this change. However, many commercial leases break down actual expenses (such as taxes, property maintenance, etc) which often adjust to the actual costs. As a result this is likely to only impact a minority of our local businesses and that impact would be minimal when you consider the small dollar amounts involved.
The people who will be most impacted by this change will be the renters in Overland. They don't pay real property taxes directly, but if they own a vehicle, they do pay personal property taxes. I think it is safe to say that the minor reduction in the real property taxes is not likely to result in a surge of rent reductions in town. As a result the average renter will have to foot that $1.00 or so a year without an accompanying savings. However, is this unfair? Renters need the same services that homeowners (police, street repairs, etc), while homeowners pay the bulk of the taxes (as any homeowner can see when writing that significantly larger real property tax check to the county annually). Marginally shifting the burden from real to personal property also marginally shifts the burden more evenly to all residents of Overland in my opinion. Frankly, when we are talking literally about a dollar or two a year, I doubt anyone (other than those seeking a political advantage of some kind) will even notice the difference.
Another issue raised at this meeting was that Councilperson Keller's motion to amend the Tax Levy Ordinance to change the 9.7 cents back to the 7.5 cents per 100.00 on personal property taxes should have passed because the vote went 4 - 3. The key word here is ordinance. This was a vote to amend a proposed ordinance and is subject to the same 5 vote minimum requirement passing an Ordinance has. Whether you want to look at RSMo. 77.080 or Overland Ordinance 110.260 you find the same language:
At this meeting Mayor Schneider was sworn in and officially took office. We would like to once again congratulate Mayor Schneider on his victory and express our willingness to help and support all efforts with moving the city forward for the betterment of all residents. I am hoping that we will now be able to get the ball rolling on the search for a qualified City Administrator as that would be a huge step in that direction.
There was also a presentation made to Councilperson / President Pro Tem Jerry May for his service in place of the Mayor since April. We would like to thank Councilperson May for his hard work and all his efforts for the City and President Pro Tem. Councilperson May has consistently impressed me over the last several years and his time as "temporary Mayor" only served to solidify that even further for me.
One of the things Mayor Schneider presented to Councilperson May was the gavel. This is a nice gesture that is seen often in many rolls. However, the best part of it came later when Mayor Schneider pulled out a new gavel that was close to the size of a sledge hammer. He said it would only be temporary and that he had made this in shop class when he was a student at Ritenour, giving a nod to his former teacher. It was funny and a nice touch. I assume we'll only see it once though as I imagine they will be replacing the gavel.
Below is the video of the hearing and the meeting in their entirety:
There were a few issues raised by people in attendance concerning what should have happened following the swearing in of Mayor Schneider. The first was that they should have named a President Pro Tem of the Council. Actually, we already have one. Councilperson Jerry May of Ward One is the President Pro Tem of the Council. As you can see in City Ordinance 110.240 (you'll need to scroll down to find it) the City Council elects the President Pro Tem of the Council following each year's municipal election. The Council elected Councilperson May to President Pro Tem in April 2007 and the election of a new Mayor has no impact on this. The only way this might have been impacted would have been if Mayor Schneider had been the President Pro Tem prior to being elected Mayor.
Another issue raised was that the Mayor should have re-appointed Linda Downs as the City Clerk (or appointed someone else which would be very unlikely). A look at 115.020 of the Ordinances makes it pretty clear that the City Clerk is "elected by the City Council immediately following the election and installation of a new Mayor". This was an issue we raised following Mayor Purzner's election. Though the ordinance does not distinguish between special or regularly scheduled Council meetings this appears to be nothing more than a simple oversight, which is understandable considering that this has all come about because of Overland's successful mayoral recall, the first one in our County in 25 years, which leads to some uncharted, or at least confusing waters at times. Considering that appointments were not on the agenda for this meeting, even if the Council caught this oversight they could have run afoul of the Sunshine Law if they attempted to add appointments to the agenda. I am sure this will be resolved at the September 10th Council meeting without issue.
During the Tax Levy hearing portion of the meeting Councilperson Peggy Keller of Ward Three took issue with an increase in the personal property tax rate. Last year's residential personal property tax rate was 7.7 cents, which was increasing to 9.7 cents per 100.00 of assessed value. Along with this small increase was a small reduction in the residential real property tax rate from last years 7.5 cents to 6.9 cents per 100.00 of assessed value. The first thing to consider here is that this is only affecting the small municipal portion of our tax bills. The city's portions of our property taxes is one of the smallest items on the list of where the money goes, and that is all this change affects.
To put this in perspective this change would add 22 cents to the personal property tax bill for every $1,000.00 in assessed vehicle value. For example, the county assesses my family's two vehicles at 4,200 combined, meaning this would increase my personal property taxes by a whopping 93 cents (rounded up). The reduction in real property taxes would reduce a homeowner's property taxes by six dollars ($6.00) per 100,000.00 of assessed value. For example, the county assesses my home at 78,300.00 so the decrease in municipal real property taxes would reduce taxes by $4.69 (rounded down). That means this tax "increase" is actually reducing my combined taxes by $3.76. I imagine most homeowners will have similar results. The above examples do not take into account the additional 2.3 cent per 100 reduction of the city police pension real property tax line item.
Councilperson Peggy Keller said at this hearing "Do not raise taxes if you do not need to". While I have to agree with this statement in general I also have to admit that I'm all for future tax "increases" that actually reduce my combined tax burden.
This personal property tax increase will have some impact on local businesses. Commercial interests pay personal property tax on a host of items above and beyond commercially owned vehicles. They pay personal property taxes on store fixtures, computers, and desks just to name a few. However, there is also an 8 cent reduction in Commercial real property taxes (as well as another 8 cent reduction of the commercial real property tax city police pension line item). More Overland businesses lease their business property than own it. As a result, in some cases there will be no accompanying real property tax deduction to negate the impact of this change. However, many commercial leases break down actual expenses (such as taxes, property maintenance, etc) which often adjust to the actual costs. As a result this is likely to only impact a minority of our local businesses and that impact would be minimal when you consider the small dollar amounts involved.
The people who will be most impacted by this change will be the renters in Overland. They don't pay real property taxes directly, but if they own a vehicle, they do pay personal property taxes. I think it is safe to say that the minor reduction in the real property taxes is not likely to result in a surge of rent reductions in town. As a result the average renter will have to foot that $1.00 or so a year without an accompanying savings. However, is this unfair? Renters need the same services that homeowners (police, street repairs, etc), while homeowners pay the bulk of the taxes (as any homeowner can see when writing that significantly larger real property tax check to the county annually). Marginally shifting the burden from real to personal property also marginally shifts the burden more evenly to all residents of Overland in my opinion. Frankly, when we are talking literally about a dollar or two a year, I doubt anyone (other than those seeking a political advantage of some kind) will even notice the difference.
Another issue raised at this meeting was that Councilperson Keller's motion to amend the Tax Levy Ordinance to change the 9.7 cents back to the 7.5 cents per 100.00 on personal property taxes should have passed because the vote went 4 - 3. The key word here is ordinance. This was a vote to amend a proposed ordinance and is subject to the same 5 vote minimum requirement passing an Ordinance has. Whether you want to look at RSMo. 77.080 or Overland Ordinance 110.260 you find the same language:
No ordinance shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall become an ordinance unless on its final passage a majority of the members elected to the City Council shall vote for it, and the "ayes" and "nays" be entered on the journal.As we have pointed out time and time again here at the Overland Examiner the courts have repeatedly interpreted "majority of the members elected to the City Council" to mean the majority of the the total body, regardless of who might be absent or what seat(s) might be vacant. Since our Council is an 8 member elected body the requirement to do anything with an ordinance is that there be a minimum of 5 votes in favor of it. Once again, this applies to ordinances and not normal business like approving the bills, voting to go into executive session, etc. As a result, the amendment did not pass. However, in the grand scheme of things that really would not have mattered because even if that could have legally passed with only 4 votes, there would not have been 5 to pass the levy. Since both Councilperson O'Connell called for a vote on the amendment again as he wanted to change there vote after hearing the detailed discussion on the tax levy, and Councilperson Jones changed his vote as well ultimately the whole point becomes moot.
At this meeting Mayor Schneider was sworn in and officially took office. We would like to once again congratulate Mayor Schneider on his victory and express our willingness to help and support all efforts with moving the city forward for the betterment of all residents. I am hoping that we will now be able to get the ball rolling on the search for a qualified City Administrator as that would be a huge step in that direction.
There was also a presentation made to Councilperson / President Pro Tem Jerry May for his service in place of the Mayor since April. We would like to thank Councilperson May for his hard work and all his efforts for the City and President Pro Tem. Councilperson May has consistently impressed me over the last several years and his time as "temporary Mayor" only served to solidify that even further for me.
One of the things Mayor Schneider presented to Councilperson May was the gavel. This is a nice gesture that is seen often in many rolls. However, the best part of it came later when Mayor Schneider pulled out a new gavel that was close to the size of a sledge hammer. He said it would only be temporary and that he had made this in shop class when he was a student at Ritenour, giving a nod to his former teacher. It was funny and a nice touch. I assume we'll only see it once though as I imagine they will be replacing the gavel.
Below is the video of the hearing and the meeting in their entirety:
If you are viewing this content through a news-reader
you might not be able to see the video below.
August 27th Overland
Special Council Meeting
and Tax Levy Hearing
( 33 minutes )
Comments are enabled on this article
you might not be able to see the video below.
August 27th Overland
Special Council Meeting
and Tax Levy Hearing
( 33 minutes )
Comments are enabled on this article
Labels: City Council, Council meeting, Mayor, Mayoral Election, Taxes
posted by Overland Sailor @ 5:42 PM 
3 comments
Post Permalink
links to this post
3 Comments:
I disagree that Mrs. Keller's amendment failed for lack of a supermajority. While I understand that 5 votes are required to pass an ordinance, the 5 vote requirement does not extend to motions to amend under Robert's Rules, and in my judgment, the amendment should have passed.
For example, passage of the subsidiary motion to limit or extend the limits of debate (which are normally two speeches per person per motion, with a ten minute limit per speech), requires a two-thirds vote. Amendments to the motion to limit or extend the limits of debate, for example to increase the limit from two speeches per person to four per person, would only require a majority vote. A majority vote, unqualified, always refers to a majority of members actually present and voting, provided a quorum is present.
Could this create a situation where an amendment might pass, thus creating an environment where the main motion might fail? Yes. This does not mean that it is out of order. Instead, it would have set the stage for greater (civil) negotiation to resolve the impasse.
Mrs. Keller should have moved to Appeal the decision of the chair, which also would have passed, presumably, by a 4-3 vote.
I appreciate your point of view though I disagree. The amendment was to an ordinance as in changing the language of the ordinance itself. which In my opinion suggests the same requirement.
Also, we are not talking about a super majority as 5 is the lowest number that is a majority of 8. At issue here is the legal interpretations of the statute (100.080). Those legal decisions have repeatedly pointed to the number of posts on the council/board as opposed to the number currently filled or in attendance as a basis for what a majority is in the case of ordinances.
One such case ruled that though there was a quorum present, and a majority of that quorum voted to pass an ordinance, the statue requires a majority of the Council to pass such an ordinance and the passage of that ordinance was overturned. I believe this applies to amending ordinances as well.
Otherwise the body, without a true majority of the Council, could amend an ordinance to the point that it was unrecognizable from the original. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the statute or legal precedent concerning 100.080.
Ultimately it is something of a moot point because after discussion 2 Council members decided to change their votes which resulted in a 5-2 against the amendment.
I understand your point about the controlling legal language. As we've discussed several times before, what Robert's Rules requires can be different from what the law (statute, ordinance)requires, and of course the law takes precedence. We've also noted that there is no written statement of control for Robert's Rules of any kind.
I still disagree that the 5 vote rule applies to motions to amend. The statute refers to a bill "on its final passage." Therefore, the very last vote must have 5 affirmative votes to pass. But, this statute doesn't speak to earlier votes which don't result in final passage. In absence of a statute or local ordinance, I think a simple majority would be sufficient. I'd bet you can't find a court case that refers to an antecedent vote, and not the final vote.
It's true that an amendment can significantly alter the effect of an ordinance (which is denotatively the intent of amendment), but there are some restrictions around a motion to amend. An amendment, for example, cannot have the same effect as a "no" vote. Further, the amendment must be germane to the intent of the original bill, which would prevent an amendment from making a bill "unrecognizable."
Maybe it is moot in this case, but what happens when this situation occurs again and the members don't change their minds?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home