Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veto Override Sales Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sedalia council sustains mayor's veto; fails to override Bill No. 2025-7
Summary
The Sedalia City Council voted against overriding Mayor Dawson's veto of Bill No. 2025-7, which would have placed a sales-tax measure on the April ballot. The motion to override failed on a 0-7 roll call (one member absent). Councilmembers who spoke said the tax as presented was not the right approach.
The Sedalia City Council on Jan. 27, 2025, failed to override Mayor Dawson's veto of Bill No. 2025-7, which proposed placing a sales-tax measure on the April ballot; the roll call showed seven votes against overriding and one member absent, so the veto stands and the bill does not become law.
Mayor Dawson entered written objections into the council record and summarized them at the start of the special session, saying the concerns included an added financial burden on Sedalia residents and businesses, the use of the Washington Street Bridge project as justification when, the mayor said, the bridge project was already moving forward, and the need to explore alternative funding strategies before imposing a new tax.
The mayor's objections led Council to reconsider Bill No. 2025-7 under the council's rules and the provisions cited in the meeting as “Section 77270” and “SMO 77,” which the mayor's summary said require a two-thirds majority of the full council to override a veto (at least six votes). The council opened the floor for debate on whether to override the veto.
Councilman James Cross (first reference: Councilman James Cross) told the council he had changed his position and would oppose the override. “After giving this issue a lot of thought, I've decided to change my position on the proposed [sales] tax,” Cross said. “I've been listening to feedback from many of you in the Third Ward. A lot of people are concerned about the added financial burden... We need to look for other ways to fund our city's needs without immediately turning to new taxes. I agree with Mayor Dawson that we should be more transparent about how we use public funds and explore different options before asking residents to pay more.”
Second Ward Councilmember Tina Boggess said she supported the mayor's veto. “I, Tina Boggess, Second Ward City Councilperson. I am absolutely for this veto. I agree with Councilman Cross. I do not believe that this is the time or the reason for us to put this on the ballot,” Boggess said, adding concerns about putting the proposal before voters under what she described as a misconception about whether the tax would fix the bridge and the additional ballot cost to the city.
Councilman Bluffs urged a broader planning approach for the east side of town and favored a feasibility study for alternate crossings rather than the tax as presented. “The first thing that has to happen is we have to have a feasibility study,” Bluffs said. “In a nutshell, I think the best way for us to proceed is to end the lawsuit. It's just being used to drive a wedge between us and the people of Sedalia.”
Clerk Myers called the roll for the override vote. The roll-call responses recorded in the meeting were: Robinson — no; Alden — no; Marshall — absent; (record also shows) August — no; Cross — no; Hiller — no; Foster — no; Bliss — no. With fewer than the required two-thirds majority, the mayor's veto was sustained and Bill No. 2025-7 did not become law.
The meeting record and discussion also referenced a separate county-level legal dispute and a prior 0.005-cent sales-tax renewal whose ballot language and sunset clause had been the subject of litigation; members discussed the judge's ruling on county permitting and ballot-language issues during remarks but did not take a formal council action on those matters at the special session.
With no further business, the council moved to adjourn the special session.
