By Jay Ermis
The City of Huntsville’s $3.5 million bond issue to fund the proposed renovation and expansion project of the Huntsville Public Library took an overwhelming lead following the tabulation of early votes in Tuesday’s special election.
Proposition 1 received 538 votes for the bond issue to 118 votes against it, or 82 percent of the votes.
Proposition 2 — the proposed exchange of parkland between the city and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — received 568 votes for to 82 votes against or 87.38 percent of the votes.
If approved, the bond issue would pay for the renovation and expansion of the 42-year-old public library from 7,000 square feet to 22,000 square feet in addition to getting 81 parking spaces on 1.774 acres.
The renovation includes a 1,751 square-foot meeting room; 1,804 square-foot children’s room; 1,291 square-foot genealogy room; and archive storage, 221 square feet.
In the proposed amendments to the City Charter, Amendent 1, which proposes that the regular city general elections be moved from the uniform election date in May to the uniform election date in November and that it becomes effective Jan. 1, 2010 — was favored in early voting 395-252, or 61 percent of the votes.
Early voting for the proposed amendments to the City Charter include:
• 1, Shall Article VI, Section 6.01 of the City Charter be amended to provide that the regular city general elections shall be moved from the uniform election date in May to the uniform election date in November to be effective Jan. 1, 2010?
For — 395; against — 252.
• 2, Shall Article IV, Section 4.07 of the City Charter be amended to provide that special meetings of the City Council are allowed to be held at locations other than City Hall?
For — 307; against — 341.
• 3, Shall Article IV, Section 4.13 of the City Charter be amended to provide that no ordinance shall be finally passed until it has been considered and favorably acted on by the council at two separate council meetings and providing for exceptions to the requirement of two separate readings?
For — 507; against — 141.
• 4, Shall Article VII, Section 7.01 of the City Charter be amended to change the required amount of signatures to submit petitions for initiative by the people of the city to direct legislation to not less than 1,000 of the qualified voters of the city?
For — 390; against — 241.
• 5, Shall Article VII, Section 7.02 of the City Charter be amended to change the required amount of signatures to submit petitions for referendum by the people of the city to approve or reject at the polls legislation enacted by the council to not less than 1,000 of the qualified voters of the city?
For — 382; against — 255.
• 6, Shall Article VII, Section 7.07 of the City Charter be amended to change the required amount of signatures to submit petitions for recall any elected officer of the City of Huntsville to not less than 1,000 of the qualified voters of the city?
For — 375; against — 259.
• 7, Shall the first paragraph of Article XI, Section 11.07 of the City Charter be amended by deleting the language “and shall be made only upon the recommendation of the City Manager?”
For — 317; against — 312.
• 8, Shall Article XI, Section 11.13 of the City Charter be amended to allow for the sale of bonds without the requirement for publication or public sale, and to be sold in accordance with state law as amended?
For — 197; against — 434.
• 9, Shall Article XI of the City Charter be amended by adding a new section 11.17 to provide for the limiting of the issuance of new debt by providing that any proposed issuance of new debt that exceeds .002 (two-tenths of one percent) of the net taxable value as certified by the Walker County Appraisal District applicable to the City tax roll for the fiscal year in which the funds are approved shall be submitted to the
qualified voters of the City of Huntsville with exceptions?
For — 409; against — 231.
• 10, Shall Article XII of the City Charter be amended by adding a new section 12.03 that provides that any tax abatement or tax rebate shall be approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the council qualified and serving?
For — 428; against — 211.
