05/17/89 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sessic~ 1496, M/nutes Page 4 May 17, 1989 Mr. Price what %~uld be gained by the City owning these lots, since it would be much moro expensive to not only buy the lots but take over c~,~lete main- tenance. He noted that several years ago $2,000 in overtime was allocated to take care of the lots the County was slow to mow, and that was still in effect. He felt the city had a much better chance of getting the adjacent hc~eowner to buy the lot than if the City owned it. Mr. Price disagreed, and said he was ooncerned about the condition of the lots. He concurred that the final result should be individual ownership but he felt it was not happening fast enough. Mr. Ollendorff felt it w~uld happen even more slowly if the city owned the lots. Mrs. Th~L~c~ agreed with Mr. Price. Mr. Ollendorff said he would like more time to find cut if Mr. Price's informatien regarding the Oounty no long- er mowing its lots in University City is correct. A second consideration is that Cu, L~"nity Devel~,~.nt money could be used to purchase the lots t.hat are in the northeast section of the City. In response to Mr. Adams, Mr. Ollen- dorff said Mr. Mose Head of Public Works was responsible for marketing the lots to adjacent owners. It was decided that a decision on this matter will be deferred until Council considers t_he C~,unity Development budget next fall. Neighborhood inspection letters and information. ~he Mayor requested this it~, which will cost at l~t $2,500. She said this was an item rec~uL~_nded by Development Strategies which could be implemented immediately and should be very useful. Ail agreed this should be implemented, and Mr. Price suggest- ed that the University city New~ could also be used to impart certain types of information. More environ~entsl inspectors. Mr. Ollendorff said if the City was going to do a great deal more inspection, then it would be best to switch fr~,~ a part- tia~ person to a full-time, year-round person at an additional cost of about $14,000, which would include use of a car. He said the scheduling is left fairly loose so that special projects (i.e., c~L~laints following a neighbor- hood meeting) can be responded to quickly. He noted that if the inspections generate a great many more cases, the court may get backlogged. Mrs. Th~,~son recalled Mr. Adams' c~uL~nts about policemen on bicycles, and. suggested that t/~is would also be a good way to inspect neighborhoods. Mr. Wagner said it seemed that some of the inspectors had an attitudinal problem and that they ~,erlcoked cede violations in sc~e cases. In response to Mr. Wagner, the City Manager said the housing inspectors have a c~letely full workload, and the enviromnental inspectors'answer cu~laints first, and then do routine patrol in t]%e worst neighborhoods with whatever time is left. He felt they were doing a good job overall. Mr. A~ms asked if there would be enough work for a full-time l~_rson roplacing a part-ti~_r. Mr. Ollendorff said he believed there would be. ~here was consensus to add $14,000 to the budget to change the part-time environmental inspector to full-time. Mayor Majerus called a recess at 9:20 p.m. Council reconvened at 9:28 p.m. University City Residential Service (UFOS). Mr. Ollendorff responded to as earlier question f£~, Mrs. Schuman, saying the m/nimum wage roferred to was $3.75 an hour, and the fi)IA was 5%. Mr. Price said even though the Board of UC~S was integ==ted, the staff was not and he object~ to that. He also noted