Laserfiche WebLink
staff and volunteers, common entry reception and concession area. Highest priority <br />optional features if space and budget permit include space for other recreation activities, <br />a meeting room, warming kitchen, children's play room, and sauna. All new areas will <br />be fully accessible, highly secure and efficiently year-round climate controlled. The <br />adjacent bath house renovation will be coordinated with the Recreation Facility. <br /> <br />Mary Ann Zaggy, 6303 McPherson Avenue, said to combine the proposed recreational <br />facility in partnership with the University City High School would be a mistake for several <br />reasons: <br /> <br />1) A similar facility in more affluent Clayton, used as an example for such a <br /> partnership, has operated with at deficit for five years, at $125,000 per year. The <br /> deficit amount is paid to the City of Clayton by the Clayton School District. <br /> A similar loss could not be sustained by the University City School District. <br />2) The financing and construction of the recreation center in Clayton took ten years. <br />3) The memberships in the Clayton center are underwritten by corporate sponsors, <br /> and similar sponsorship is not available in University City. <br />4) The University City School District will be ill-served by sharing facilities with the <br /> general population. Again using the example of Clayton, high school athletes are <br /> denied free access for gyms for practice of basketball, and water polo and <br /> swimming teams cannot practice as frequently as desired. <br />5) The athletic teams from University City Schools need access to facilities to <br /> succeed. <br /> <br />Teresa Entwistle, 6648 Kingsbury Avenue, said she voted for Proposition K because <br />publicity stated the center would be located at Heman Park. She believes voters will <br />feel deceived if the center is moved to the University City High School. Furthermore, <br />she believes the High School location would not provide adequate parking and access, <br />and that it would be cost prohibitive to undertake a completely new facility rather than <br />updating the current one. Proposition K was not a school improvement tax; it was a <br />community service referendum. <br /> <br />Bob Winters, 7242 Colgate, wants clarification of the proposal considered tonight. <br />Recommendations made by the Proposition K Committee were not options, but features <br />requested by citizens and all those features were to be included if the City could afford <br />them. The Committee also understood that all renovated and new areas would be <br />"fully-tempered" and usable year round. The Committee understood that drawings <br />presented for their consideration last September "for the vote" were described as <br />"concept drawings" only. They expect that now the Council will "start with a clean sheet <br />of paper." They feel that requesting qualifications form other professional design firms <br />is a good start, but hope that the new start is not from the "concept diagram". They <br />recommend that the City perform three studies: 1) the soccer feasibility study, 2) the <br />alternate location study, to make sure money is well-spent, and 3) a the master plan for <br />all recreational facilities. <br /> <br />Ray Reckamp, 7100 Kingsbury Boulevard, wants the Council to reject this concept <br />Page 5 <br /> <br /> <br />