2004-03-15 Study - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1913 March 15, 2004 A,qenda Item #2 - University City Public Relations and Publicity There is an on-going disagreement between the City Manager and City Staff and some Loop business owners and merchants over the issue of the City sponsoring nation-wide publicity on behalf of "The Loop." The City encourages The Loop to expand into the City of Saint Louis. The Loop merchants developed the identity, "In the Loop", and they want to focus upon this to the exclusion of University City in their advertisements. The City insists that University City be prominent in this identity, even working out a compromise logo. The nature of the compromise was discussed; the "brand" was considered; and those persons comprising "The Loop" were identified. Whether or not the words University City should be part of that brand was debated, and whether its absence from the brand would harm the City over the long-term. It was pointed out that if University City tax money is used, the name "University City" should be used, including the University City Loop Special Business District money, collected by the City for use by this group. The Loop is a good hook for national publicity. Mr. Ollendorff asked the City Council to determine how they want him to proceed with this disagreement. Consensus of the Council was to allow Mr. Ollendorff to maintain light pressure on LSBD to keep University City in the Loop advertising; however, the Council is sensitive to the marketing goals of the LSBD and understands the direction they are attempting reach towards. A,qenda Item #3 - Skatepark Discussion centered upon whether or not to proceed with establishing a skatepark in University City and becoming partners in this venture with neighboring communities. Various objections raised included: need to be convinced of its popularity, problems relating to lack of visibility from the street resulting in vandalism, graffiti, after-dark behavior problems, and the Park Director's report which concluded it was an undesirable step. Discussion in favor included the suggestion of converting wasted parkland in Heman Park east of the ball fields near the river and across from the Community Center now used for mulch piles and equipment storage into an area that would satisfy Proposition K priorities and lead to making Heman Park a regional center, by combining University City resources with those of neighboring communities. The consensus was to wait until after the budget has been determined to consider action on the matter. A,qenda Item #6 - Olive Enhancement Plans Mr. Ollendorff presented a final status report to the Council in their packets and invited any questions from members.