Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1922 <br />May 17, 2004 <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner moved approval of the Consent Calendar, Mr. Sharpe seconded, and the <br />motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff advised that the seventh item, removed from the Consent Calendar, <br />was a recommendation from the Plan Commission that the Zoning Ordinance be <br />amended as pertains to fences, to allow in addition to the solid six-foot height of the <br />fence, to permit up to six inches in height for the installation of decorative items. The <br />City Council needs to set a public hearing date and the City Manager recommended the <br />next regular meeting, Monday, June 7, 2004, for that hearing. Mr. Sharpe moved to <br />accept this date and Ms. Welsch seconded the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner said that he wanted to emphasize the fact that this change does not allow <br />the fence to increase by six inches; the ornaments at the posts will be allowed to be six <br />inches high. The fence remains at the six foot level. Ms. Welsch expressed her <br />approval of this issue because it keeps the cost of fences down in University City. The <br />previous ordinance required people to cut down their pickets in order to install <br />decorative ornaments and still meet the required six-foot level. <br /> <br />The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING: <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff said that two weeks ago on May 3, 2004 at this time and place the City <br />Council held its first Public Hearing on the annual budget and heard from citizens, and <br />these comments were taken under advisement and were given due consideration by the <br />City Council. This evening, there is a second opportunity for citizens to comment on the <br />annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2004. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams declared the Public Hearing open at 7:35 P.M. <br /> <br />Edward J. McCarthy, 7101 Princeton Avenue, attended last week's study session and <br />came this evening with five or six points to raise. The first comment focused upon the <br />library and the fact that the Saint Louis County tax rate for the library is fourteen cents <br />while that of University City is twenty-eight cents, so he asked if the City library could <br />join the County system? He wants numbers issued to reflect the specific amount of <br />library users in the past six, twelve and eighteen months, not merely the number of <br />library card holders. Secondly, he asked why the sanitation department does not make <br />money, and since it does not, can it be contracted out to save money? Next, he asked <br />why the budgeted amount for operating the pool next year was $295,000 when the <br />$87,000 revenue is less than forty percent. He would like the forty percent figure raised <br />to sixty or eighty percent over the next two or three years. He also asked for exact <br />numbers of pool users and expressed his opinion that the entire City pays for a benefit <br />enjoyed by a limited number of people. The yearly charge to use the pool is too Iow, he <br />said. He favors non-residents using the pool. Then, regarding planning and <br /> Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />