2004-06-28 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1927 June 28, 2004 which is a separate issue from the first two mentioned, but there was some confusion as to where the first two issues dovetailed with marketing issues. Some Councilmembers agreed with the "no non-resident users" policy, but understood that City employees and business owners would be allowed access to the pool and the recreation facility; others did not. Minutes from an earlier meeting where these issues were discussed were called for, in order to clarify the discussion. The City Manager asked the Council to advise him as to his next move, based upon their decision as to what policy for use should be. Business owners can get a "resident-rate pass" while the employee pays the "non-resident rate" to use the pool unaccompanied by a resident; this constitutes the current policy. The policies in front of the Council tonight represent a plethora of policies used by the City over the years to govern pool use; some are current, some are not. Councilmembers were reminded that the question asked of them was, "Do you want non-residents in neighboring communities to use the pool?" That was the issue the Council voted upon; additional policy issues and marketing suggestions emanated from that question, but were not actually germane to the original question posed. New pool passes were printed. It is necessary to establish how non-resident employees will be allowed to use the pool. It was suggested that the policy be expanded from residents and their guests to include "access to the pool for people who come into our City and help make it successful: full time employees of the City and school district, and business owners and their full time employees." The consensus reached was to allow employees, school district employees and business owners and their employees the opportunity to purchase pool passes at the resident rate. Alley Repair - Ms. Colquitt asked if some members of the City Council could meet with residents to talk about charging for the alley repairs, specifically how much it will cost, how it will be paid for, and who will pay for it, including details of the interest rates. The City Manager reiterated that no alley in University City receives an initial pavement without the residents being charged for the work, for at least the past forty years. What residents are referring to are already-paved alleys which required repairs. Residents are not charged when a paved alley is repaired, but residents are always charged for the initial pavement of an alley. Discussion relating to communicating with residents and their concerns followed. The City Manager described the procedure as follows: when the work is completed he presents the Council with a Resolution showing the final cost, requesting a certification of bills to the residents and the interest rate; the final determination is made at this point. While there is flexibility in what residents are charged for this work, it must be weighed against the "per foot assessment rate", adopted each year by the City Council. Each year a standard assessment rate is set by the Council for street and alley improvements. Any petitioners are advised what they will pay according to this rate, regardless of the cost for the street and alley improvements. This is a firm policy. It can be changed when the time comes to bill the resident. The City may charge less. Also, the interest rate can be changed, from 8 per cent to something lower. The rate is set for a purpose, to demonstrate approximately what repairs will cost. If there are floating rates, the citizens are confused about City policy. Mayor Adams suggested lowering the interest rate from 8 per cent. Mr. Wagner Page 2