02/14/2005 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Meeting February 14, 2005 associations. She asked the City Manager’s office to contact Washington University to add their voice to the letters of support because they have such a large real estate investment in the Loop area. She asked that the Parkview Gardens Association also send a formal letter of support. She asked that the budget sessions in the spring months of the year also consider other means of financing options for these particular lights, noting that pedestrian lights in the Loop have been a long time coming and advocacy for figuring how to install them in a timely fashion may require more than simply making a grant application. She wants all venues for financing this project considered and undertaken in an expedient manner. The motion passed unanimously. CITIZEN COMMENTS: Edward McCarthy, 7101 Princeton Avenue, stated that over the past two months a committee of the University City Community Forum has researched and analyzed the lateral sewer issue, including meeting with the City Manager. They compared this City’s program with those in other municipalities in the St. Louis County area and want to propose the following changes or recommendations, including some copies of other cities’ programs: 1) publish entire program on the website, including applications, regulations and instructions and steps required of the homeowner, plus a typical time frame; 2) employ a separate diagnostic contractor as well as the repair contractor, resulting in two distinct functions; 3) establish a fixed fee for the inspection, charged to the homeowners; 4) have diagnostic contractor submit to the City a drawing of the scope of the work and a videotape, to limit scope increases; 5) have a City employee complete the cost estimate and a work plan for the contractors to bid on, resulting in standard bidding by all plumbers and drain layers. These suggested changes are expected to result in lower cost and efficiency of the program. They requested that money collected for this purpose, with the exception of $60,000 earmarked for the prior years’ deficits, should be used and not transferred to other funds. Money collected over the next three years should exceed the expenses of the program. They also suggested the elimination of the $500 deductible amount, which penalized the small home owner, and asked that it be replaced by requiring the homeowner to pay a flat percentage of the job, such as 80 per cent. He also asked that if the diagnostic contractor “clears the line” because it was not done before, what would be the cost and would the home owner pay? If the amount is greater that $5,000 and all steps are followed, does the City Manager have to be involved? He then submitted a printed copy of these suggestions to the City Clerk. Ms. Welsch asked if the suggestion to use one contractor to diagnose and another to do the work was based upon research revealing the costs were higher than they should be because of the way this procedure is currently undertaken, and was advised yes and then he provided details of why the committee felt this way. Ms. Welsch wanted to know where his committee conducted their research and he mentioned Webster Groves, Brentwood, and St. Louis County. Their aim was to compare costs only in municipalities which paralleled University City. Mr. Wagner asked the City Manager to Page 7