03/07/05 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Meeting March 7, 2005 Mayor Adams declared the Public Hearing open at 6:43 P.M. There were no speakers, so the Pubic Hearing was declared closed at 6:43 P.M. Ms. Brot expressed her enthusiasm about the introduction of this important new concept. Mr. Wagner agreed with her, noting other cities had developed mixed-use cities with great success. Increased population and increased retail development can bring benefits to University City. Agenda Item # Six – Public Hearing for 8041 Olive Boulevard Rezoning The City Manager recommended setting March 28, 2005 at 6:30 P.M. for a Public Hearing to rezone 8041 Olive Boulevard, 8081 Olive Boulevard, and 1214 Hafner Avenue. Mr. Ollendorff explained that the Council received a packet of information on this proposal, but it was inadvertently left off the agenda cover sheet. Mr. Sharpe moved approval and Mr. Wagner seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Rosalyn Borg, 7820 Cornell Avenue, came to express her concern and opposition to the new fee structure for the newly renovated Heman Park Recreation Park and Fitness Center and to ask reconsideration of the Council’s decision to increase fees at the center. Her objections are based upon the following: 1)belief that Proposition K would raise increased sales tax revenue to support the new facility with no additional cost to the residents; the goal of Proposition K to rebuild the facility so that it is affordable to all residents. Although she is a member of Proposition K Committee she is speaking as an individual this evening. 2) Fees for the fitness center and for the pool should not be bundled together. Many citizens use only one of the two facilities. It is unfair to ask non-pool users to support the pool facilities and vice versa. She urged a three-tier fees structure for University City residents: one fee for the fitness facility only, one fee that combines the fitness center and the pool fee, and one fee for pool users only. 3) The percentage increase of fees is unreasonable. Fees for a “single senior” under option two almost doubles the current fee. Under option one it raises the fee by almost fifty per cent. They are both out-of-range for many seniors in the City, many who live on a fixed income. Seniors were a targeted group for affordability. 4)She understands that fees may need to be raised, but increase for seniors from $65 to nearly $85, without the pool, is more reasonable than what is currently proposed, $100 under option one and $130 under option two. Option two may seem like a bargain now, but in 2006 or 2007 or 2008 for those who do not choose option two before June of 2005, what will happen? In the past the entire fee was paid at the time of enrollment. She does not see the option for an increased fee to be paid in installments which might make it easier. 5) She believes that City Council did not keep good faith with the residents. She feels she has Page 5