03/07/05 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Meeting March 7, 2005 misled people who voted for Proposition K. 6) To the best of her knowledge, the decision to raise fees was done without Public Hearing or notice for the public to voice opinion. This is contrary to University City’s history of citizen participation and the democratic process of government. 7) Family fees might be better under a sliding fee structure. Eighty dollars for youth fee membership is a bit steep. She does not know how fees were derived, whether they take into consideration the residents with middle or bottom economic income group. The demographics should be considered when determining the most equitable fee structure. She reiterated her request to separate the fees for the fitness center from the fees for the pool use as a way to return to an affordable and reasonable fee structure. Bilal Olushola, 6849 Julian Avenue, came to notify the City of the formation of a citizen’s group concerned about the City’s compliance to Federal EEOC Guidelines for promotional examinations in the City’s Fire Department. He mentioned the court case of Mr. Julius Acoff, an African-American fire fighter, versus the City of University City. He mentioned they had released information to local newspapers relating to this situation. His group is concerned that failure to comply with EEOC Guidelines may lead to forfeiture of Federal funds for the City. He asked that the City look into and make appropriate response to settle the matter on behalf of the plaintiffs and to allow Mr. Acoff to test for the rank of Battalion Chief. Henry Moglia, 7376 Kingsbury Boulevard, came to speak about the residential sewer- lateral repair program. He mentioned an ad hoc committee including Barb Heise, Ed McCarthy, Ray Reckamp, and himself, to ask for improvements from the City Council. The change is needed because the current program is user unfriendly. It is unclear and inconsistent on policies and procedures. The costs are rampant, both operational and administrative. Many citizens find those who answer telephones to be rude, if they answer the phones at all. Administrative costs require an individual bond for each repair which adds $100 to the costs. The scheduling of inspections is the number one problem to be addressed, according to a survey of contractors. Diagnostics are left to the plumbing companies. There are insufficient numbers of inspectors for the City, in his opinion, for the population. There is excess bureaucracy. There seems to be inequitable treatment of property owners, specifically a different set of rules for rehabbers. Better contractors do not like working in University City. He mentioned a program used in Webster Groves and noted that cabling and diagnostic costs should be passed on the home owner, if a maintenance issue is determined. He recommended using this Webster Groves sewer lateral repair program as a working model. Its cost is cheaper, $2200 versus $3500-$4000 for University City. He believes this program should be a reimbursement program, thereby limiting the liability between the City and the homeowners. He mentioned the $500 deductible and the 80-20 split, which he sees as unfair to lower income families, and believes it should be eliminated. An independent contractor should be hired to perform diagnostics and rendering an Page 6