Laserfiche WebLink
hallow ground? (yes, said by another resident) If that’s the case let’s keep all <br />our other facilities hollow ground, why not, U-City Country Club instead of <br />Centennial Commons, so that we can let those who we want in and those we <br />don’t out. <br />Karla Suoboda of 6731 Bartmer – Would like for non-residents to be able to use <br /> <br />? <br />the pool, problem individuals can and should be dealt with on an individual <br />basis; limits can be set regarding the maximum pool capacity. <br />Jen Jensen of 706 Pennsylvania – (1) Would like to remind the Park Commission <br /> <br />? <br />that just over a year ago you voted to not recommend allowing non-residents <br />use of the pool unless accompanied by a resident. At your September meeting <br />you were presented the same proposal and voted to recommend it. No citizens <br />were aware that it was once again going to be presented to you. As a citizen I <br />am very much against non-residents being able to purchase daily admission to <br />the pool at any price, without being accompanied by a resident. I do not <br />believe this is a discriminatory policy, this is a University City swimming pool paid <br />for with our tax monies and I am for keeping it that way. (2) I am hoping the <br />swim club be left out of this proposal altogether. I am hoping they be allowed to <br />conduct their workouts during the morning lap swimming hours with out charge <br />including the non-resident members on the team. <br />Tom Goddard of 7265 Princeton Ave – What has the City done to promote the <br /> <br />? <br />pool, why is it not being utilized by the citizens. Would like to keep the policy as <br />is. Is the purpose of the pool recreational or a revenue generator? <br />Steven Glickert of 7750 Blackberry– As a former employee when the pool was <br /> <br />? <br />open to non-residents, the facility was over crowded, not enough space in the <br />locker rooms; when pool was filled to capacity the water was murky, we would <br />have to close the deep end down for cleansing, which means that everyone <br />had to be in the shallow end of the pool. He doesn’t think it’s fair to drive those <br />who have had memberships for years out. The facilities should be publicized <br />more. <br />Jim McGinnis of 7361 Stanford – This should be an experimental year to see what <br /> <br />? <br />impact the new facility is going to have on the pool, then if necessary revisit this <br />issue next year. <br />Nick Llewellyn of 874 Albey Lane – Looking at the stats I would like to know, what <br /> <br />? <br />is the benefit? From what I am hearing the only benefit is revenue. The reason I <br />would like the policy to stay as is, is accountability, the resident is responsible for <br />their guests actions, without accountability there are no consequences. <br /> <br />Mary Ellen Havard of 7139 Cornell – How many people do we need to make this <br /> <br />? <br />work? When we determine the number then we will have a goal to go after. <br />Are we in it to make money or are when in it to have a facility that resident and <br />their guests can come and enjoy themselves. <br /> <br />Jeanne Norberg of 7134 Princeton – Due to over crowding, the pool should not <br /> <br />? <br />be open to non-residents; it should only be for those who are residents or <br />membership holders. <br /> <br />JoAnne Leach of 7000 Stanford Ave - I am against a day pass for non-residents. <br /> <br />? <br />As a lap swimmer I would hare to see it more crowded than it is. <br /> <br />Henry Berry of 7200 block of Dartmouth – I strongly support a non-resident pool <br /> <br />? <br />fee and usage. The pool should have the same entry guidelines as the <br />recreation center. It does not make sense to have separate guidelines for <br />usage. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />