Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Mr. Kraft discussed the lights in the subdivisions and asked if it was unconstitutional for <br />University City to provide electricity for lights in the private subdivisions and if there <br />were any challenges to it in the last 70 years. <br /> <br />Mr. Martin said it was unconstitutional and the City has been lucky that they have not <br />had to face any legal challenges. He also said once it is done illegally it does not <br />become legal after a defined period of time. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr referred to the indenture in University City that she researched and stated that <br />the indenture sets the physical boundaries; and outlines the duties and responsibilities <br />assumed by the subdivision as well as procedures and regulations that the subdivision <br />operates. She said that this is a legal document recognized by both the state of <br />Missouri and the City of University City; and the outlines of what home owners would be <br />taking care of, was established long ago. Ms. Carr said the City could possibly <br />negotiate an agreement to allow those services to be delivered for a fee as Mr. Price <br />suggested. <br /> <br />Mr. Martin agreed with Ms. Carr and said that would be one possibility. <br /> <br />Mr. Mark Shylanski, 6925 Kingsbury <br />Mr. Shylanski stated that he was a Trustee for University Heights #2 Subdivision and <br />believed that they are victims of their indentured document because it was written years <br />ago with the goal to never increase their fees. He said to change that document would <br />take the cooperation from 100% of the landowners, which was difficult and that the vast <br />majority of the assessment income was spent on insurance for the subdivision. He said <br />plowing has not been done in ten years. He said most of the time a collection was <br />needed in the subdivision to provide these services. Mr. Shylanski hoped that the City <br />would collaborate with them to help solve the problem. <br /> <br />Mr. Edward McCarthy, 7101 Princeton Avenue <br />Mr. McCarthy felt that Mr. Martin wanted to block any type of process or agreement with <br />the private homeowners and disagreed with his statement. He asked what would be <br />the extra liability if the trucks come down the private streets two more times a year than <br />normal. Mr. McCarthy stated that the residents in private subdivisions pay the same <br />amount of tax without a discount and some homeowners do not find out about their <br />indenture document until they get their assessment at the end of the year. He also <br />expressed that it was not necessary to involve Council for something the City Manager <br />could have approved on his own within the budget. In addition, he mentioned residents <br />of the private subdivision receiving tickets from the City Police because of license plate <br />issues and the City gets that revenue. <br /> <br />Janet Baum, 6819 Pershing Avenue <br />Ms. Baum said street sweeping was a sanitation public health issue. She noted as an <br />agent of Ames Place she was willing to negotiate with University City for the services. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft moved to have the Sweeping Private Streets issue returned to the City <br />Manager and staff for further consideration as they research other possibilities of how <br />to address this issue. There was not a second to the motion. <br />8 <br /> <br /> <br />