Laserfiche WebLink
<br />in development and redevelopment, parking etc. because the taxpaying residents of <br />the City are the ones who are impacted by it. Mayor noted there should not be any <br />concern about business owners who might profit by development or redevelopment. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr stated that the proposal is pretty specific with respect to non-resident property <br />owners who pay taxes and could also be impacted by these issues. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch stated that while she is not questioning the fact that they pay taxes, she <br />does believe that their position within the community is different than that of the people <br />who have chosen to make their home here. If the majority wants to go with property <br />owners then her suggestion would be to identify which property owners, i.e., business <br />owners, homeowners or rental property owners, because there is a difference. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft handed out the second resolution version and stated that the only substantive <br />difference between the two proposals is the membership. Should the members consist <br />of anybody who pays taxes or be limited to residents of University City. He stated that <br />the subcommittee had agreed that any linguistic differences were resolvable. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe asked Mr. Kraft if he remembered what the subcommittee’s conclusion had <br />been with respect to whether or not Washington University should be at the table. Mr. <br />Kraft stated that while he thought Washington University should be invited to provide <br />information and answer questions, he did not think that they were interested in having <br />a member on the board. Mr. Sharpe stated that one thing he would be concerned with <br />was if someone from Washington University was sitting at the table what would happen <br />if there are antagonistic or disparaging comments or actions. <br /> <br />Mr. Glickert stated that although he does see non-resident owners as a part of this <br />process he does not believe that they should play an intricate part, because in his mind <br />this is a University City residential initiative. He suggested that they be invited to <br />participate in the same capacity that was mentioned with respect to Washington <br />University, on an ad-hoc or consultant type basis. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow stated that he thought it would be great to have an open invitation for <br />Washington University, whether or not they choose to participate. In his opinion, this is <br />more than a resident issue, it is a taxpayer issue. So while he does not believe they <br />should drive the truck, he would recommend that at least two of the fourteen slots be <br />used to include non-resident property owners, because they bring value to the table <br />and they have a vested interest. Mr. Crow stated that a large number of the City’s <br />property owners have owned land in University City longer than most of the members <br />sitting here today. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr stated that what she had envisioned the advisory board to look like, were <br />people who had a specific expertise, and not just a general interest. So while she did <br />not envision them running the truck, she did believe that there would be some non- <br />resident property owners who could provide expertise on tax policies and land usage. <br />She stated that Mr. Kraft had advised her of one such owner that he absolutely did not <br />want to be included, noting she would be loathed to tell anyone that they should or <br />should not appoint although it would be loathsome to tell anyone who they could or <br />could not appoint. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />