University City Council Agenda 9-24-2018

MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY HALL, Fifth Floor

6801 Delmar Blvd.
University City, Missouri 63130
Monday, September 24, 2018
6:30 p.m.
A. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. PROCLAMATIONS
1. 2018 “Extra Mile Day” – November 1st
2. Courtesy Proclamation – Minnie W. Woods 100th Birthday
3. Gatesworth Senior Living
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. August 27, Study Session minutes (Sewer Lateral Program and Traffic Commission)
2. September 10, Regular minutes
3. September 10, Study Session minutes (EDRST Funding Program)
F. APPOINTMENTS to BOARDS & COMMISSIONS

1. Henry Slay Jr. is nominated to the Board of Adjustments as a fill in term replacing Jeremy
Schumacher unexpired term until July 2021
G. SWEARING IN to BOARDS & COMMISSIONS

1. Liz Essman to be sworn in to the Green Practices Commission
2. Aren Ginsberg was sworn in to the Library on September 21st in the City Clerk office.
H. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Total of 15 minutes allowed)
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Annual Property Tax Rates
J. CONSENT AGENDA – Vote Required

1. Residential Sewer Lateral Repair Program Change
2. Sewer Lateral Program – Interfund Loan
K. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

1. Conditional Use Permit – Church of Scientology
(VOTE REQUIRED)
2. Liquor License – 2 Thumbs Up
(VOTE REQUIRED)
3. Morgan Wilshire Consultant Agreement
(VOTE REQUIRED)
4. Economic Development Retail Sales Tax (EDRST)
(VOTE REQUIRED)
Page 1 of 2
L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
BILLS
M. NEW BUSINESS
RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution 2018-14 – A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE LEVY AND FIXING
THE RATE OF PROPERTY TAXES TO BE COLLECTED IN THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY CITY FOR THE YEAR 2018 TO PROVIDE FOR GENERAL
REVENUE, POLICE AND FIREFIGHTER RETIREMENT PLAN, AND FOR THE
UNIVERSITY CITY LOOP SPECIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE
PARKVIEW GARDEN SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT
BILLS
N. COUNCIL REPORTS/BUSINESS
1. Boards and Commission appointments needed
2. Council liaison reports on Boards and Commissions
3. Boards, Commissions and Task Force minutes
4. Other Discussions/Business
O. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (continued if needed)
P. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Q. Roll-Call vote to go into a Closed Council Session according to RSMo 610.021 (1)Legal actions,
causes of action or litigation involving a public governmental body and any confidential or
privileged communications between a public governmental body or its representatives and its
attorneys and RSMo 610.021 (2)Leasing of real estate by a public governmental body
R. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 2
D-1-1
D-1-2
D-1-3
D-1-4
UNIVERSITY CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
5th Floor of City Hall
6801 Delmar
August 27, 2018
1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

The City Council Study Session was held in the Council Chambers on the fifth
floor of City Hall, on Monday, August 27, 2018. Mayor Terry Crow called the
Study Session to order at 5:30 p.m.
In addition to the Mayor, the following members of Council were present:
Councilmember Paulette Carr

Councilmember Steven McMahon
Councilmember Jeffrey Hales
Councilmember Tim Cusick
Councilmember Stacy Clay
Councilmember Bwayne Smotherson
Also in attendance was City Manager, Gregory Rose; City Attorney, John F.
Mulligan Jr., and Public Works & Parks Director, Sinan Alpaslan.
2. CHANGES TO REGULAR AGENDA
Mayor Crow noted that "Like Bikes," should be amended to read
"Lime Bikes," and turned the meeting over to the City Manager.
3. TRAFFIC COMMISSION
• The Traffic Commission is an advisory board to the Mayor, Council, and City
Manager on traffic and parking-related matters.
Mr. Rose stated a part of the Work Plan for this fiscal year is to review the City's
Boards, Committees, and Commissions. The first review is of the Traffic
Commission and their Chair has been invited to participate.
Mr. Rose stated staff has no recommended changes to the existing Code.
However, at the next Council meeting, his intent is to recommend the appointment
of two non-voting staff members to this Commission.
Councilmember Carr asked Mr. Rose if these reviews are to ensure that the
administration is paying attention to details and making certain that staff is being
appointed as non-voting members? Mr. Rose stated that is correct.
Mayor Crow asked if the goal is for these appointees to remain as non-voting
members? Mr. Rose stated that it is.
August 27, 2018, Study Session Minutes E-1-1

Mayor Crow stated hopefully, as staff moves through these reviews Council will
gain a better understanding of their operation and enhance its ability to conduct
broader conversations about their roles and responsibilities.
4. RESIDENTIAL Sewer Lateral Program

Requested by the City Manager
Mr. Rose stated as recorded during the budget process, there are concerns about
the financial position of the Sewer Lateral Program. Included on Council's agenda
is a proposal to acquire a loan from the General Fund to the Sewer Lateral
Program which at this time is financially incapable of covering all of its costs.
Public Works Director, Sinan Alpaslan will present Council with information that
outlines some of the challenges and proposed solutions.
Mr. Alpaslan stated that the Sewer Lateral Repair Program is administered by the
Public Works Department. To be eligible for this program, applicants must be
current on any outstanding Personal Property Tax bills.
Applications are completed by the property owner and submitted, along with a
video inspection record illustrating the conditions within the pipe. Staff reviews the
video makes an assessment to determine whether it is a qualified repair, writes the
specifications, and sends it out for bids. The practice is to receive at least three
bids and award the project to the lowest responsible bidder. Under the current
policy, property owners must commit to 20% of the cost.
Program Information:
• Staff responsibilities; assess, prepare specifications, solicit bidders, and
oversees repair of sewer laterals
• Available for residential units of 6 units or less
• First approved by voters on April 6, 1999
• Program commenced on January 1, 2000
• Revenue is derived from St. Louis County Real Estate property tax bill; ($50
for each home in University City)
Diagram of Sewer Lateral:

The facilities of a residential home discharge into a drain underneath the
foundation and gravitates through an access system. This system functions as a
method to rid households of discharges into the sewer main, which is maintained
by MSD, and located under the street.
The internal plumbing system and everything between the sewer main and the
residence is the responsibility of the property owner. The City's program covers
sections outside of the foundation wall where the house line ends and connects to
a vitrified 6-inch clay pipe that travels to the sewer main.
What is covered:
• Replacement of defective lines
• Restoration above the line to its original condition; (not including
landscaping)
What is not covered:

• Cabling (maintenance activity)
• Root-clearing (improve flow)
• Hydro Flushing (improve flow)
 Staff is aware of U City's aging infrastructure and residential building stock

which have resulted in an increased number of repairs.
Program Status Report - Last 5 fiscal years:

• FY14-15: 234 projects = $885,706
• FY15-16: 201 projects = $633,473
• FY16-17: 266 projects = $785,149
• FY17-18: 231 projects = $766,674
• FY18-19: 36 projects = $119,992 (ongoing)*
 Current fund balance: negative $180,000
 Estimated Annual Program Revenue in University City is $570,000
 While the actual fund balance reflects -$80,000, an estimated $100,000 of

projects completed in FY18 have not been paid.
Program Status Report - FY18:

• Approximately 74 Home Sales Repairs; (defects identified during inspections)
• 93 Emergency Repairs
• 64 Other Residential Repairs
Total: 231 projects
• 11 Home Sales; (also emergencies)
• 20 Backlogs; (jobs completed in FY18)

 Emergencies are defined as when the condition on the surface of the pipe
has caved-in on private property or the public right-of-way. Or when there is
exfiltration from the pipe that creates a health-related hazard.
Councilmember Clay asked if the 11 home sales (emergencies) were counted

under emergency repairs or home sale repairs? Mr. Alpaslan stated they were
counted under home sales.
Methods Utilized for Improvements:

• Bundled contract
• Effective April 2015
 80/20 cost split
 Prior 90/10
• Trenchless methods
 Cured-in-place pipe
 Pipe bursting
Mayor Crow asked when the practice for submitting bids had switched from
bundling contracts to submitting each project separately? Mr. Alpaslan stated
staff had tried to bundle a few contracts in March or February of 2017, however,
the end result did not prove to be cost-effective and the contract was never
executed. Mayor Crow asked whether the company who presented the bundled
contract also performed individual contracts for the City? Mr. Alpaslan stated that
they did.
Mr. Rose stated it does seem as though bidding them out individually takes a lot of
time. And so he has asked staff to explore the bundling option to determine
whether it will reduce the number of hours needed to implement this program.
Itemized Bid Record: This method generalizes the type of repairs made in a
certain year since there is no way to determine what class a specific job might fall
under.

For example, as illustrated on this record, if the excavation is between 8 to 12 feet
it's one price, but if it's between 12 to 15 feet it's a different price. While there are
some assigned quantities to assist with calculating the total bid price, even these
are subject to change throughout the year dependent upon the type of application
received. Overall, when staff compared the cost of bundling to the cost of an
individual bid, bundling exceeded the individual bidding prices.
When applicable, trenchless methods can provide a cost-savings. Limitations
include a major offset or when the pipe has busted. And cured-in-place piping
costs about $100 per foot compared to $300 a foot for traditional methods.
Mr. Alpaslan informed Council that staff had also consulted with the City of
Maryland Heights to gather information about their experience with this program.
Optional Solutions
• Adjust cost-sharing to a 70/30 split
 Reduces City expenses on average to $750,000; (over budget)
 Increases homeowner's co-pay from $800 to an average of $1,200
• Adjust cost-sharing to a 50/50 split
 Reduces City expenses on average to $450,000; (within budget)
 Increases homeowner's co-pay from $800 to an of average $2,000
• National League of Cities (NLC) Service Line Insurance Program supplement
and the City's adjusted cost-sharing plan of a 70/30 split
 Program covers up to $8,500 or 90% of the repair cost with $0 co-pay;
(voluntary membership)
 Additional annual cost of $87/per household
 Estimated average City expense with no participation in the Service
Line Program is $435,000; (within budget)
 Increases homeowner's co-pay from $800 to an average of $1,200; (for
non-member households)
• Revise qualification criteria:
 Current criteria - defective when there is sufficient evidence to prove
that the lateral is significantly broken, misaligned, offset, cracked.
 Proposed criteria - defective/qualified when there is severe damage
causing cave-ins in the public right-of-way or back-up in the home;
(utilized by the City of St. Louis)
 Staff was approached by the National League of Cities seeking the City's
approval to market this program. Participants in this program will still be
eligible to participate in the City's Sewer Lateral Program if the costs exceed
$8,500.
 Currently, the Service Line Program is available in cities through the
metropolitan area and nationwide.

 A clause in the City's policy also provides that an applicant may be eligible
for coverage if the need for a repair can be foreseen within a three-year
timeframe.
 The proposed criteria exclude cave-ins on private property and if adopted,
could reduce the number of applications and cost of the program. (Cave-ins
may still qualify if they create a hazardous condition.)
Councilmember Smotherson asked if staff had broken-down any of these repairs

by individual Ward? Mr. Alpaslan stated although staff had not created such a
breakdown the information can be derived from the available data.
Councilmember Smotherson stated it would have been interesting to see pictures
of some of the work being performed because he is curious to know whether the
City has a policy regarding the type of restoration a contractor is expected to
perform? Mr. Alpaslan stated the City's restoration standards are somewhat
minimal, typically consisting of backfilling or the installation of pavement to match
what existed before the repair. And even though there are ways to make new
concrete match areas where the concrete has aged, most of these contractors are
not experts in the areas of paving or landscaping. However, if staff determines
that a restoration has not been correctly matched; similar to the one at 6917
Corbitt Avenue, contractors are required to make the necessary improvements.
Mr. Alpaslan stated staff has also run into incidents where they’ve found defective
restorations in the public right-of-way. Usually, these restorations are removed
from the original scope of work, bundled, and then performed by a contractor who
specializes in this area. Councilmember Smotherson stated neighbors have also
informed him about problems with water pooling in their front yards after these
restorations are completed. Mr. Alpaslan stated that would be a grading issue
and the City does have a requirement that instructs contractors on how the trench
should be backfilled and refilled.
Councilmember Carr stated as it relates to the proposed criteria, what proportion of

the applications are for repairs in the public right-of-way versus back-ups on
residential property? Mr. Alpaslan stated although he does not have an exact
number, he anticipates that the proposed criteria would reduce the number of
applications by 50%. Because under that criteria small cracks in a pipe; which
rarely create a major flow issue or cave-in, would no longer be eligible.
Councilmember Carr stated her major concern is the possibility of a homeowner

who has been paying into this insurance program suddenly finding out that they
have to foot a pretty large bill because the section of the pipe needing repair is
maintained by MSD and therefore, not covered. And that leads her back to some
of the earlier comments she made about trenchless repairs. Because if MSD can
perform trenchless repairs in large pipes; Public Works might be able to do that as
well. Mr. Alpaslan stated he and his staff are always on the lookout for better and
newer techniques and strive to achieve trenchless applications whenever possible.
However, when they are not feasible to perform staff must revert back to traditional

methods. But in terms of the criteria being proposed, the entire length of the line
as depicted in the diagram will remain the same. The only change is to the type of
defects in the pipe that will be covered. Councilmember Carr asked if a cave-in in
a homeowner's front yard would still be eligible for the City's program? Mr.
Alpaslan stated although it would be, he believes that the language U City needs
to adopt is "causing cave-ins or back-ups in the home". That way it would not be
limited to the public right-of-way, which is how the City of St. Louis applies their
criteria. Councilmember Carr questioned whether a cave-in could cause a back-up
into the residence? Ms. Alpaslan stated that it could.
Councilmember Clay stated it seems as though while the number of incidents

would be reduced under the proposed criteria the cost per incident would increase.
Because now you would be addressing issues that are far more intense than just a
crack in the pipe.
Mr. Rose stated when the program was initially created in roughly 2001; the intent
was to address catastrophic failures where the City paid 100% of the costs. For
anything less than that, the City paid nothing. So this program has evolved over
the years to what it has become today. And unless Council elects to subsidize the
cost of sustaining this program out of the General Fund on an ongoing basis, the
City simply cannot financially afford to maintain the program as it exists today. So
from a financial perspective, this is really about what is going to make the most
sense. If there is a catastrophic failure and the homeowner has paid into an
insurance policy, perhaps, the City should pay 100%. But if you're a homeowner
preparing to sell your house and a camera inspection reveals cracks in the pipe
that should not be considered a catastrophic failure that the City should take on the
burden of paying for. Mr. Rose stated he believes if the City develops more
stringent criteria it would reduce the number of applications received. And if it was
structured in a way where the City pays 100% then residents would receive a
benefit when their sewer lateral needs repairing.
Councilmember Hales stated he has used this program on a couple of occasions

and was curious to know whether staff had a breakdown of the average cost of
repairs? Mr. Alpaslan stated he could provide that information, but did not have it
available today. Councilmember Hales stated it doesn't matter whether you live in
a small house with a small lot or a big house that sits on an acre, everyone pays
the same amount. So has staff given any consideration to providing coverage
based on the equal amount of buy-in from each resident? Mr. Alpaslan stated
staff has looked at putting a cap on the costs, which is how Clayton implements
their program. There is a maximum amount of costs that the City pays and the
remaining cost is borne by the property owner. So yes, that is another method that
can be utilized and reviewed to see how it compares to the 70/30 or 50/50 split.
Mayor Crow stated he has also been in need of a sewer lateral repair and
immensely appreciated the opportunity to utilize this program. But he was curious

to know if there was any way to increase the $50 fee? Mr. Alpaslan stated $50 is
the highest fee that can be charged.
Mr. Mulligan stated there is a State statute that caps the fee at $50. And
unfortunately, that legislation has not been revised in fifteen years. In order to get
it increased you would need legislative authority and voter approval.
Mayor Crow asked Mr. Alpaslan if he knew the dollar amount of Clayton's cap?
Mr. Alpaslan stated it is $3,000. Mayor Crow stated while he thinks everyone
realizes the program needs to be changed, the challenge is coming up with the
best solution for the benefit of U City residents. He stated the one part that
concerns him about the catastrophic failure concept is that residents are familiar
with the current program and ultimately, he believes it would result in residents
deferring an awful lot of maintenance that at some point may come back and haunt
the City. And while he may be wrong, he believes there are quite a few residents
who think the current program is a good one because it helps maintain property
values and keeps neighborhoods in good condition. So he would like to come up
with an option that makes this as painless as possible.
Mr. Rose stated staff can look at best practices from other regions and present
them to Council at a later time. But, based on his knowledge, Clayton's program
works pretty well and is still solvent.
Councilmember McMahon asked Mr. Alpaslan if he had any knowledge about the
lifespan for some of the cheaper repairs? Mr. Alpaslan stated this practice is
somewhat new, so there is limited product information. However, the claims by
representatives are that their line pipes are as good as the original pipes, as long
as they are used under the correct substrate conditions. He stated when this
product was first launched; the lifecycle was approximately 7-years versus the
original vitrified clay pipes which had an endurance level of almost 60-years.
Today, pipes are made of PVC, and although it is pretty durable, it still does not
have the same type of lifespan.
Councilmember McMahon asked Mr. Alpaslan if there was anything in between

catastrophic and minor repairs that could be included in the criteria and still allow
residents to get some of the inexpensive repairs done? Mr. Alpaslan stated that
pipelining could be a short-term solution.
Councilmember Hales stated based on his experience, tree roots are the most
common cause of offsets. So do you have any idea how many repairs would
potentially qualify for this type of repair? Mr. Alpaslan stated he could find out and
provide that information to Council. But yes, tree roots are a major problem in U
City.
Mr. Alpaslan stated as Council is aware, this is a County program and if U City no
longer wants the financial obligations associated with running this program it can

be administered by the County. Should that be the case, the County would retain
10% of the annual $570.000 collected in revenue to cover the cost of administering
the program. And unlike U City, they have a designated Sewer Lateral Program
office that handles these repairs on a daily basis.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Crow thanked everyone and closed the Study Session at 6:19 p.m.

August 27, 2018, Study Session Minutes E - 1 - 10
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY HALL, Fifth Floor
6801 Delmar Blvd.
University City, Missouri 63130
Monday, September 10, 2018
6:30 p.m.
A. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

At the Regular Session of the City Council of University City held on the fifth floor of
City Hall, on Monday, August 27, 2018, Pursuant to the excused absence of Mayor
Crow, Mayor Pro Tem Paulette Carr called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL
In addition to the Mayor Pro Tem, the following members of Council were present:

Also in attendance were City Manager, Gregory Rose, and City Attorney,
John F. Mulligan, Jr.
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Cusick stated Aren Ginsberg is unable to be in
attendance at tonight's meeting and has contacted Ms. Reese to
reschedule her swearing into the Library Board.
Councilmember Smotherson moved to approve the agenda as

amended, seconded by Councilmember Hales and the motion carried
unanimously.
D. PROCLAMATIONS
1. National Suicide Prevention Awareness - A declaration proclaiming the month of
September 2018, as National Suicide Prevention Awareness month in the City of
U City.
2. Courtesy Proclamation – A declaration congratulating Alvin Henry, a resident of U
City for over 45-years, on his 85th birthday; September 13, 2013.
3. Courtesy Proclamation – A declaration honoring Maurice Bell, a resident of U City
for 54 years, for his contributions to the citizens of the greater community. A
formal celebration will be held on September 23rd at Centennial Commons.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. August 27, 2018, Regular minutes were moved by Councilmember Cusick,
seconded by Councilmember McMahon and the motion carried unanimously.
F. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS & COMMISSIONS

1. Detective Lieutenant Shawn Whitley (Police Dept.) and Sinan Alpaslan (Public
Works Dept.) are nominated for appointed to the Traffic Commission by City
Manager Rose. E-2-1
Councilmember Hales moved to approve, seconded by Councilmember
Smotherson and the motion carried unanimously.
2. Liz Essman is nominated for appointment to the Green Practices replacing Kathy
Straatmann’s expired term by Councilmember Carr, seconded by Councilmember
Cusick and the motion carried unanimously.
G. SWEARING IN TO BOARDS & COMMISSIONS

1. Karl Reid was sworn into the Senior Commission at tonight's meeting.
2. Aren Ginsberg to be sworn into the Library Board; (to be rescheduled).
H. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Total of 15 minutes allowed)

Jan Adams, 7150 Cambridge Avenue, University City, MO
Ms. Adams stated she understands it is the City Manager's prerogative to hire
Directors and his responsibility to oversee their performance, however, the duty to be
prudent stewards of our taxpayer funds is squarely on the shoulders of each
Councilmember. Therefore, as a member of the Civil Service Board, she wished to
inform the new members of Council and remind older members, about the costs
incurred by the City during the previous tenure of the new Director of Human
Resources as a result of the unlawful hiring and firing of City employees.
Ms. Adams presented a summary of the events deemed to be the most
impactful. (These events were recorded and made a part of the presentation to the
State Auditor in 2008 and 2009.)
1. A clear case of nepotism occurred when the Director fired an employee and
hired her sister to fill that position.
2. The City paid over $300,000 in settlement costs when the Director failed to
notify the City's insurance carrier about a lawsuit that had been filed by an
employee fired by the Director.
3. An appeal to the Civil Service Board resulted in a $65,000 settlement and
reinstatement of an employee with 34-years of service that had been fired by
the Director.
4. In direct violation of the employer's rules and regulations, the Director changed
her ex-husband's classification status which resulted in an increase in salary, at
a time when her child support payments were set as a percentage of his
income.
5. The Director's decision to rehire her ex-husband, presenting the opportunity for
repeat offenses.
6. The City paid $325,000 in settlement costs as a result of yet another lawsuit
filed against the Director.
At the time of the $325,000 settlement the City's insurance deductible was $15,000,
however, the culmination of these settlements; and others, have contributed to the
City's current deductible of approximately $150,000.
Ms. Adams stated that a common practice of the Adams/Feier administration;
and also a subject of the State audit, was to improperly report some of the
settlements incurred as a result of this Director into the City's accounting records
under the category of "Legal Fees". (These off-the-book settlements were never
approved by Council.) And as a direct result, her recent Sunshine request for all
settlement agreements from 2005 to the present produced no agreements prior to
2015. She would also like to note, that prior to her recent appointment as Secretary
to the Civil Service Board, the Director failed to schedule quarterly meetings, create
E-2-2
minutes of the meetings, submit annual reports and proposed changes in
classifications/compensation to the Board for recommendation to Council. All in
direct violation of the City's Charter.
Ms. Adams urged each member of Council to be diligent in overseeing the
Human Resources Department and preserving taxpayer dollars. (Ms. Adams
submitted her written comments and asked that they be attached to the minutes.)
Eleanor Jennings, 7055 Forsyth, University City, MO

Ms. Jennings thanked Mr. Rose and Councilmembers McMahon and Hales for
helping her get rid of some trash along Forsyth. And she also thinks the suggestion
by Councilmember Smotherson to compile a booklet on neighborhood etiquette might
be something for Council to seriously think about creating.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
J. CONSENT AGENDA – Vote Required

1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Approval
2. Computer Program City Wide Drone Operation Approval
Councilmember Hales moved to approve, seconded by Councilmember Cusick.
Councilmember Smotherson asked if the CDBG would be used to pave Kennedy

Avenue? Finance Director, Tina Charumilind, stated this grant; which was awarded last
year, was placed on the agenda pursuant to STLC guidelines that require a confirmation
of the designated project prior to the disbursement of funds. The project associated with
this grant is a $5,000 Forgivable Loan Program for low-income residents. She stated
the grant recently approved by Council will commence in FY19. Previous funds from the
CDBG have been allocated to the Police Department for overtime expenses; Public
Works for ADA requirements, and Community Development for a similar low-income
program for residents in the process of losing their homes due to unpaid taxes.
Councilmember Clay asked Ms. Charumilind if the Forgivable Loan Program was new or
the continuation of an existing program? Ms. Charumilind stated it is an existing
program. Councilmember Clay asked if she knew the number of residents that
participated in this program last year? Ms. Charumilind stated currently there are over
thirty people who still have outstanding loans.
Voice vote on Councilmember Hales' motion carried unanimously.
K. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

1. Contract to DemolishGables Tea Room
Mr. Rose stated staff is recommending that Council consider a proposal for demolition of
the Tea House and removal of the sculptures located at the intersection of Olive and
Midland; 7315 Olive Boulevard, in the amount of $18,500 for Z & L Wrecking Company.
Citizen's Comments
Christine Mackey-Ross, 21 Princeton, University City, MO
Ms. Mackey-Ross stated although she is speaking as a private citizen she is also a
member of the Historic Preservation Commission that reviewed this contract last
month. During that meeting, a citizen presented the Commission with a proposal for the
E-2-3
Tea House and asked that he be given a period of time to see if he could obtain funding.
By consensus, the Commission agreed to present a recommendation to Council
requesting that the City abate any decision on the demolition of this building for a period
of 90-days to allow the petitioner an opportunity to explore his funding options.
E-2-4
Ms. Mackey-Ross stated she realizes this recommendation is being made without
having full knowledge of the City's intent for this plot of land; nevertheless, she did want
to acknowledge this gentleman's proposal and allow him an opportunity to present his
request to Council.
Travis Gude, 5989 Clemmons, University City, MO

Mr. Gude stated at this point, he would simply like to get a clear understanding of the
City's intent for this property. Upon direction of the City Manager, Mr. Gude stated he
talked to Mr. Alpasian who invited him to attend the Historic Preservation Commission's
meeting where the proposed demolition was being discussed. After presenting his
proposal the Commission agreed to recommend a 90-day extension of the demolition.
Thereafter, Mr. Gude stated he received an email from the City Manager which asserted
that he had previously asked him to submit a letter outlining the proposal; although he
does not recall such a request being made. Next, he was informed by Councilmember
Smotherson that Council had already voted to demolish the building and suggested that
he look at purchasing the old Goodwill location. Upon doing so, he learned that the
property had already been sold.
Mr. Gude stated he fully understands that he must work with the City to be successful
in any endeavor. And at this point, he and his partners have a tentative plan; are willing
to pay the $19,000 that it would cost for the demolition in order to maintain a piece of
history, or even utilize a portion of the building. He stated they are eager to get
everything going and just need to know if this property is available for them to purchase.
Council’s Comments
Councilmember Smotherson moved to approve, seconded by Councilmember Clay.
Councilmember Clay stated he is unclear as to what transpired at the Historic

Preservation meeting and would like to know whether some sort of commitment had
been made to allow additional time for the exploration of other options?
Councilmember Cusick stated Mr. Gude had indeed, made a presentation to the
Commission. The merits of the proposal were debated and the Commission reached a
consensus to submit a recommendation to Council for a 90-day moratorium prior to
making a final decision.
Councilmember Smotherson stated first, he wants to make sure everyone is clear that
this Commission can only make recommendations to Council. And second, that there
was an obvious misunderstanding if he informed Mr. Gude that the vote had already
been taken since it is scheduled to take place tonight. That said, Councilmember
Smotherson stated the lot is definitely for sale and he is truly interested in learning more
about Mr. Gude's plans. However, this has been a longstanding issue in the 3rd Ward
and he thinks Council should move forward with tonight's vote.
Councilmember McMahon stated the information provided to Council indicates that no

one has expressed an interest in the recovery or repossession of the sculptures. So he
would like some clarity on whether they are owned by the City, and if not, had any
attempts been made to track down the artists and discuss this issue with them to
prevent a future claim that the City had improperly disposed of their property? Mr.
Rose stated that the sculptures are owned by the City and that Mr. Alpasian had
reached out to Wash U to discuss their interest in acquiring the pieces. Wash U's
E-2-5
response was that they had no interest in the sculptures.
Mayor Pro Tem Carr stated to further clarify this issue; she would like Mr. Gude to
understand that when the demolition of this property was submitted to the Historic
Preservation Commission it was merely done as a courtesy to inform them of Council's
intent, not to seek their permission. And even though Council can take any
recommendations this Commission makes under advisement, it is Council who makes
the final decision. Mayor Pro Tem Carr acknowledged that Mr. Gude had contacted her
on several occasions regarding some of his questions, but was uncertain whether the
City had received an actual proposal? Mr. Rose stated he had talked to Mr. Gude on
two occasions; once to express his interest in developing the property and to determine
its status; and second, via email, which was centered on discussions he had had with
several members of Council. He stated on the first occasion he shared the directions he
had received from Council regarding the identification of costs for demolition and asked
Mr. Gude to provide him with a copy of his proposal; which he has not received. On the
second occasion, Mr. Rose stated he reiterated Council's directions and informed Mr.
Gude about the role of the Preservation Commission, which is to act in an advisory
capacity to Council. So even though this issue falls within the authority of the City
Manager, the convoluting of this issue caused him to believe that the best course of
action would be to bring it back to the Mayor and Council for a final decision.
Voice vote on Councilmember Smotherson's motion to award the demolition contract to

Z & L Wrecking Company carried unanimously.
L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
BILLS
1. BILL 9364 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 505 OF THE UNIVERSITY
CITY MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC
PLACES, TREES AND SHRUBS, BY ENACTING THEREIN A NEW SECTION TO
BE KNOWN AS "SECTION 505.015. ESTABLISHMENT OF HONORARY
STREETS." Bill Number 9364 was read for the second and third time.
Councilmember Smotherson moved to approve, it was seconded by Councilmember

Clay.
Councilmember Smotherson stated while he recognizes and understands that the Police
and Fire Departments may not be in favor of this Ordinance, this is a two-way street with
27 households and is not a busy thoroughfare. Therefore, he does not believe it will
significantly affect anyone’s ability to identify exactly what street it is. Councilmember
Smotherson stated his hope is that Council will consider voting in favor of this Ordinance
based on the aforementioned rationale, the amount of work that has been put into this
process, and the understanding that the two street signs will be distinct in color and
design.
Councilmember Clay stated certainly everyone who sits on this dais takes the concerns
of their first responders seriously and one of his requests had been to obtain data from
the City related to public safety. Consequently, he would like to know if he was correct
in assuming that Council had not received any information indicating that the
assignment of an honorary street would present an issue in terms of public safety? Mr.
Rose stated while there is a concern regarding the potential impact the honorary signs
might have on emergency response times if this practice were to be continued, both
E-2-6
departments have agreed that this one street would not make a huge difference.
Councilmember Clay stated it's his understanding that the number of these requests in
anyone's recent memory has been two, which surprisingly came within the same six-
month period. Mr. Rose stated he does not believe that staff has seen a significant
number of requests for honorary streets. Councilmember Clay stated to be clear, each
future request will be evaluated and any concerns of the City’s first responders will be
baked into that process? Mr. Rose stated his intention is to bring all future requests
before the Traffic Commission and Council for evaluation and a final decision.
Citizen's Comments
Mildred Pettiford, 8333 Fullerton Avenue, University City, MO
Ms. Pettiford stated with regards to the Ordinance being voted on tonight, which requires
that signatures be obtained from 75% of the 27 impacted homeowners, as well as
several other requirements, she would like clarification on the following:
1. Since the original petition containing signatures was entitled, “Street Name
Change,” must she now create a new petition with the amended title of “Honorary
Street Name” for residents to sign?
2. Will the approval of this Ordinance render the petition created prior to its passage
null and void?
3. Who should she contact to determine the length of the street and the costs
associated with installing the sign?
Council’s Comments
Mayor Pro Tem Carr informed Ms. Pettiford that what Council is considering tonight is
whether there should be an option to allow honorary street signs in U City and not
whether there should be an honorary street name for Paramount.
Mr. Mulligan stated with respect to Ms. Pettiford's questions, the way the Ordinance is
drafted there are two ways to establish an honorary street. One would be
administratively when initiated by a Councilmember, and the other would be to make an
application, along with the additional requirements described in Section B of the
Ordinance, which would then be reviewed by staff and presented to the Traffic
Commission for a recommendation to Council. This procedure is somewhat identical to
the Residential Street Parking Program, in that you’re looking at one specific location
and voting on it by way of legislation.
With respect to her question about whether the signatures she has already gathered
would be in compliance with Section B in the event, the Bill is passed tonight, would be
up to Council to decide. Mr. Mulligan stated if Council is satisfied that in excess of 75%
of the parcels have consented to this petition, then they may decide that it is not
necessary for the signatures to be dated after passage of the Bill, because what this
does is allow Council on its own, to establish an honorary street by way of an
Ordinance; bypassing this entire process, or say that such a request will not be
considered unless the process is followed. So to the extent, there's a defect in the
instant petition, if you will, Council could cure that by passing the Ordinance establishing
the street.
Finally, this applies not only to individuals but to groups. So if there’s a group that
comes forward asking for an honorary street, the same process would be applied.
Mayor Pro Tem Carr asked if Council would be able to designate an honorary street for
someone? Mr. Mulligan stated that it would be permissible for Council to do that under
this Ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Carr asked if the Ordinance contained any criteria for
E-2-7
designating a street?
Mr. Mulligan stated the physical characteristics of the street are specified; the location;
the length; the bounding streets; the number of parcels; the real estate affected; the
number of uses affected, i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, and then the reason
for the designation, and the biography of the individual or group to be honored. But
beyond the factors listed in the Ordinance, it’s really up to Council to make the decision
as to whether or not there is sufficient merit to the application. Right now the criterion
is somewhat broad, but if Council wished to have additional qualifications it could be
specified in the particular Bill.
Mayor Pro Tem Carr asked if there was anyone in attendance that could speak to the
issue of honorary streets and their impact on public safety? Mr. Rose stated if it
pleases the Council, he would ask both Chief Hampton and Chief Hinson to address
the impact that honorary streets could potentially have on public safety.
Police Chief Larry Hampton stated his department is eager to support the residents and
stakeholders of this community. And while he understands the difference between an
actual name change versus an honorary street, it could create a problem because the
honorary name is not in the CAD system utilized for both departments. So, if the
dispatcher taking the 911 call lacks knowledge about the correct association between
the two names for the street, and there is confusion about the exact location, it could
cause a delay in their response time.
Battalion Chief Bill Hinson stated from the Fire Department’s perspective the problem
doesn’t stem from within, but rather the fact that there are 43 different fire departments
in the area that all rely heavily on mutual aid. And their biggest concern about
honorary streets is that a lot of emergency calls are made by people who just happen
to be driving by that will call out the first street sign they see. These honorary names
are not only absent from the CAD system but they are also not included in Google
maps are any other electronic mapping systems used by all departments. So if the
wrong name is provided to a mutual aid company it could delay their response time.
Chief Hinson stated he took a few of St. Louis City’s honorary street signs and typed
them into the mapping system today, and none of them could be found. The data
indicates that when St. Louis City first started their program in 2001 there were only
five streets, by 2008 they were averaging 12 streets a year, and in 2010 they were up
to an average of 26 streets a year, at a cost of $10,000 for maintenance and repair of
these honorary signs. So the bottom line is that while one or two streets are
manageable, he believes the best approach for honoring a specific individual or group
would be to attach a banner to the street sign or streetlights.
Councilmember Hales stated he drove this neighborhood again last week and noticed
a road that connects Paramount and Montreal on the side yard of the residences that
essentially fronts the church. Google maps listed it as Montreal Drive, but he was
curious to know whether that was correct, or if anyone knew the exact name of that
north/south section of road connecting these two streets? Chief Hampton stated
although he does not know the name offhand, there are no residents on that street, and
it’s often identified by the location of the church.
Councilmember Hales stated he shares a lot of the concerns that have been raised
tonight, and wonders if it might be more suitable to actually rename that street; which
he’ll refer to as Montreal Drive since it fronts the vast majority of the church and holds
no physical addresses? Chief Hinson stated if the name was legally changed then it
would be in every system.
E-2-8
Councilmember Hales stated something the Fire Chief mentioned regarding the size
of these sign coincides with his biggest problem. And that is that there are no
proportional standards in the Ordinance. For example, the street sign for Walton is
very large, and proportionately, the honorary street sign for Councilmember
Smotherson’s father is much smaller. But on the other hand, the street sign for
Paramount seems to be a pretty standard size, and if you install a larger sign; which
based on the length of the name being honored would probably be the case, there’s a
strong likelihood that the honorary sign would be much more noticeable. So he would
like to see that specific standard codified in the Ordinance because at this point he is
not comfortable proceeding without it.
Separately, when he was a member of the Traffic Commission, he repeatedly
expressed his belief that the issue of honorary street names was not something the
Commission should be asked to consider. But at this point, he will defer to the current
Commission’s wisdom on that subject, should this petition move forward.
Councilmember Hales stated that personally, he would like to consider legally changing
the street name which on many different levels seems like a much better option when
contemplating this major policy change.
Councilmember Smotherson stated if his understanding is correct, the Ordinance can

be passed without the proportional standards because if Council accepts this
application those standards can be added to the specific Bill submitted for that street.
Councilmember Hales stated he would actually disagree with Councilmember

Smotherson’s comments since his belief is that the Ordinance should establish the total
process. And while it is correct that staff could administratively impose these
standards, there is no guarantee they will be followed in perpetuity, unless they are
codified in the Ordinance. In fact, he thinks this standard is so important that he would
suggest that the vote on this Ordinance be postponed until it has been amended and
brought back to Council.
Councilmember Clay stated in his opinion, Councilmember Hales’ proposal could be

manifested in the application.
Councilmember Hales stated if the proportional standards are not codified in the
Ordinance, they are not policy. And since an administrative policy is not perpetual, he
would make a motion to amend, and ask that Council delay consideration of this
Ordinance until it can be amended to include the proportion standards for honorary
street signs when compared with the original street sign; seconded by Councilmember
Cusick.
Councilmember McMahon stated there may be a little more process involved beyond
simply adding proportionality because the standard cannot be limited to a specific
street, and therefore, you could run into DOT issues or streets that cross County roads.
Councilmember Cusick agreed that the Ordinance as presented was too vague.
Because even though he understands that each application will be presented to
Council for review on a case-by-case basis, it does not supply Council with in-depth
information on what criteria should be considered for granting an honorary street sign,
whose responsibility it is to pay for the signs or what the estimated costs of maintaining
these signs would be.
E-2-9
Councilmember Clay stated while some of the points raised by Councilmember
McMahon could be addressed procedurally, there does have to be an appropriate
balance for any procedure.
Mayor Pro Tem Carr asked Councilmember Hales if he would like to add any other
factors to his motion? Councilmember Hales stated his desire is to limit the motion to
proportionality.
Citizen’s Comment
Mildred Pettiford, 8333 Fullerton Avenue, University City, MO
Ms. Pettiford stated although she does believe the street currently bears a name,
Councilmember Hale’s suggestion is something she would like to consider. So, if she
decides to pursue that suggestion and Council deems it appropriate for her to do so,
would she have to start the process over by submitting an application to the Traffic
Commission?
Mr. Rose stated even though there may not be a street sign posted staff would first
have to research this issue to determine whether there is an existing name. But if no
sign has existed for a significant amount of time, and there are no residents or
businesses that would be impacted by such a change, that might be an easier option to
execute. So once this research is completed he will advise Ms. Pettiford of the next
steps.
Ms. Pettiford stated if a new application is needed, she would like to present it at the
next Traffic Commission meeting.
Mr. Rose informed Ms. Pettiford that the Public Works Director, Sinan Alpasian, would
be able to provide her with all of the documentation needed to complete the
application.
Councilmember Hales stated one of the challenges for the Traffic Commission was
their ability to understand this process without the benefit of an established set of
procedures. Because when looking through the Code there does not appear to be a
process for street name changes and to his recollection, the only similar situation
where no commercial or residential addresses were impacted is Sergeant Mike King
Drive. However, under the proposed Ordinance, if a member of Council made a
request to change the name of this street, then it could probably be done
administratively.
Mr. Rose asked Mr. Alpasian to share his understanding of the process outlined in the
City’s codes or policies, and if none exists, whether there was any precedent his
Department follows.
Mr. Alpasian stated that he had actually had to ask his wife; a former U City employee,
about how the written policy had been initiated. And her response was that the first
incident she could recall was the renaming of Harvard Avenue, now known as
Sergeant Mike King Drive; that it has never been reflected in the Code, and remains as
an administrative policy on the Department’s books. Mr. Alpasian stated that he had
not checked the land records to determine whether the Harvard Avenue name still
exists, in spite of the change, because until these recent requests there had been no
E - 2 - 10
need to revisit this issue.
And while he does not want to provide the wrong answer without conducting due
diligence, his recollection is that there are no unnamed streets in the City and that the
correct name for the street being referred to as Montreal Drive is Tamerton Avenue.
Roll call Vote on Councilmember Hales’ motion to Postpone Was:

Ayes: Councilmember McMahon, Councilmember Hales, Councilmember Cusick,
Councilmember Smotherson and Mayor Pro Tem Carr.
Nays: Councilmember Clay
Vote: 5 to 1, the motion passes.
M. NEW BUSINESS
RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution 2018-13 - A Resolution Approving a Rights-Of-Way Use Agreement
and Settlement with Extenet Systems, Inc.
Mr. Mulligan stated this is a Resolution to approve a Right-Of-Way Use Agreement with
Extenet Systems, who has four antennas and approximately 7600 linear feet of
telecommunication facilities in the public right-of-way.
The Agreement sent out in Council’s packet contained typographical errors on page
5, and unfortunately, staff did not get Extenet’s authority to substitute that page until
today. The correction; which has now been submitted to Council, pertains to Section
3.4, where it states “The monthly antenna and linear foot fees are for December 1,
2017, through August 31, 2018”. This statement refers to a settlement based on the
City’s contention that Extenet was delinquent in paying fees for this period, in the
amount of $19,710, as required under the City’s Ordinance.
The Proposed Agreement attached to the Resolution, allows Extenet to maintain its
telecommunication facilities in the public right-of-way pursuant to the receipt of
payments in the amount of $1.98 per linear foot or $1,266 a month, and $200 a month
for antennas. However, since legislation by the Missouri General Assembly prohibiting
antenna fees becomes effective January 1, 2019, the monthly payment of $200 will only
run through the end of this year. This legislation expires on January 1, 2021, so the way
this Agreement is worded is that Extenet has to pay the $200 a month for its antennas
as allowed by law. Linear foot payments were not affected by legislation and will
continue through January 1, 2021, and beyond, barring any legislative changes.
Mr. Mulligan stated under the Code, this Agreement can either be approved by an
Ordinance or Resolution. It is being presented to Council in the form of a Resolution
because it takes one meeting for passage, as opposed to the two meetings required for
an Ordinance.
Councilmember Smotherson moved to approve, seconded by Councilmember

McMahon and the motion carried unanimously.
BILLS
N. COUNCIL REPORTS/BUSINESS
1. Boards and Commission appointments needed
Mayor Pro Tem Carr announced the appointments that were needed.
2. Council liaison reports on Boards and Commissions
3. Boards, Commissions, and Task Force minutes
E - 2 - 11
4. Other Discussions/Business
O. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (continued if needed)
Patricia Washington, 7040 Plymouth, University City, MO
Ms. Washington stated she would like to address some of the comments made by
Councilmember Carr, and others, during the August 27th meeting.
During that meeting, Councilmember Carr referenced a meeting she had attended
with several members of the clergy, which at some point focused on the press release
she had sent to the St. Louis American.
• Fact: A letter of support was drafted and approved by clergy members in
attendance at that meeting and she, along with others, had been asked to send
out press releases to the St. Louis American and other media outlets.
• Fact: The individual who is now claiming he did not know about this request was
copied on every email and answered in the affirmative regarding the issuance of
the press release.
• Fact: After the press release was published by the St. Louis American, a clergy
member from the Scientology community sent out an email expressing his
concerns about the article. Ms. Washington stated she agreed that the release
should not have gone without the mutual consent of all parties, and immediately
informed her contact within the clergy coalition that she would speak to someone
at the St. Louis American and ask them to retract the article.
• Fact: A letter authored by the clergy member expressing concerns about the
article was sent to the TIF Commission. His letter is posted on the City’s website,
but her reply to the Commission regarding that letter is not posted.
Mr. Washington stated that statements made by Councilmember Carr, or anyone else,
that numerous clergy members had asked her not to release the article; that she took no
action to retract the article, and that she made no attempts to contact the City Manager
or Council, are simply not true.
• Fact: An email was sent to Mr. Rose on June 25, 2018, at 6 2:34 p.m. requesting
a meeting to discuss the CBA. Later that afternoon Mr. Rose responded to her
email by denying that request.
• Fact: On at least three separate occasions she reached out to Council and was
successful in conducting two or three private meetings with Councilmembers
Clay and Smotherson regarding the CBA.
(Ms. Washington submitted documentation to substantiate her comments and asked
that they be made a part of the record.)
Christine Mackey-Ross, 21 Princeton, University City, MO

Ms. Mackey-Ross stated she wanted to advise Council and those present in the room
that a former U City resident, Henry Biggs; in collaboration with others, has produced a
movie entitled, “Swimming for Ferguson,” that will be shown at the Tivoli Theater from
February 14th through the 22nd. She stated while the movie highlights the aftermath of
Ferguson and the racial division in St. Louis, its main focus is about building stronger
communities and bridging those gaps. Ms. Mackey-Ross stated Mayor Terry Crow will
introduce the film at the February 18th showing, which has been designated as U City
Resident Night, so anyone attending that has an ID indicating a U City address, will get
two dollars off the price of their ticket.
P. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Cusick made the following announcements:
1. Sunday, September 23rd is the Annual U City in Bloom Clean Air Art Event. The
E - 2 - 12
event begins with artist painting in concentrated areas around the City, and at 5
p.m. all of the artwork will be on display at the Heman Park Community Center.
And if you would like to have your home painted and happen to live in one of the
areas where these artists will be painting, you can contact U City in Bloom for
more information.
2. The U City Historical History Society will be hosting an event in these Chambers
on Thursday, September the 20th, which will include lighting the beacons on top
of City Hall. So he would like to throw out a little hint to the Fire and Police
Departments about how nice it would be to send out one of their drones and
provide the Society with some memorable film coverage of this event.
In response to the earlier Proclamation on National Suicide Prevention Awareness
Month, Councilmember Cusick stated he would like to emphasize the importance of
everyone making themselves aware of the signs and symptoms associated with suicide.
He stated suicide is something he runs across far too often in his profession and would
agree that suicide is the second leading cause of death for people between the ages of
10 to 24. In fact, there was a recent article in The New York Times about a ten-year-old
boy that hung himself because he was being bullied at school. Councilmember Cusick
stated this is something that needs to be talked about, and he would encourage anyone
who thinks they may know someone in a crisis to go to the National Suicide Prevention
website and learn how they could potentially save someone’s life.
Councilmember Clay stated while he obviously disagreed with Councilmember Hales’

motion to postpone a vote on the Ordinance, he does appreciate the creative thinking
utilized in trying to accommodate Ms. Pettiford’s request because she has been long-
suffering in this process.
Mayor Pro Tem Carr stated tomorrow is the 17th Anniversary of 911 where 3,000
innocent people lost their lives and the nation lost its innocence. So please take a
moment tomorrow to give a kind thought to all those impacted.
Q. Revised to include RSMo 610.021(2)

Roll-Call vote to go into a Closed Council Session according to RSMo 610.021 (1) Legal
actions, causes of action or litigation involving a public governmental body and any
confidential or privileged communications between a public governmental body or its
representatives and its attorneys and RSMo 610.021 (2)Purchase or sale of real estate
by a public governmental body
Councilmember Smotherson moved to go into Closed Session, it was seconded by

Councilmember Cusick.
Roll Call Vote Was:

Ayes: Councilmember Hales, Councilmember Cusick, Councilmember Smotherson,
Councilmember Clay, Councilmember McMahon, and Mayor Pro Tem Carr.
Nays:
R. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tem Carr closed the regular City Council meeting at 8:08 p.m. to go into a
Closed Session on the second floor. The Closed Session reconvened in an open
session at 9:03 p.m.
E - 2 - 13
E - 2 - 14
E - 2 - 15
E - 2 - 16
E - 2 - 17
E - 2 - 18
E - 2 - 19
E - 2 - 20
E - 2 - 21
E - 2 - 22
E - 2 - 23
E - 2 - 24
UNIVERSITY CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
5th Floor of City Hall
6801 Delmar
September 10, 2018
• MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

The City Council Study Session was held in the Council Chambers on the fifth floor of
City Hall, on Monday, September 2018. Pursuant to the excused absence of Mayor
Crow, Mayor Pro Tem, Paulette Carr called the Study Session to order at 5:30 p.m.
In addition to the Mayor Pro Tem, the following members of Council were present:

Also in attendance was City Manager, Gregory Rose; and City Attorney, John F.
Mulligan Jr.
• CHANGES TO REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA

Councilmember Cusick stated Aren Ginsberg is unable to be in
attendance at tonight's meeting and has contacted Ms. Reese to
reschedule her swearing into the Library Board.
Councilmember Smotherson moved to approve the agenda as amended,

seconded by Councilmember Clay and the motion carried unanimously.
• ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RETAIL SALES Tax (EDRST)

Requested by the City Manager
Mr. Rose stated the next review of the City's Boards and Commissions will be on the
EDRST Board.
MEMBERS:
• 5 Members Appointed by Mayor
• 2 Members Appointed by School District
• 2 Members Appointed by St. Louis County Council
DUTIES OF THE BOARD:

• As outlined in the State Statutes and the City's governing Ordinance, the Board,
subject to approval of the City Council, shall consider economic development
plans, economic development projects, or designations of an economic area, and
shall hold public hearings and provide notice of any hearing.
September 10, 2018, Study Session Minutes E-3-1

• May consider using funds outside City boundary
 City receives significant Economic Benefit
 Board establishes an agreement with all parties establishing responsibilities
 This Board does not have administrative oversight, therefore much of their
operation is contingent upon Council's approval
USE OF REVENUE:
• Must be used in Downtown Area and Historic Districts
 What is considered to be the City's Downtown Area? While most people would
state the Loop, this area has not been defined in any document.
• Maximum of 25 percent available for administrative purposes; including staffing
and facility cost
 As a part of the current operating budget, Mr. Rose proposed to fund; in part,
the position of Economic Development Director and other related expenditures.
• 20 Percent shall go to projects related to long-term economic development
preparation
• Uses for Remaining Revenue
 Marketing
 Grants and Loans to companies for job training, equipment acquisition, site
development, and infrastructure
 Training programs to prepare workers for High Skilled jobs and Advanced
Technology
 Legal & Accounting Expenses directly associated with Economic Development
Planning and Preparation
 Developing value-added and export opportunities for Missouri Agricultural
project
ANNUAL REPORTS:
• Report to Council
• Report to State of Missouri Joint Committee on Economic Development
 Due date March 1st
 Report seeks to determine the use of funds received, and
 How much was spent on infrastructure improvements, land, building,
machinery, and job training?
FY19 EDRST BUDGET:

• Forecasted Revenues = $703, 400
• Allocated Expenses = $133,000
• Unallocated Funds = $570,400
 For proposed projects
 Any remaining monies are reallocated back to the EDRST fund balance
ORDINANCE APPROVAL:
Pursuant to the Ordinance the forecasted Revenues of $703,400 could have been
allocated as follows:
• $175,850 - Administrative
• $140,860 or (20%) - Long-Term Economic Development (ED) Preparation
• $386, 870 (ED) - Related Expenditures
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Direct the City Manager through his staff to work with the EDRST Board on the
following recommendations:
 Define an economic development project
 Establish criteria for evaluating economic development projects that are more
reflective of high wage job creation, advanced technology job training, and
significant economic impact
• Define the downtown area boundaries
 Without a clear definition, funds can be used anywhere in U City
• Placement of the current EDRST Board and Staff recommendation on September
24th agenda
 Applicants presented their proposals to the Board in March. Staff has
evaluated these proposals and will be recommending that they move forward
once Council has determined the future role of the EDRST Board
• Create contractual agreements with outside agencies for use of loan/grant funds
 Currently, no contractual agreement exists that allows staff to compare the
intended purpose of the disbursement vs. how it was actually used
• Confirm Board Membership
 Staff is seeking Council's authorization to determine whether the composition of
the Board meets the criteria previously described by contacting the School
District and St. Louis County to ascertain the names of their appointed
members
Mr. Rose stated a section within the Ordinance suggests that the EDRST Board
approval process be contingent upon endorsement by City Council. This is the
procedure that exists today. However, the question he would pose, is whether Council
would like the process to remain as it currently exists or modified to allow Council to
make the first review of proposals which have historically been reviewed by the Board?
Mayor Pro Tem Carr asked Mr. Rose if it was correct that the individuals acting as the
ex-officio component of this Board were not actually members? Mr. Rose stated that is
correct? Mayor Pro Tem Carr noted that the Historic Districts also had not been
defined, although she was uncertain whether they fell under the same category as the
downtown area? Mr. Mulligan stated the Ordinance specifies the use of these funds for
retail development projects limited to downtown areas and Historic Districts. And
although there is no definition of the downtown area, the Zoning Code does contain a
core Commercial District. In the absence of a definition in the Ordinance or Statute, one
would typically look to the dictionary for guidance. In this case, he has used the
following definition: "In or relating to the central part or main business and commercial
area of a town or city". Mr. Mulligan stated his thoughts are that when you look at the
current Zoning Code to determine how the City's land uses have been set out in tandem
with the core Commercial District; which the Code refers to as a district intended to
accommodate a wide variety of retail commercial uses with an emphasis toward the sale
of retail goods, dining, and entertainment, and the definition previously provided, it is
clear that the Loop would meet the criteria for a downtown area.
With respect to Historic Districts, here again, he would look to the Zoning Code
where Historic Districts have been set out.

And relevant to this discussion, he would specifically look at the Olive Boulevard Historic
District contained in Section 400.1915, which states, "There is hereby established the
Olive Boulevard Historic District which includes the full extent of Olive Boulevard located
within the City limits". So that gives you two areas within the City that he thinks would
qualify for purposes of the statutory and Ordinance provisions on retail development
projects in downtown areas and Historic Districts.
Mr. Mulligan stated if Council believes other areas should be deemed downtown or
Historic Districts, to ensure clarity, he would suggest that such a designation be enacted
by law. However, he certainly thinks it is appropriate to look to State and local codes for
guidance, in spite of the fact that they do not refer to Historic Districts in the context of
zoning specifications. He stated it's also possible that the designation of a downtown
area or Historic District could be accomplished outside the context of an amendment.
But if Council is inclined to amend the code accordingly, this is an issue that may be
appropriate for the Plan Commission to consider.
Councilmember Clay questioned whether these designations would lock the City in or
have any implications with respect to areas like funding or statutory restrictions? Mr.
Rose stated he was uncertain whether there were any statutory restrictions that would
limit the City's flexibility. However, there is a need to know what the boundaries are in
order to effectuate the branding process. He stated when you enter downtown areas
throughout the country typically you'll see flags symbolizing this process. And after this
administration has successfully put an economic development strategy in place, he will
be recommending that U City implement its own branding process.
Mr. Mulligan stated although an economic development project may be broader than a
retail development project, there is a need; at least administratively, to establish a clear
understanding of what the City's downtown and Historic District areas encompass from
the standpoint of retail development.
Mr. Rose stated one advantage the City has is the inclusion of an Industrial Park. So,
one might ask; should EDRST funds realistically be used to make improvements in an
Industrial Park to attract businesses to that area? He thinks that they should be.
Therefore, he would recommend that Council look at this designation from abroad rather
than restrictive (Loop and/or Olive) perspective.
Councilmember Clay stated documents he had reviewed on the Olive Facade Program
seem to indicate that the funds for this program were not being spent at a pace one
would expect. So what is the status of this program in terms of spending and its future?
Mr. Rose stated he would have to consult with Mr. Mulligan to determine whether this
program qualifies for EDRST funds. However, he does believe this is an important
program and within the next 90 days, his hope is to have an Economic Development
Director on board who will be responsible for marshaling these types of programs. So,
while he does not believe the Facade Program is active today, the first question is
where the monies to fund it would come from?
Councilmember Clay questioned whether his interpretation of Section 120.50 which

refers to Special Taxing Districts was correct, in that EDRST funds are not to be
supplanted by other special taxing districts, such as a TIF, but should be considered in
addition to?
Mr. Rose stated that was also his understanding. And if you recall, within the TIF project
staff identified several sales taxes that would not be impacted, one of those being the
Public Safety Sales Tax.
Councilmember Smotherson asked Mr. Rose if he had an opinion about what the
designations should be? Mr. Rose stated more than likely, his recommendation will not
be limited to the Loop, but at this point, importance should be placed on identifying what
the downtown area is.
Councilmember Smotherson stated in his opinion, the historic designation given to
Olive Boulevard should be changed because he sees nothing historic about Olive. He
then questioned whether Council could apply both the Historic District and downtown
area designations to the Loop? Mr. Rose stated based on his reading of the statute and
the City's Ordinance, neither restricts Council from making these kinds of decisions.
And even if there is some type of restrictive language in the Zoning Code, Council has
the authority to make any amendments they deem necessary.
Mr. Mulligan stated there is actually a statement of historic significance in the Zoning
Code as to why Olive was given that designation. And to the extent there is an interest
in amending the Code, Council may want to refer this topic to both the Preservation and
Plan Commissions for consideration.
Mr. Mulligan stated he believes Mr. Rose is looking for some guidance from Council
as to whether there is going to be an administrative designation. But again, when you
talk about a downtown area you are not necessarily limited to the core Commercial Area
in the Zoning Code, although that is one area he thinks neatly fits within the definition.
Ultimately, any retail development project has to comply with the Ordinance and statute,
so he would suggest that each designation be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Councilmember Cusick asked Mr. Rose if he would elaborate on what happens to the
unused portion of EDRST funds? Mr. Rose stated if Council decided it was not going to
allocate any funding this year, then at the end of the fiscal year, those monies would
revert back into the EDRST fund balance. Councilmember Cusick asked if the EDRST
currently has a fund balance? Mr. Rose stated based on his recollection, the fund
currently has a reserve of 1.2 million dollars. Councilmember Cusick asked Mr. Rose if
there were any plans for how this money should be utilized? Mr. Rose stated there
were two projects included in the Work Plan. One is the creation of an economic
development strategy. And he suspects that a part of that strategy will focus on the
formation of Olive Boulevard Corridor and what that should look like. The second
project is to define the Cunningham Industrial Park and determine what improvements
could be made to attract new businesses. But in the end, this Council will decide how
staff should administer the strategy and what the majority of those funds should be used
for. Councilmember Cusick asked Mr. Rose if his intent was to present Council with any
recommendations for the utilization of these funds? Mr. Rose stated the Work Plan also
includes the creation of a master plan for the Olive Corridor. But he thinks that if you
want to make major improvements then the first step should be to identify a plan and
strategy for economic development. He stated it will take significant dollars to
accomplish these improvements and the reserve EDRST funds simply enable the City to
leverage those finances. Councilmember Cusick asked if staff had any thoughts on how
to identify a plan and strategy for economic development?

Mr. Rose stated the City's past approaches were very scattershot, in the sense that all
businesses were good businesses or aggressively waiting for the phone to ring. But in
his opinion, these types of tactics do not yield an effective strategy. So the major project
for the person brought on board as Economic Development Director will be to identify
the types of businesses that represent a good fit for U City; put a strategic plan in place,
and then develop a process that guides the community through the strategy and
enables them to have a clear understanding of the intended goals.
Councilmember McMahon stated it sounds like your recommendations to define

economic development projects and create a contractual agreement is where we want
to go. So am I correct in assuming that both of these concepts will give Council and
staff a better view of what the policy decision is, and the ability to measure those
decisions and determine whether we are reaching our goals? Mr. Rose stated the idea
is to create some sort of performance standard that allows us to evaluate what we are
trying to achieve with these dollars. Normally when you talk about economic
development you're also talking about a livable wage. And while he is not saying that
retail is bad from any perspective, true economic development focuses more on jobs
that create livable wages.
Councilmember McMahon stated as this process moves forward, he is curious to
know whether staff has given any consideration to a plan that would help those
applicants who have become reliant upon the receipt of EDRST funds, but may no
longer be eligible under the revised criteria to ensure that we are not just pulling the rug
out from underneath them? Mr. Rose stated that's a good point, which really depends
on how far Council wants the pendulum to swing? Right now, his main objective is to
create a better balance and to start looking at ways to diversify the City's economy by
attracting companies that offer a livable wage. However, that does not mean EDRST
funds should only go to those types of businesses, especially since the Loop and Olive
Boulevard are predominately composed of retail sales establishments. So funding will
still be needed to make improvements in this area.
Councilmember Smotherson asked Mr. Rose if he could explain the $133,000 allotment
for staffing and how it relates to the Ordinance? Mr. Rose stated the Economic
Development Ordinance, as well as the State Statute, allows a maximum of 25% of
EDRST funds to go towards staffing and facilities. So, where you as a Council could
have redirected $175,000 to the General Fund to cover these expenses, the
recommendation and approval was only for $133,000. That amount covers the salary
for the Economic Development Director and a vast majority of the funds needed to get
this program running more efficiently. But, by no means is he suggesting that $133,000
covers all of the administrative overhead associated with running the EDRST program.
Councilmember Smotherson questioned whether the language contained in the
Ordinance regarding the Board's consideration of economic development projects
meant that the initial recommendations should be made by Council, submitted to the
Board for their recommendations, and then resubmitted to Council for final approval?
Mr. Rose stated there are two issues associated with that scenario. One is the
economic development strategy which he would recommend that Council develop, and
the other is the need to identify the characteristics of an economic development project.
And while the Mayor and Council will make the ultimate decision on both the plan and
the projects, the strategic plan might be different than the projects being reviewed.

So once these two tasks are completed, the question then becomes;
1. Whether Council's preference is to take a hands-on approach, engage the
EDRST Board, or form a committee/task force to work with staff on the creation
of an Economic Development Plan; (which involves a significant amount of work),
and
2. Whether Council wants staff to work initially with the EDRST Board or Council to
vet applications and make recommendations.
Mr. Rose stated Council has a great deal of flexibility in how they would like to structure
both of these undertakings.
Councilmember Smotherson stated he is having a difficult time conceptualizing how

anyone could put an Economic Development Plan together without first having a
strategic plan for Olive? Mr. Rose stated his thinking is that you could proceed with both
plans simultaneously, in that you could create an economic development strategy while
pursuing a master plan for the Olive Street Corridor. One focuses primarily on traffic
flow and zoning type issues, while the other is more strategic; what type of businesses
should the City pursue; what type of incentive programs should the City have, and what
are the target markets.
Mayor Pro Tem Carr stated although it may not be as comprehensive or address the
strategy of economic development, the City already has a preliminary plan for Olive.
Councilmember Clay asked whether CALOP was a Commission that also drew its funds
from a designated funding source? Mr. Mulligan stated that it used to draw funds in
that manner. Councilmember Clay stated it seems as though the City already have an
exemplar in place. So why can't CALOP's process of recommending projects and
submitting them to Council for approval be overlaid on how the EDRST functions? Mr.
Rose stated based on the current Ordinance and statute, CALOP and the EDRST Board
are structured to operate in a different manner. CALOP has the ability to create their
own budget, but the EDRST Board does not. In fact, they have no responsibility for
administrative oversight and are designed to be an advisory faction to the Council.
Another example might be the Library District. Even though they are a subsidiary of the
Council, they have broad oversight of their funds, can create their own budget and have
the ability to hire staff.
Councilmember Clay asked what role the Chamber of Commerce played with respect
to attracting businesses to the City? Mr. Rose stated while he could not speak to what
their role has been here, traditionally, the Chamber of Commerce's focus is on retention;
working to ensure that businesses don't leave their City.
Councilmember Hales thanked Councilmember Smotherson for raising the point about
Section 120.540(a), of the Code because in recent years the problems seem to stem
from the fact that we have not all been rowing the boat in the same direction. In fact,
while listening to the audio from the last EDRST Board meeting he believes it was the
Chairman who referenced the need for everyone to get on the same page. So he thinks
having this conversation and looking at what the Code actually states is incredibly
important, and equally as important is the process to make sure this City's Boards and
Commissions are following the accepted procedures.

Councilmember Hales stated while he personally does not think Council should
micromanage specific projects or plans, the key is really to define what an economic
development project should look like so that the Board understands the types of things
Council would like them to consider.
Councilmember Smotherson asked Mr. Rose if there were any pending economic
projects for Council to consider, and if so, what they were? Mr. Rose stated there are
several pending projects for Council’s consideration and his intent is to bring those
projects forward at the next Council meeting. However, should Council establish a new
process before the next meeting his recommendation would be that any application
already in the pipeline be resolved prior to making a fresh start. Mr. Rose stated that
the agenda will include one recommendation from the EDRST Board and one
recommendation from staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Carr asked what happens to the funding when an approved project is
either never initiated or completed? Mr. Rose stated if a project proposed in FY17, was
not fully executed, that money would simply go back to the EDRST fund balance.
Mayor Pro Tem Carr asked whether that specific applicant would have to reapply for
funds the following year? Mr. Rose stated while the ultimate decision would be left up to
the Mayor and Council, he would recommend that the applicant send him a letter
advising him of their intent to execute the project which with then trigger a discussion at
the Council level to determine how far they would like to see the project advanced.
Councilmember McMahon moved to close the Study Session, it was seconded by

Councilmember Smotherson and the motion carried unanimously.
• ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tem Carr thanked everyone and closed the Study Session at 6:21 p.m.

Council Agenda Item Cover
MEETING DATE: September 24, 2018
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Annual Property Tax Rates
AGENDA SECTION: Public Heaing
CAN THIS ITEM BE RESCHEDULED? : No
BACKGROUND REVIEW:
The Council of the City of University City will hold a public hearing at 6:30 p.m. on Monday,
September 24, 2018, at City Hall, 6801 Delmar Boulevard, 5th Floor, on proposed property
tax rates. The tax rates shall be set to produce substantially the revenue required to be
provided from property tax as set forth in the annual adopted budget. This levy is subject to
change pending action of the City Council.
The Library will hold a separate public hearing at 5:15 p.m. on Wednesday, September
26, 2018, at Library, 6701 Delmar Boulevard, in the Boardroom
I-1-1
City of University City
Public Hearing Notice
September 24, 2018, at City Hall, 6801 Delmar Boulevard, 5th Floor, on proposed property tax rates.
The tax rates shall be set to produce substantially the revenue required to be provided from property
tax as set forth in the annual adopted budget. This levy is subject to change pending action of the
City Council.
The Library will hold a separate public hearing at 5:15 p.m. on Wednesday, September 26, 2018, at
Library, 6701 Delmar Boulevard, in the Boardroom.
Assessed Valuation Current Prior

Tax Year Tax Year
Residential $525,974,350 $513,634,870
Commercial $68,343,640 $69,809,158
Personal Property $62,763,554 $62,840,438
University City Loop Special Business District

Residential $1,561,030 $1,537,290
Commercial $8,660,020 $8,682,710
Parkview Gardens Special Business District

Residential $15,644,270 $15,659,470
Commercial $1,815,630 $1,807,210
Proposed Tax Rates Proposed

Revenue
Residential Commercial Personal 2018-2019
City – General Revenue $0.532 $0.520 $0.680 $ 3,580,000

City – Pension $0.157 $0.142 $0.195 $ 1,045,000
Library $0.245 $0.225 $0.280 $ 1,618,000
University City Loop District $0.404 $0.455 $0.000 $ 46,000
Parkview Gardens District $0.525 $0.850 $0.000 $ 98,000
If you are a person with a disability or have special needs in order to participate in this public
hearing, please contact LaRette Reese at (314) 505-8605 prior to the hearing.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF UNIVERSITY CITY, MISSOURI

LaRette Reese, City Clerk
September 7, 2018
I-1-2
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Residential Sewer Lateral Repair Program Change
AGENDA SECTION: City Manager’s Report
CAN THIS ITEM BE RESCHEDULED? : Yes
BACKGROUND REVIEW:
The financial status of the residential sewer lateral repair program was examined at a study
session on August 27, 2018. The current program receives a revenue stream of $570,000
annually and operates under an 80/20 cost share method between City/Property Owner
and has depleted its fund reserves due to high numbers/cost of repairs, especially in recent
years.
As a solution for the imbalanced fund balance in the program fund (05-Sewer Lateral
Repair Fund), three proposals were considered:
1) Adjust cost sharing to a 70/30 (City/Property Owner) method,

2) Adjust cost sharing to a 50/50 (City/Property Owner) method,
3) Revise the qualification criteria to “… when there is severe damage causing ground
cave-ins and back-up in the home …”
Additional questions were received from Council on restoration requirements, the number
and total cost of catastrophic (emergency) repairs, an opinion of whether a dollars cap
would work, pictures of repairs, distribution of repair projects per Council Wards and the
responses are as follows:
The restoration requirements for the sewer lateral repair program work mirrors the
restoration requirements for the public right-of-way permit program (similar to backfilling,
paving, finishing). A case-by-case evaluation applies when there are non-standard private
property items such as an aesthetic driveway or landscaping items to be restored. The
program rules have not required a “restore-to-original” condition for non-standard items in
the past, but we’ve worked with property owners for their help in paying for the difference
between standard and non-standard restoration.
The number of catastrophic (emergency) repairs in FY2018 was 82 ea. and the Ward
distribution of this number was: 31 ea. in Ward 1, 20 ea. in Ward 2, and 31 ea. in Ward 3.
The total cost of these catastrophic repairs was a total of $157,431 (Ward 1), $100,160
(Ward 2), and $145,395 (Ward 3) for a total of $402,986, of which typically 80% of the cost
($322,389) was borne by the Sewer Lateral Repair Program.
J-1-1
During the Council Study Session, capping the program share of the dollar amount was
also discussed. Included below is a summary of what would constitute the average cost
share by property owners with different proposed cap amounts:
$2,000 cap for City Share = $2,300 for Property Owner Share (increase of $1,500)
$2,500 cap for City Share = $1,800 for Property Owner Share (increase of $1,000)
$3,000 cap for City Share = $1,300 for Property Owner Share (increase of $500)
A $2,000 and a $2,500 cap would fit within the annual budget of the program. A $3,000
cap would need supplemental funding of $90,000 on average.
Along with a proposed change in the cost-sharing method used for the program, the
authorization of the National League of Cities (NLC) Service Line Insurance Program
supplement (voluntary) in University City would enable additional coverage for homeowners
up to $8,000. The City could distribute public information regarding any program changes,
as well as the NLC Service Line Insurance Program, to the citizens at the same time.
Pictures of repairs are attached to this report for viewing.
A distribution of the total FY2018 repair projects and program expenditures over Wards of
University City is as below:
(If capped at $2,500 for City Share)
Ward 1 – 89 ea. projects = $316,208 $222,500
Ward 2 – 70 ea. projects = $248,539 $175,000
Ward 3 – 61 ea. projects = $201,927 $152,500
Total: 220 ea. projects $766,674 $550,000
RECOMMENDATION:
City Manager recommends changing the program rules to reflect a one-year trial
implementation of a “$2,500 cap for City-share” method to enable balanced program
spending. This implementation includes program quarterly reporting of the number of
repairs approved/denied/completed (Ward-designated) with its City and homeowner
shares, whether any supplemental programs such as NLC Service Line Insurance Program
were utilized, and any emergency repairs that were not completed due to the inability to
pay.
City Manager also recommends adding the following clause to the program policy (see
attachment for the current policy): “If any repair project is found not to be immediately
qualified under the program for a repair but the defective condition of the sewer lateral line
warrants a future repair that can generate cost savings if immediately completed, then the
reimbursement of the City-share can be made to the homeowner in the future fiscal year
when the repair will normally be warranted.”
ATTACHMENTS:
- Work Pictures
- Current Sewer Lateral Repair Program Policy
J-1-2
J-1-3
J-1-4
SANITARY SEWER LATERAL REPAIR PROGRAM POLICY
1. This sanitary sewer lateral financial assistance program applies to single-family residential buildings of
up to 6 units only and is not available to residential buildings with more than 6 units or commercial and
industrial (as determined by the use of the land) property. The program commenced on January 1, 2000.
2. A sanitary sewer lateral is defined as the portion of the sewage system which carries household waste to
the Metropolitan Sewer District main and which lies between the structure foundation wall, or exterior
wall if construction is non-traditional, and the sewer main. The definition is the same whether the pipe
is located in the front, side or rear yard. Damaged or blocked pipes located within the interior walls of
the unit are not covered under this program policy.
3. A sanitary sewer lateral is considered defective when there is sufficient evidence, to the satisfaction of
the City, to prove that the lateral cannot be cleared or is significantly broken, misaligned, offset, cracked
or has conditions which will cause at least 50% blockage of the pipe’s capacity within 3 years or any
condition with multiple backups which create a hazard to public safety or health. Evidence includes, but
is not limited to, a TV inspection, MSD dye test, plumber’s verification, sketches, etc. The City may
require the homeowner to submit additional documentation, as needed.
4. If an owner is experiencing a blockage of the sanitary sewer lateral, the owner must first contact a
University City licensed plumber to have the line cabled. If cabling does not result in clearing the line,
the owner should have a televised inspection and electronic locate performed and a sketch prepared
showing the approximate location of the defect. After the television inspection and sketch is completed,
the homeowner should contact the University City Public Works and Parks Dept. between the hours of
9:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday - Friday, to secure an application and instructions for participating in
the program. The owner should return a completed application, the sanitary sewer lateral television
inspection video, sketch and any other required information to the Public Works. In a case of an
emergency, the City Manager or his designee may waive this and other requirements.
5. Once the application is approved, effective April 1, 2015, the dwelling owner will be responsible for
coordinating all repairs and paying a 20 percent of the total cost of the City approved repair. The
Department of Public Works and Parks may adjust the deductible amount from time to time based on the
actual administration and experience with the program. The costs incurred for cabling and the sanitary
sewer lateral television inspection will not apply towards the 20 percent payment.
6. The City will provide the specifications and will obtain at least three (3) bids, if a single contractor is not
in place, which are acceptable to the City for the sanitary sewer lateral replacement/repair. The City will
only accept bids, which have been obtained from companies registered with the Community
Development Dept. The City will only accept bids, which are, in its opinion, responsive to the
specifications. The City reserves the right to deny any and all bids received. The City may, at any time,
obtain bids for any part of the corrective action for a defective sanitary sewer lateral from the list of
plumbers/drain layers registered with the Community Development Dept. for the purpose of comparison
and to determine current market conditions or for any other City purpose.
7. Once bids are received, the Public Works and Parks Dept. will review and approve. After written
approval of the City’s acceptance of the lowest, responsive bid, the homeowner may schedule the work.
J-1-5
8. This financial assistance program covers excavation, repair or replacement of the sanitary sewer lateral,
backfilling, seeding and strawing. The top six inches of the backfill will be topsoil. It will be the
responsibility of the dwelling owner to water and maintain the ground cover to assure growth. Any
additional work desired by the homeowner, unless approved by the City, will be done at the
homeowner’s expense.
9. This financial assistance program will cover the cost to replace sidewalk, driveway and street pavement
removed to accomplish the repair. In the event it is necessary to remove accessory structures such as
fences, the contractor is required to restore such structures to their pre-existing condition. In the event
obstacles such as yard sheds, garages, etc are in the path of the sanitary sewer lateral or lie over the
damaged portion of the lateral, the City reserves the right to reroute the sanitary sewer lateral to avoid
the necessity of removing the structure. In the event rerouting is impractical, the City and the dwelling
owner will meet to discuss a solution. The City will make the final decision regarding a solution. The
City can require the homeowner to repair all or a part of the lateral at the homeowner’s expense or the
City can complete or have completed any needed repairs or replacement of the sanitary sewer lateral to
preserve public health and safety, and charge the homeowner for the expense plus any administrative
costs.
10. The City will make the final decisions regarding all aspects of this program, including whether or not to
repair or replace a sanitary sewer lateral, eligibility of expenses, responsibility of bidders, hazardous
conditions, etc.
11. The City has no obligation or responsibility for the performance of the contractor and no responsibility
for any damages caused to the owner’s property because of the sanitary sewer lateral defects. The
contractor is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits.
12. Should the City staff notice, or be notified of, visible evidence of a leaking sanitary sewer lateral (such
as a sinkhole, etc.), then the City will initiate appropriate steps to identify the cause and, if necessary,
replace the sanitary sewer lateral. In most instances the City will arrange for the Metropolitan Sewer
District (MSD) to perform a dye test. Currently, MSD does not charge for this test. If the sanitary sewer
lateral needs replacing, the owner will be contacted.
13. All City bills (i.e., refuse, weed, property clean up, ambulance, etc.) and St. Louis County Real Estate
taxes (includes the $50 sanitary sewer lateral fee) must be paid prior to submitting an application to
participate in the program.
14. The homeowner is responsible for contacting their home insurance company to determine if any or the
entire sanitary sewer lateral repair is covered by the home insurance policy. The owner is required to
notify the City of any payment received from the insurance company to pay any part of the sanitary
sewer lateral repair. All such payments will be deducted from the City’s expense of the approved repair.
15. The City may periodically amend these guidelines in the best interest of the City and its homeowners,
except as may be restricted by state law or City ordinance.
J-1-6
_______________________________________________________________
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Interfund Loan – Sewer Lateral Program
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda
BACKGROUND REVIEW: Currently, the City is responsible for 80% of the

residential sewer lateral repairing cost. A significant increase of volume while the
fees collected are consistently flat within the past ten years. As a result, the fund
had a negative fund balance and expenditures were over budget. The expenditures
in FY 2018 increased approximately 84% from FY 2010. The fund spent down $1.1
million in fund reserve from FY 2010 (see attached).
On August 27th, City Council approved a loan of $100,000 from General Fund for
Sewer Lateral Repair Program as a part of the FY 2018 Budget Amendment. The
loan has five years term at 1.25% interest rate. An amortization schedule is
attached.
RECOMMENDATION: City Manager recommends approval.
ATTACHMENT: Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund

Balance for the Last Ten Fiscal Years
Amortization Schedule
J-2-1
Sewer Lateral Repair Program
Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
Last Ten Fiscal Years
FY 2018 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2015 FY 2014
Fund balance as of July 1 $ 298,794 $ 489,300 $ 604,165 $ 932,170 $ 1,178,687
Total revenues:
Charges for services 573,083 574,442 572,974 568,333 566,792
Investment income - - 436 4,563 2,597

Total expenditures:
Personnel services 56,262 49,009 37,088 62,447 46,876
Contractual services 866,646 715,939 651,187 838,454 769,030
Changes in fund balance (349,825) (190,506) (114,865) (328,005) (246,517)
Fund balance as of June 30 $ (51,031) $ 298,794 $ 489,300 $ 604,165 $ 932,170
FY 2013 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2009
Fund balance as of July 1 $ 1,225,172 $ 1,208,238 $ 1,139,366 $ 908,313 $ 855,459

Total revenues:
Charges for services 564,954 567,021 582,050 576,249 564,630
Investment income 2,670 7,754 4,949 3,405 10,719
Total expenditures:
Personnel services 42,512 41,045 61,061 26,136 51,558
Contractual services 571,597 516,796 457,066 322,465 470,937
Changes in fund balance (46,485) 16,934 68,872 231,053 52,854

Fund balance as of June 30 $ 1,178,687 $ 1,225,172 $ 1,208,238 $ 1,139,366 $ 908,313
J-2-2
Loan Principal $ 100,000
Interest 1.25
Term 5 years
Monthly payment 1,720
Date Interest Principal Balance
1 9/1/2018 $ 104 $ 1,616 $ 98,384
2 10/1/2018 102 1,618 96,766
3 11/1/2018 101 1,619 95,147
4 12/1/2018 99 1,621 93,526
406 6,474
5 1/1/2019 97 1,623 91,903
6 2/1/2019 96 1,624 90,279
7 3/1/2019 94 1,626 88,653
8 4/1/2019 92 1,628 87,025
9 5/1/2019 91 1,629 85,396
10 6/1/2019 89 1,631 83,765
11 7/1/2019 87 1,633 82,132
12 8/1/2019 86 1,634 80,498
13 9/1/2019 84 1,636 78,862
14 10/1/2019 82 1,638 77,224
15 11/1/2019 80 1,640 75,584
16 12/1/2019 79 1,641 73,943
1,057 19,583
17 1/1/2020 77 1,643 72,300
18 2/1/2020 75 1,645 70,655
19 3/1/2020 74 1,646 69,009
20 4/1/2020 72 1,648 67,361
21 5/1/2020 70 1,650 65,711
22 6/1/2020 68 1,652 64,059
23 7/1/2020 67 1,653 62,406
24 8/1/2020 65 1,655 60,751
25 9/1/2020 63 1,657 59,094
26 10/1/2020 62 1,658 57,436
27 11/1/2020 60 1,660 55,776
28 12/1/2020 58 1,662 54,114
811 19,829
29 1/1/2021 56 1,664 52,450
30 2/1/2021 55 1,665 50,785
31 3/1/2021 53 1,667 49,118
32 4/1/2021 51 1,669 47,449
33 5/1/2021 49 1,671 45,778
34 6/1/2021 48 1,672 44,106
35 7/1/2021 46 1,674 42,432
36 8/1/2021 44 1,676 40,756
37 9/1/2021 42 1,678 39,078
38 10/1/2021 41 1,679 37,399
39 11/1/2021 39 1,681 35,718
40 12/1/2021 37 1,683 34,035
561 20,079
J-2-3
Loan Principal $ 100,000

Interest 1.25
Term 5 years
Monthly payment 1,720
Date Interest Principal Balance
41 1/1/2022 35 1,685 32,350
42 2/1/2022 34 1,686 30,664
43 3/1/2022 32 1,688 28,976
44 4/1/2022 30 1,690 27,286
45 5/1/2022 28 1,692 25,594
46 6/1/2022 27 1,693 23,901
47 7/1/2022 25 1,695 22,206
48 8/1/2022 23 1,697 20,509
49 9/1/2022 21 1,699 18,810
50 10/1/2022 20 1,700 17,110
51 11/1/2022 18 1,702 15,408
52 12/1/2022 16 1,704 13,704
309 20,331
53 1/1/2023 25 1,695 12,009
54 2/1/2023 21 1,699 10,310
55 3/1/2023 18 1,702 8,608
56 4/1/2023 14 1,706 6,902
57 5/1/2023 11 1,709 5,193
58 6/1/2023 7 1,713 3,480
59 7/1/2023 4 1,739 1,741
60 8/1/2023 2 1,741 -
102 13,704
J-2-4
City Manager’s Report Agenda Item Cover
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Liquor License for 2 Thumps Up, 8502 Olive Blvd.
CAN THIS ITEM BE RESCHEDULED? YES
BACKGROUND REVIEW: 2 Thumps Up has applied for an Intoxicating Liquor of

All Kinds, by the Drink, Retail liquor license including Sunday Sales. The applicant is
Latoshia Morrow.
• Department Approval was not granted from the Police Department, additional
comments are enclosed on page.
• Recommendations from University City citizens are included.
• Petition from business owners not within 200 foot radius are included.
• A current Certificate of No Sales Tax Due issued by the Missouri Department of
Revenue was received relative to the business.
• Current voter registration documentation for the applicant was provided.
ATTACHMENTS: Investigation and Report – Police Department
RECOMMENDATION: City Manager recommends denial based on the investigation

and report by Police Department
K-2-1
Investigation and Report – Police Department
The following are the issues with the application for a liquor license from Two Thumbs Up” from
University City Police Department findings.
Pre-existing Issues
• Wendell Bryant, co-owner of 2 Thumbs Up is a convicted felon, according to his criminal

history record (federal conviction for Distribution of Heroin from US Marshals in 1999)
• Wendell Bryant currently has a warrant for his arrest from Sheriff’s Office in Chester, IL for
Larceny.
Initial License application 04-23-2018
• Fraudulent application for a liquor license by Debra Lewis, mother of Wendell Bryant, who,
during her interview for a liquor license application, admitted that she was applying for a
liquor license for her son, Wendell Bryant, whom she knew could not obtain a liquor license
because of his conviction.
• History of violence and violations of liquor laws of Missouri State even before license was
issued at 8502 Olive Blvd. (2 Thumbs Up)
o Report of an Assault (18-11043) involving a fight between a member of the
restaurant owner’s family
o Investigative Report (17-46582) involving allegations of minors being served
alcohol, where owner Wendell Bryant refused police entry for an investigation of
such allegation
o Ordinance Violation Report (17-43809) involving allegation of owner Wendell Bryant
running a club-like facility out of the restaurant and allowing persons to remain in
the restaurant for parties after 1:30 am.
• Failure to meet requirements of the original application for Liquor License filled out by
Debra Lewis. Specifically, application required the applicant to contact residents and
business owners 200 feet, to sign a petition agreeing to the business obtaining a liquor
license, did not meet University City Charter requirements. In fact, applicant contacted
residents and business owners who were beyond the 200 feet distance, and none of
whom were residents from Crixdale Ave, which would be the most affected area by the
liquor license and liquor sales by this business.
Subsequent report of MO Liquor Law violations 08-21-2018
• Lt. Whitley received a report that 2 Thumbs Up was selling alcohol out of 8502 Olive Blvd.
without a University City license, contrary to Chapter 600 of the City Ordinance detailing
liquor sales.
• Possible fraudulent application for a liquor license by Wendell Bryant’s wife, Latoshia
Morrow, who obtained a license from the State of Missouri without notifying the Alcohol and
Tobacco Control Division that she and her husband, who is a convicted felon, both own 2
Thumbs Up.
• Failure to allow an inspection of the business for compliance with City Ordinance (09-09-
2018) and discovery of additional code violations (18-26733).
o Upon arrival, employees inside of 2 Thumbs Up observed police officers, opened
the window on the second floor, closed it and refused to allow officers into the
business to check for compliance with City Ordinance.
K-2-2
o Officers observed exposed electrical socket, free hanging wiring, unsecured ladder
and damaged stair/entrance to the restaurant (detailed in 18-26733)
o During an area canvass, detective spoke to an employee of a nearby business, who
complained about Wendell Bryant harassing her and other female employees about
working for his business as bartenders.
o On the same day, Wendell Bryant, called the station (without being called by the
police) admitting that he had employees in the building, stocking the freezer and
stocking the business with alcohol.
o During the same conversation, Wendell Bryant admitted that he was the owner of 2
Thumbs Up.
K-2-3
K-2-4
K-2-5
K-2-6
K-2-7
K-2-8
K-2-9
K - 2 - 10
K - 2 - 11
K - 2 - 12
K - 2 - 13
K - 2 - 14
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Morgan – Wilshire Avenue Road and Drainage Improvements
AGENDA SECTION: City Manager's Report
CAN THIS ITEM BE RESCHEDULED?: Yes
BACKGROUND REVIEW:
In September of 2016, staff reviewed qualifications from consultants listed for Roadway
Design and its construction engineering. The City’s review team selected Civil Design, Inc.
(CDI). Civil Design, Inc. is a certified Women Business Enterprise and Disadvantage
Business Enterprise and has many years of experience with transportation design,
surveying, site development and hydraulic analysis.
CDI submitted a proposal to the City including the following services: Land surveying, utility
coordination, permitting, ADA assessment, roadway improvements, preliminary plans, final
design plans for a total of $31,207.44.
In August of 2018, CDI was asked to provide additional design services along with bidding
and construction services for an extension of the referenced project on Wilshire Ave. These
additional services total $35,704.00
RECOMMENDATION:
City Manager recommends that City Council approve the consultant’s proposal of
$35,704.00 for design, bidding, and construction services for the Morgan and Wilshire Road
and Drainage Improvement Project.
ATTACHMENTS:
- CDI Proposal
K-3-1
K-3-2
ATTACHMENT A
ADDITIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS ADDITIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT made as of this _______ day of ________, 20__,
BETWEEN City of University City, and Civil Design, Inc., (hereinafter “CDI”):
Civil Design, Inc.

1552 South 7th Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63104
City of University City and CDI entered into an Agreement, (hereinafter “Agreement”);
Dated __________
For the following Project: Morgan and Wilshire Pavement and Drainage Improvements
CDI project number 2352
SCOPE OF WORK
1. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, modifications and changes to that agreement were
to be made only in writing, signed by both parties. Based on the work completed by CDI to
date, certain additional services have been requested by Chris Kalter, which are set forth in
more detail in the attached “Additional Services Agreement - Scope of Services.”
2. The Additional Services to be provided by CDI are further described in the “Additional
Services Agreement - Scope of Services” contained in the proposal letter (Attachment A) to
this Additional Services Agreement), incorporated herein by reference, and as specifically
set out in this Additional Services Agreement. Services not set forth above and not listed in
Attachment A are specifically excluded from the scope of CDI’s services. CDI assumes no
responsibility to perform any services not specifically listed in Attachment A.
3. By execution of this Additional Services Agreement, all of the other terms and conditions
and provisions of the Agreement are incorporated herein by reference, and the additional
services so rendered hereunder shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions and
provisions of the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Additional Services Agreement, which is subject to the

terms and conditions of the Agreement, is accepted as of the date first written above.
Signed By: Signed By:

Name: Name: Vicki S. LaRose
Title: Title: President
K-3-3
ATTACHMENT A
Morgan Avenue and Wilshire Avenue – Additional Services
Drainage and Pavement Improvements to Wilshire (From Morgan to Elene)
Bidding and Construction Services for Morgan and Wilshire Improvements.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
GENERAL PROJECT SCOPE

CDI has completed the construction documents for Morgan Avenue (from Mt. Olive to Wilshire). This additional
services proposal includes project scope for pavement, and drainage improvements to Wilshire Avenue (from
Morgan to Elene). Improvements to Wilshire include full depth pavement reclamation, storm drainage
improvements, sidewalk improvements. In addition to Surveying and Engineering Services for improvements to
Wilshire Avenue, ad part of this additional services proposal, CDI will provide Bidding and Construction Services for
the improvements to Morgan and Wilshire. TSI will provide construction testing services as a subconsultant to CDI.
SCOPE OF CONSULTANTING SERVICES

In order to achieve the above project goals and objective, the CONSULTANT will provide:
I. Surveying Services:
The CONSULTANT will complete a topographic survey and right of way survey of the project area.
a. Topographic survey will include

• Generating 1 foot contours.
• Location of existing features such as drainage structures, buildings, pavement, signage,
trees/landscaping, wall, walks, etc.
• Sanitary sewer manholes, including incoming and outgoing flowlines and pipe sizes.
• Location of marked utilities.
b. The CONSULTANT will contact the appropriate underground utility designating authorities, and wait the
required period prior to beginning our field work. This proposal does not include returning to the site multiple
times to locate utility markings not made within the initial time period.
c. Survey subsurface utilities according to maps obtained from utility companies and as marked by the Missouri
One Call service to be contacted by Surveyor. The subsurface utility survey may include, but is not limited to:
• Storm sewer inlets and manholes, including incoming and outgoing flowlines and pipe sizes.
• Sanitary sewer manholes, including incoming and outgoing flowlines and pipe sizes
• Utility valves and meters
• Fiber Optic Manhole / Vault, including depth of structure, top slab thickness and manhole frame
depth
• Telephone & Fiber Optics
• Gas & Water Mains
• Power and Lighting Conduits
• Traffic Signal Conduit and Interconnection Conduit
d. Existing Right‐of‐Way shall be reestablished along the project corridor including;
• Property research for each parcel along the alignment, including property owner name, assessor's
map number, deed book and page, and size of parcel (in square feet and acres) obtained from
courthouse records.
• Field survey of existing property corners will be completed to verify existing right‐of‐way in selected
locations. This task will not constitute a full boundary survey of the project limits.
• CAD file (Microstation format) with property line work and other information as described in the
above.
II. Information Gathering: Information gathering will be vital to the success, and ease, of final design and
construction. At a minimum, the CONSULTANT shall make an effort to collect the following:
K-3-4
a. University City shall provide available existing roadway plans along the project corridor in pdf form.
b. University City shall provide available existing, known, commercial and/or residential development plans along
the project corridor.
III. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASE

A conceptual design of the proposed improvements along Wilshire, from Morgan to Elene, will be completed so that
the project’s anticipated slope limits, right‐of‐way needs, and estimated construction cost can effectively be
established. The design tasks are described below.
a. Site visit to gather existing information, photos and a general sense of current conditions
b. The team will develop conceptual alternatives to address existing drainage and pavement issues.
c. Pedestrian Geometric Design: An evaluation and conceptual layout of the sidewalks, and curb ramps will be
completed in the conceptual phase
IV. Preliminary DESIGN PHASE
Preliminary Design
Following the conceptual design phase the CONSULTANT will prepare the preliminary project design based on
University City Public Works Department comments of the conceptual layout. Preliminary design tasks are detailed
below.
a. Typical Sections depicting conceptual pavement structure along the corridor will be developed. The typical
sections will include lane configurations, limits of sidewalk improvements, and existing and proposed right of
way.
b. Plans Sheets: Design of horizontal and vertical alignments and roadway elements shall be sufficient to provide
conceptual roadway configurations, driveway, entrances, side road tie‐ins, and construction limits. Approximate
temporary construction easements, permanent sidewalk, and new right‐of‐way shall be identified based on the
preliminary construction limits.
c. Roadway Drainage Improvements: An analysis of storm water drainage impacts will be prepared and a storm
water drainage layout will be designed and shown in the plans. The first submittal to MSD will be completed in
the preliminary design phase. The following tasks are considered part of this drainage improvement effort.
1. Delineation of Existing Drainage Areas ‐ Drainage areas for each existing drainage structure will be
delineated.
2. Analysis of Existing Pavement Drainage ‐ The CONSULTANT shall determine existing pavement
drainage characteristics, including: drainage area flow rates, gutter spread, and inlet capacities.
3. Analysis of Existing Enclosed Storm Sewer System ‐ Existing storm sewers, location and size based on
existing MSD base maps, will be analyzed to determine capacity and to identify drainage deficiencies.
4. Conceptual Enclosed Storm Sewer Improvements ‐ Proposed improvements to pavement drainage will
be developed to address identified deficiencies. It is anticipated that proposed improvements will
include the relocation and addition of storm sewer inlets, the addition or replacement of storm sewer
pipe, and the installation of underdrains and/or trench drains at specific locations.
5. Water Quality and Quantity Requirements are assumed to not be required for this project.
d. Prepare Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost (EEOPC): The CONSULTANT will, based on the Conceptual Study
Report and the Conceptual Rehabilitation Design, complete an engineer’s estimate of probably cost.
e. Estimation of Land Acquisition: No temporary or permanent Right of Way is anticipated for this project.
V. Final DESIGN PHASE
Final Design
Following the preliminary design phase the CONSULTANT will prepare the final project plans based on University
City Public Works Department comments of the preliminary plan submittal. Final Design Documents are detailed
below.
Final Plan Preparation will consist of the preparing the following Construction Documents.
K-3-5
Construction Drawings
• Title Sheet
• Typical Sections
• Summary of Quantities
• Plan Sheets
• Reference Points and Control Points
• Storm Sewer Profiles
• Traffic Control and Phasing Plans
• Erosion Control Plans
Final Opinion of Probable Cost
Final MSD Submittal -Final Drainage analysis and report will be prepared and submitted to MSD along with 9 sets
of full size plans for the final MSD Permit Submittal.
Bidding Services
• Technical Specifications:
Provide specifications for the project scope of work items.
• Respond to RFIs
Provide responses to Contractor Requests For Information (RFI)’s in written format. RFI responses will be
sent as addendum to all prospective bidders. This may include generating drawing exhibits to more clearly
define the design and/or the Construction Documents.
• Bid Analysis
Project bid information submitted from all Contractors will be reviewed for completeness, and information
needed for contract award will be summarized and depicted in a tabular format.
• Recommendation for contract award
Qualification information submitted from the apparent low bidder will be reviewed. This includes calling
submitted references, and reporting on past project performance. Based on the bid analysis and
qualifications information, a recommendation of a Contractor to contract with the City to perform the work
will be provided.
Construction Services
• Attend Preconstruction Conference

Consultant will attend the preconstruction conference scheduled and lead by the City and Consultant.
Items to be discussed include adherence to Construction Documents and City Contract requirements,
identify all project subcontractors and provide information on contacts, timeframe for construction
submittals, proposed construction schedule, review testing agency requirements, and identify important
project milestones.
• Review Contractor Material Submittals
Consultant will review Contractor submitted product submittals. Consultant shall have 5 working days to
provide a response to submittals.
• Inspect Traffic Control
Once traffic control has been installed, but prior to rerouting traffic, Consultant shall provide a field visit to
inspect traffic control devices. Consultant may recommend minor changes be made in order for traffic to
proceed in a safer manner.
• The Contractor will be required to do their own testing. TSI will be subcontracted by CDI to do
independent testing.
K-3-6
• Preconstruction Reviews and review of Testing results
Consultant shall review field testing report generated by the Contractor. Consultant will only report on
tests that do not meet the project requirements.
• Construction Observation and reporting
Consultant will make periodic site visits and site inspection to ensure construction conforms to the project
Construction Documents. Reports of such visits will be transcribed and submitted to the Owner and
Contractor.
• Inspect and measure all pay items
Consultant will inspect, and measure constructed items in conjunction with periodic site visits and review
of Contractor pay requests.
• Review contractor pay requests
Consultant will review submitted Contractor pay requests for accuracy and completeness. This includes
visual and measured confirmation of pay request quantities or percentage in conjunction with periodic site
visits and inspections of pay items.
• Provide pre-final inspection and punch list.
The Consultant will provide a pre-final inspection and punch list documenting all items yet to be
completed, as well as items that do not conform to the project Construction Documents and that require
correction. This punch list will be submitted to the Owner and Contractor for verification.
• Provide final inspection
Once all the project work has been completed, and the items identified on the pre-final punch list has been
corrected, the Consultant will provide a final site inspection of the entire project work area, and produce a
final written punch list identifying items requiring further corrective action, or identifying project
complete.
VI. DELIVERABLES PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT will deliver or provide the labor and materials for the following submittals:
a. Public Meeting support for one Meeting: Two (2) Sets of Project Conceptual Plans, Meeting Attendance (1
person).
b. PDF of Conceptual Plans, Quantities, and Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
c. PDF of Preliminary Plans, Quantities, and Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
d. Two (2) half‐size sets, and a PDF of Final Plans, Quantities, and Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, Job Special
Provisions
e. CAD files as needed.
Note: All deliverables will be provided in PDF form unless otherwise noted above.
VII. EXCLUSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL
• Geotechnical Investigations are not part of this contract.

• Completion of traffic counts neither by automated means nor by hand count.
• Right of way acquisition Services
• Noise Analyses
• Air Quality Analyses
• Wetland Mitigation I Soil Mitigation Plan.
• Archeological I Historical I Cultural Exploration
• Hazardous Waste Investigations/Exploration
• Full size mylars at final submission
• Any fees required for approvals or permits
• Any work related to condemnation of specific parcels.
• Design for relocation of existing utilities (Except storm sewer. No fee has been allocated for the cost of redesign of
any of these facilities).
K-3-7
Attachment B
Add Wilshire (Morgan to Elene) to the Morgan Project

University City
Addendum - additional services
Hours
Task Description Proj Mgr II Proj Eng II Proj Eng I Const. Admin. Land Surv II Surv Tech Total Hours Fee
Survey Wilshire from Morgan to Elene

Perform Utility Survey 6 4 10 $ 871.02
Draft Utility Survey 4 4 $ 234.48
Perform Topographic Survey 8 8 16 $ 1,317.68
Draft Topographic Survey 8 8 $ 468.96
Review Topographic Survey, QA/QC 2 2 $ 212.18
Research Boundary/Right of Way 2 2 $ 117.24
Perform Boundary/ROW Survey 4 4 8 $ 658.84
Draft Record Boundary information 2 2 $ 117.24
Engineering Services for Wilshire from Morgan to Elene - scope added to Morgan Ave. Project
Conceptual Phase
Site visit & Field Data collection 1 2 2 5 $ 503.35
Meetings 1 1 2 $ 242.98
Conceptual Layout 0.5 4 8 13 $ 1,113.53
Conceptual Quantities and Fee Estimate 4 4 8 $ 718.52
Conceptual Design submittals 0.5 1 4 6 $ 493.90
Preliminary Phase $ -
Preliminary Plan layout 0.5 4 8 13 $ 1,113.53
Plan Productions $ -
Ttile Sheet 1 1 $ 98.89
Typical Sections 2 4 6 $ 520.74
Plans 0.5 4 8 13 $ 1,113.53
Cross Sections 2 8 10 $ 843.70
Preliminary Field Check 1 1 2 $ 179.63
Preliminary Quantities and Fee Estimate 0.5 2 2 5 $ 431.31
Drainage Design and Calculations 4 8 12 $ 1,041.48
MSD Submittal no. 1 1 1 2 $ 179.63
Preliminary Design submittals 0.5 2 2 5 $ 431.31
$ -
Final Design Phase $ -
Finalize Drainage Calculations and Details 4 8 12 $ 1,041.48
MSD Submittal no. 2 1 1 2 $ 179.63
Plan Production $ -
Ttile Sheet 1 1 $ 80.74
Typical Sections 4 4 $ 322.96
Summary of Quantities 0.5 4 2 7 $ 629.09
Plans 1 4 8 13 $ 1,185.57
Reference Points/Control Points 2 2 $ 161.48
Traffic Control 2 4 6 $ 520.74
Erosion Control 1 2 3 $ 260.37
Cross Sections 2 8 10 $ 843.70
Final MSD Sumbittal already doing this task with original Morgan Ave. Project
Specifications already doing this task with original Morgan Ave. Project
Final Field Check already doing this task with original Morgan Ave. Project
Estimate 2 2 $ 197.78
Support for Public Involvement already doing this task with original Morgan Ave. Project
Meetings already doing this task with original Morgan Ave. Project
Bid Services for the addition of Wilshire to the Morgan Ave. Project
Bid Analysis 8 8 $ 1,152.72
Recommendation for contract award 2 2 $ 288.18
Answer RFIs 10 10 $ 1,440.90
Provide Technical Specifications 4 4 $ 576.36
Construction Services for Morgan and Wilshire Project

Attendance at Preconstruction Conference 2 2 $ 288.18
Review Contractor Material Submittals 8 8 $ 1,152.72
Inspect Traffic Control Signage 2 2 $ 288.18
Inspect Erosion Control 4 4 $ 576.36
Preconstruction Reviews and review of testing results 8 8 $ 1,152.72
Construction Observation and Reporting (CDI does not have Testing services) 16 16 $ 2,305.44
Inspect and Measure all pay quantities 8 8 $ 1,152.72
Review Contractor Pay requests 4 4 $ 576.36
Provide Pre-final inspection and punch list 4 4 $ 576.36
Provide final inspection 4 4 $ 576.36
Survey Labor Hours 0 0 0 0 20 32 52 $ 3,997.64

Design Labor Hours 7 55 100 0 0 0 162 $ 14,449.54
Bidding and Construction Admin. Labor Hours 0 0 0 84 0 0 84 $ 12,103.56
Subtotal Labor Hours 7 55 100 84 20 32 298 $ 30,550.74
Quantity Units Unit Cost
Direct Costs
Mileage - Field Visit 132 miles $0.54 $ 71.28
Prints 50 ea $2.50 $ 125.00
Subconsultant - TSI - Const. Testing 1 LS $4,956.00 $ 4,956.00
Add Wilshire (Morgan to Elene) to the Morgan Project $ 35,703.02
Notes:
This fee estimate is for the addition of scope for Wilshire Avenue Improvements from Morgan to Elene. The fee estimate reflects additional Surveying, Civil Design
services for Wilshire from (Morgan to Elene. In addition CDI will provide Bidding services and Construction administration tasks for the Wilshire Improvements and
the Morgan Avenue improvements. TSI will provide construction testing services.
CDI - MoDot Approved Billing Rates - 2017
Project Manager I $ 144.09

Project Engineer II $ 98.89
Project Engineer I $ 80.74
Construction Admin. $ 144.09
Land Surveyor II $ 106.09
Survey Tech $ 58.62
K-3-8
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EDRST Recommendations
BACKGROUND REVIEW:
The Economic Development Retail Sales Tax Board met in March to review applications
for funding. The attached spreadsheet shows the staff recommendations to the board,
the board’s recommendations to Council, and the City Manager’s recommendation to
Council. The City Manager’s recommendation complies with distribution requirements
outlined in our codes and state statutes.
RECOMMENDATION: The City Manager is recommending approval of the items

shown in the attached spreadsheet.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. EDRST Recommendations Spreadsheet

2. Draft Minutes from EDRST Board Meeting, March 23, 2018
3. Report by City Manager to Council from Special Session
K-4-1
K-4-2
Economic Development Retail Sales Tax Board
Meeting Minutes
March 29, 2018
4:00PM
The Economic Development Retail Sales Tax Board (EDRSTB) held a meeting at the Heman
Park Community Center located at 975 Pennsylvania Ave, University City, Missouri. The
meeting commenced at 4:18pm.
Voting Members Present

Brendan O’Brien (Chair for Meeting)
Kristine Hendrix
Robert Kuhlman
Robyn Williams
Raheem Adegboye
Non-Voting Ex-Officio Members Present

Shelley Welsch, Mayor
Joe Edwards, Loop Special Business District
Staff Present
Rosalind Williams, Director of Community Development
Adam Brown, Community Development Specialist
New Business
Mr. Kuhlman moved for a public comment period to be added to the agenda. Motion was
seconded and approved.
Public Comments Section:

Joe Edwards, 6504 Delmar, spoke on behalf of the Loop Special Business District. He asked
that the board consider approving the “Welcome to the Loop sign”. He noted that the Loop
brings in approximately $190,000 per year of EDRST funds, and that the LSBD was awarded
$101,000 last year. Given that, the one-time request of the sign and total request by LSBD of
K-4-3
$228,000 this year was a reasonable amount. He also noted that the message boards on the
sign were a desirable aspect of the sign.
Kathy O’Neil, 959 Bernard College Lane, spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. Ms.
O’Neil is a realtor in University City and an ambassador for the chamber. She noted that the
goal of the Chamber is to be self-sufficient, and that many new members had been added to the
board recently. She noted the success of the Taste of U City festival.
Ken Rice, 8505 Delmar, spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Rice is an
insurance agent in University City. He has been operating for 13 years with American Family
Insurance in University City. He expressed support of all the Chamber’s requests.
Dorothy Davis, 904 Moorehouse Lane, said she is a 36 year resident of University City. She and
her daughter implemented the Mannequins on the Loop project ten years ago. She asked for
support to expand the marketing for the project, which she said supports Loop businesses and
the whole of University City. She pointed out the value in employing students as adding health
and long-term value for the city. She also stressed the importance of the youth scholarships and
recycling aspects of the program.
Deb Henderson, Midtown Farmers Market, spoke about the fact that the Farmer’s Market had
renovated the existing space from being a vacant property. She also pointed out the market is
the only place in University City bringing in Missouri Agricultural products, which is part of the
state’s EDRST guidelines.
William Tucker, volunteer at the Midtown Farmers Markets, spoke of the value of the weekend
community event with live music that happens at the market and brings a diverse crowd to the
Loop as well as increasing safety.
Norm Frey, 7501 Balson Ave, spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. He is a board
member of the Chamber of Commerce, and he said it is a “vibrant, up-and-coming Chamber”,
and that the Chamber helps businesses thrive and survive, and said that the Chamber helps
attract businesses which makes U City a better community.
New Business
Draft Budget Discussion: The Board reviewed and voted on each item line by line.
There was discussion of the City Manager’s three requests (Olive Boulevard Master Plan,
Market Study, and Hotel Feasibility Study), and that the board would like to learn more of the
specifics of the plans, and how the amount of the requests were reached. Staff said that
consultants would be sought to complete the plans. There was discussion about the role of the
City in distributing the funds, and whether the City should be required to submit a full application
for EDRST funds. The funds from last year which were put on hold by the current City Manager
were put back in the reserve of EDRST funds.
The board voted unanimously to table the Department of Community Development’s requests
until they had more information.
Ms. Williams motioned to begin voting on the remaining items. Motion was seconded and
approved.
K-4-4
The Board voted on the “Welcome to the Loop” sign requested by the Loop Special Business
District ($120,000). Vote was 4 to 1 opposed to recommending funding for the “Welcome to the
Loop” sign.
The Board voted on Loop Special Events for LSBD ($80,000). Vote was 4 in favor of
recommending funding at $80,000. Mr. Kuhlman abstained from the vote.
Ms. Hendrix moved to approve the Loop Brochure for LSBD funding request. Motion was
seconded. Board voted to approve the staff recommendation of $14,000. Vote was 4 to 1 in
favor of recommending funding at $14,000.
Mr. Kuhlman moved to approve the St. Louis Visitor’s Guide funding to LSBD at staff
recommendation ($13,000). Motion was seconded. Board voted 4 to 1 in favor to recommend
funding for $13,000.
Ms. Williams moved to vote to recommend funding to paint utility boxes in the Loop for LSBD
($1,000). Motion was seconded. Board voted unanimously in favor of funding.
Mr. Kuhlman moved to vote on all 4 U City In Bloom requests at the staff recommended level at
once. Motion was seconded. Board voted unanimously in favor to recommend funding all U City
in Bloom requests at staff recommended levels.
Mr. Kuhlman moved to vote to recommend funding the Midtown Farmer’s Market at $21,000.
Motion was seconded. Board voted 4 to 1 in favor to recommend funding at $21,000.
Ms. Williams moved to recommend funding Mannequins in the Loop at $21,000. Motion was
seconded. Board voted unanimously to recommend funding Mannequins in the Loop at
$21,000.
Ms. Williams moved to recommend funding the Taste of U City (requested by the Chamber of
Commerce) at the staff recommended $7,000. Motion was seconded. Board voted unanimously
to recommend funding at $7,000.
Ms. Hendrix moved to recommend funding the Summer Jobs Program for the Chamber of
Commerce at $5,000. Motion was seconded. Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of recommending
funding at $5,000.
Ms. Williams moved to recommend funding the North and South block party at $8,000 for the
Chamber of Commerce. Motion was seconded. Board voted unanimously to recommend
funding at $8,000.
Mr. Kuhlman moved to recommend funding for Regional Branding and Tourism for the Chamber
of Commerce at staff recommended level of $30,000. Motion was seconded. Board voted 4 to 1
in favor of recommending funding at $30,000.
Mr. O’Brien moved to recommend funding for All-City Advertising for the Chamber of Commerce
at $20,000. Motion was seconded. Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of recommending funding at
$20,000.
There was further discussion about more transparency in expenditure reports on EDRST funds
used by organizations. There was discussion about whether to table the Summer Jobs request
until a later date, but the Board decided to leave the vote as it stood. The Board discussed
whether they should vote on the staff request for $133,000 for administration, as this request
K-4-5
had normally been for $100,000. The Board did not vote on this matter. Mr. Kuhlman moved to
put excess funds in reserve. Board did not vote on this matter. There was a discussion as to
whether applications can be made as needed beyond the normal deadline. The Board noted
that this has occurred, but could make it unclear what the standard is. There was discussion
about why the Board had not funded the “Welcome to the Loop” sign. Board members felt that
the sign was an attractive nuisance and not demonstrably affecting economic development. The
Mayor thanked the Board for their service, as this would be her last meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 6pm.
Respectfully,
___________________________________________________________
Robert Kuhlman, Acting Secretary
Prepared by Adam Brown
K-4-6
K-4-7
K-4-8
K-4-9
K - 4 - 10
K - 4 - 11
K - 4 - 12
K - 4 - 13
K - 4 - 14
K - 4 - 15
K - 4 - 16
K - 4 - 17
K - 4 - 18
K - 4 - 19
K - 4 - 20
K - 4 - 21
K - 4 - 22
K - 4 - 23
K - 4 - 24
K - 4 - 25
K - 4 - 26
K - 4 - 27
K - 4 - 28
K - 4 - 29
K - 4 - 30
K - 4 - 31
K - 4 - 32
K - 4 - 33
K - 4 - 34
K - 4 - 35
K - 4 - 36
K - 4 - 37
K - 4 - 38
K - 4 - 39
K - 4 - 40
K - 4 - 41
K - 4 - 42
K - 4 - 43
K - 4 - 44
K - 4 - 45
K - 4 - 46
K - 4 - 47
K - 4 - 48
K - 4 - 49
K - 4 - 50
K - 4 - 51
K - 4 - 52
K - 4 - 53
K - 4 - 54
K - 4 - 55
K - 4 - 56
K - 4 - 57
K - 4 - 58
K - 4 - 59
K - 4 - 60
K - 4 - 61
K - 4 - 62
K - 4 - 63
K - 4 - 64
K - 4 - 65
K - 4 - 66
K - 4 - 67
K - 4 - 68
K - 4 - 69
K - 4 - 70
K - 4 - 71
K - 4 - 72
K - 4 - 73
K - 4 - 74
K - 4 - 75
K - 4 - 76
K - 4 - 77
K - 4 - 78
K - 4 - 79
K - 4 - 80
K - 4 - 81
K - 4 - 82
K - 4 - 83
K - 4 - 84
K - 4 - 85
K - 4 - 86
K - 4 - 87
K - 4 - 88
K - 4 - 89
K - 4 - 90
K - 4 - 91
K - 4 - 92
K - 4 - 93
K - 4 - 94
K - 4 - 95
K - 4 - 96
K - 4 - 97
K - 4 - 98
K - 4 - 99
K - 4 - 100
K - 4 - 101
K - 4 - 102
K - 4 - 103
K - 4 - 104
K - 4 - 105
K - 4 - 106
K - 4 - 107
K - 4 - 108
K - 4 - 109
K - 4 - 110
K - 4 - 111
K - 4 - 112
K - 4 - 113
K - 4 - 114
K - 4 - 115
K - 4 - 116
K - 4 - 117
K - 4 - 118
K - 4 - 119
K - 4 - 120
K - 4 - 121
K - 4 - 122
K - 4 - 123
K - 4 - 124
K - 4 - 125
K - 4 - 126
K - 4 - 127
K - 4 - 128
K - 4 - 129
K - 4 - 130
K - 4 - 131
K - 4 - 132
K - 4 - 133
K - 4 - 134
K - 4 - 135
K - 4 - 136
K - 4 - 137
K - 4 - 138
K - 4 - 139
K - 4 - 140
K - 4 - 141
K - 4 - 142
K - 4 - 143
K - 4 - 144
K - 4 - 145
K - 4 - 146
K - 4 - 147
K - 4 - 148
K - 4 - 149
K - 4 - 150
K - 4 - 151
K - 4 - 152
K - 4 - 153
K - 4 - 154
K - 4 - 155
K - 4 - 156
K - 4 - 157
K - 4 - 158
K - 4 - 159
K - 4 - 160
K - 4 - 161
K - 4 - 162
K - 4 - 163
K - 4 - 164
K - 4 - 165
K - 4 - 166
K - 4 - 167
K - 4 - 168
K - 4 - 169
K - 4 - 170
K - 4 - 171
K - 4 - 172
K - 4 - 173
K - 4 - 174
K - 4 - 175
K - 4 - 176
K - 4 - 177
K - 4 - 178
K - 4 - 179
K - 4 - 180
K - 4 - 181
K - 4 - 182
K - 4 - 183
K - 4 - 184
K - 4 - 185
K - 4 - 186
K - 4 - 187
K - 4 - 188
_______________________________________________________________________
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution 2018-14 - Approving Annual Property Tax Rates
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
CAN THIS ITEM BE RESCHEDULED? : No
BACKGROUND REVIEW: Each year the City must approve property tax levies which are
then submitted to St. Louis County for billing. Calendar year 2018 is NOT a re-assessment
year. The City is only allowed to receive additional revenue up to the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) of 2.1% if growth warrants, and for the value of new construction which was
approximately $8.5 million for the residential and $243 thousand for commercial.
Public Hearing on these rates is required at the Monday, September 24th at 6:30pm in the
Council Chamber on the 5th floor.
The City has received the final assessed valuations from St. Louis County on August 31,
2018 after the Board of Equalization has completed the assessment appeal process. The
rates have been calculated and reviewed by the Missouri State Auditor’s Office which are
reflected in the information below, on the attached schedules and the resolution. These
finalized rates are due to St. Louis County by October 1st.
Proposed Rates
2018 Total Residential Property Tax Levy $0.689
2017 Total Residential Property Tax Levy $0.690
RECOMMENDATION: City Manager recommends approval of the final rates as presented.
M-1-1
Property Tax Rate History
----------------------2018------------------------
2014 2015 2016 2017
Residential Commercial Personal
City - General Revenue
Residential 0.579 0.568 0.569 0.533 0.532
Commercial 0.567 0.552 0.546 0.508 0.520
Personal 0.680 0.680 0.680 0.680 0.680
City - Pension (Police & Fire)

Residential 0.170 0.166 0.165 0.157 0.157
Commercial 0.160 0.149 0.148 0.139 0.142
Personal 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.195
TOTAL CITY RATE 0.753 0.738 0.734 0.690 0.689 0.662 0.875
Library
Residential 0.266 0.259 0.259 0.246 0.245
Commercial 0.251 0.238 0.235 0.220 0.225
Personal 0.280 0.280 0.280 0.280 0.280
Loop Special Business Dist.

Residential 0.565 0.586 0.586 0.407 0.404
Commercial 0.530 0.498 0.498 0.454 0.455 -
Parkview Gardens Special Dist.

Residential 0.680 0.618 0.598 0.524 0.525
Commercial 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 -
M-1-2
RESOLUTION NO. 2018 - 14
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE LEVY AND FIXING THE RATE OF

PROPERTY TAXES TO BE COLLECTED IN THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY CITY
FOR THE YEAR 2018 TO PROVIDE FOR GENERAL REVENUE, POLICE
AND FIREFIGHTER RETIREMENT PLAN, AND FOR THE UNIVERSITY CITY
LOOP SPECIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE PARKVIEW GARDEN
SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, RSMo. 67.110. requires political subdivisions such as the City of University
City to fix its ad valorem property tax rates not later than October second for entry in the tax
books; and
WHEREAS, the City of University City received the finalized assessed property valuations
from St. Louis County on August 31, 2018 and subsequently calculated the proposed tax rates;
and
WHEREAS, the City of University City conducted a Public Hearing on the proposed tax
rates on September 24, 2018 after due and proper notification in the St. Louis Countian (Missouri
Lawyers Media), a newspaper of general circulation.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

UNIVERSITY CITY AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. There is hereby levied for the year 2018 upon all real and personal property,
subject to taxation, in the City of University City, Missouri, the following taxes for the following
purposes, to wit:
A. For general revenue purposes a tax of $0.532 on residential property, a tax of

$0.520 on commercial property and a tax of $0.680 on personal property, on each
one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation.
B. For Police and Firefighter Retirement purposes a tax of $0.157 on residential

property, a tax of $0.142 on commercial property and a tax of $0.195 on personal
property, on each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation.
Section 2. There is hereby levied for the year 2018 upon all real property, subject to
taxation, in the University City Loop Special Business District, an additional tax of said district of
$0.404 for residential property and $0.455 for commercial property, on each one hundred dollars
($100.00) of assessed valuation.
Section 3. There is hereby levied for the year 2018 upon all real property, subject to
taxation, in the Parkview Gardens Special Taxing District, an additional tax of $0.525 for
residential property and $0.850 for commercial property, on each one hundred dollars ($100.00)
of assessed valuation.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage as
provided by law.
M-1-3
PASSED this _______ day of September, 2018.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
M-1-4
Public Hearing Notice
September 24, 2018, at City Hall, 6801 Delmar Boulevard, 5th Floor, on proposed property tax
rates. The tax rates shall be set to produce substantially the revenue required to be provided from
property tax as set forth in the annual adopted budget. This levy is subject to change pending
action of the City Council.
The Library will hold a separate public hearing at 5:15 p.m. on Wednesday, September 26, 2018,
at Library, 6701 Delmar Boulevard, in the Boardroom.
Assessed Valuation Current Prior

Tax Year Tax Year
Residential $525,974,350 $513,634,870
Commercial $68,343,640 $69,809,158
Personal Property $62,763,554 $62,840,438
University City Loop Special Business District

Residential $1,561,030 $1,537,290
Commercial $8,660,020 $8,682,710
Parkview Gardens Special Business District

Residential $15,644,270 $15,659,470
Commercial $1,815,630 $1,807,210
Proposed Tax Rates Proposed

Revenue
Residential Commercial Personal 2018-2019
City – General Revenue $0.532 $0.520 $0.680 $ 3,580,000

City – Pension $0.157 $0.142 $0.195 $ 1,045,000
Library $0.245 $0.225 $0.280 $ 1,618,000
University City Loop District $0.404 $0.455 $0.000 $ 46,000
Parkview Gardens District $0.525 $0.850 $0.000 $ 98,000
If you are a person with a disability or have special needs in order to participate in this public
hearing, please contact LaRette Reese at (314) 505-8605 prior to the hearing.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF UNIVERSITY CITY, MISSOURI

LaRette Reese, City Clerk
September 7, 2018
M-1-5
M-1-6

University City Council Agenda 9-24-2018

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

University City Council Agenda 9-24-2018

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY HALL, Fifth Floor

A. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

F. APPOINTMENTS to BOARDS & COMMISSIONS

G. SWEARING IN to BOARDS & COMMISSIONS

H. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Total of 15 minutes allowed)

J. CONSENT AGENDA – Vote Required

K. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

O. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (continued if needed)

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

In addition to the Mayor, the following members of Council were present:

Councilmember Paulette Carr

August 27, 2018, Study Session Minutes E-1-1

4. RESIDENTIAL Sewer Lateral Program

Diagram of Sewer Lateral:

August 27, 2018, Study Session Minutes E-1-2

What is not covered:

 Staff is aware of U City's aging infrastructure and residential building stock

Program Status Report - Last 5 fiscal years:

 While the actual fund balance reflects -$80,000, an estimated $100,000 of

Program Status Report - FY18:

August 27, 2018, Study Session Minutes E-1-3

Councilmember Clay asked if the 11 home sales (emergencies) were counted

Methods Utilized for Improvements:

August 27, 2018, Study Session Minutes E-1-4

August 27, 2018, Study Session Minutes E-1-5

Councilmember Smotherson asked if staff had broken-down any of these repairs

Councilmember Carr stated as it relates to the proposed criteria, what proportion of

Councilmember Carr stated her major concern is the possibility of a homeowner

August 27, 2018, Study Session Minutes E-1-6

Councilmember Clay stated it seems as though while the number of incidents

Councilmember Hales stated he has used this program on a couple of occasions

August 27, 2018, Study Session Minutes E-1-7

Councilmember McMahon asked Mr. Alpaslan if there was anything in between

August 27, 2018, Study Session Minutes E-1-8

August 27, 2018, Study Session Minutes E-1-9

A. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

Councilmember Stacy Clay

Councilmember Smotherson moved to approve the agenda as

F. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS & COMMISSIONS

G. SWEARING IN TO BOARDS & COMMISSIONS

H. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Total of 15 minutes allowed)

Eleanor Jennings, 7055 Forsyth, University City, MO

J. CONSENT AGENDA – Vote Required

Councilmember Hales moved to approve, seconded by Councilmember Cusick.

Councilmember Smotherson asked if the CDBG would be used to pave Kennedy

Voice vote on Councilmember Hales' motion carried unanimously.

K. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

Travis Gude, 5989 Clemmons, University City, MO

Councilmember Clay stated he is unclear as to what transpired at the Historic

Councilmember McMahon stated the information provided to Council indicates that no

Voice vote on Councilmember Smotherson's motion to award the demolition contract to

Councilmember Smotherson moved to approve, it was seconded by Councilmember

Councilmember Smotherson stated if his understanding is correct, the Ordinance can

Councilmember Hales stated he would actually disagree with Councilmember

Councilmember Clay stated in his opinion, Councilmember Hales’ proposal could be

Roll call Vote on Councilmember Hales’ motion to Postpone Was:

Councilmember Smotherson moved to approve, seconded by Councilmember

Christine Mackey-Ross, 21 Princeton, University City, MO

Councilmember Clay stated while he obviously disagreed with Councilmember Hales’

Q. Revised to include RSMo 610.021(2)

Councilmember Smotherson moved to go into Closed Session, it was seconded by

Roll Call Vote Was:

• MEETING CALLED TO ORDER