Who Is Paying the Lion's Share? Mayor Opposes City-School Rec. Center Seeks New Construction In Heman Park U. City Sales Tax Committee Recommends UCHS Study Center Would Be The "Jewel In the Crown" for City and the District
UNIVERSITY CITY, MO, September 2003 -- University City Mayor Joe Adams is opposed to a citizen's committee call for a study into locating a new city run recreation facility at University City High School. Participants at a recent joint meeting of the City Council and the Proposition K Citizens Committee said the Mayor came out against construction of a new city owned recreation facility at University City High School (UCHS). Project Appleseed calls the UCHS project the "Lion Heart Center". The Mayor supports an expanded facility in Heman Park. Adams characterized the Proposition K Citizen's Committee unanimous recommendation of a study of the UCHS location -- "suspicious". Citizens left the meeting expressing surprise and anger at the Mayor's comments. One attendee was quoted as saying, "When did it become 'suspicious' to support U. City schools? I will never vote for that man again. Never." Adams was re-elected Mayor in 2002 when he ran unopposed and received 2,800 votes out of 22,000 possible registered voters in University City.
Proposition K is a one-fourth of one-percent sales tax and is expected to raise about $550,000 per year. In a study of regressive taxation in the United States, Citizens for Tax Justice has documented that lower-income households pay over six times as great a share of their incomes in sales taxes as do wealthier families. Middle-income households pay four times as great a share. A little over 50% of University City school students live below the poverty level.
"What is suspicious to me is that millions in Prop K sales tax dollars will place a heavier tax burden on low-income households than on middle- or upper-income households. These people will pay the lion's share of their income for the new recreational facility. What will they get for their money? A limited second-class facility in Heman Park? Mr. Adams and those who are against the High School study -- a vocal minority--are protecting the City's political turf at the expense of children and the turf in Heman Park. The school district and city serve the same masters -- the citizens of University City, " said Kevin Walker, a University City parent and President & National Director of Project Appleseed.
"It
is only fair and right that University City High School be considered
the primary site for the recreation facility. It is literally
in the center of the city and more importantly this is where
1,000 low-income and middle-class children are located 170 plus
days each year. Children who grow up in poverty are more likely
to have have unequal access to educational and recreational opportunities.
The Lion Heart Center can be two things. It can be a state-of-the-art
recreation facility that is clean, accessible, durable and secure.
Lion Heart Center can serve the entire community while simultaneously
meeting the needs of children. It should not be an uncommon sight
for a black teenager and a white senior citizen to be chatting
while walking on side-by-side treadmills in the workout rooms,"
said Mr. Walker.
Research demonstrates that students, parents, and the entire community can benefit from the 'Lion Heart Center'. Serving a broad spectrum of the community brings a better return on the community's investment in its school facilities and generates a wide range of citizen and business support for school financing. School-community alliances take a great deal of planning, cooperation, and flexibility on behalf of everyone involved, but they can result in enhanced learning, strengthened community ties, and reduced facility costs.
City government would have a willing partner in University City schools. School district administrators have consistently conveyed their willingness to enter into a partnership that could initially save University City parents and citizens nearly $1 million dollars. In addition the school district has approximately $10 million in school bond money that can be used for building renovation without the need to raise taxes.
There has never been a time when the city had over a half million tax dollars (yearly) that could be legitimately and legally be invested in improving U. City schools --while simultaneously meeting the needs of the larger community. Improving school facilities and academics will attract and retain more involved middle-class families. Clayton and many other municipalities around U. City know this and they have acted accordingly-- with little fanfare. Clayton, Maplewood, Richmond Heights, and Webster Groves have put their municipal money in their public schools when the opportunity arises. Each of these communities have city/school district partnerships that have used city funds to build new recreation centers near or on school grounds.
"Like the City of St.
Louis, our schools will never be 'fixed' until the middle class
stops fleeing the issues of poverty and race and stay and demand
quality education for all. Rebuilding our schools into dual-use
education centers is at the heart of that task. We need leadership
that is truly committed to all of our children and schools. People
who consider themselves leaders and supporters of University
City schools must not make or except excuses for poor performance
in the classroom nor should they make or accept excuses for the
lack of community support from outside the classroom.
There are approximately 6,000 public school parents in University City. Should Mr. Adams and City Council vote against investing in University City schools, public school parents and like minded citizens should vote against the Mayor and the City Council when they run for re-election over the next several years. The University City Council has to have the same faith in our schools that our neighbors have shown in theirs--nothing less is acceptable," said Mr. Walker.
The Lion Heart Center is a unique opportunity to invest in the heart of this community, enrich the lives of families and children and begin the task of rebuilding our schools for the 21st century. The City of University City has to decide whether or not it believes in U. City schools and the parents and children it serves. It is that simple.
What Can I Do To Promote Community Use of University
City High School As A Recreation and Fitness Center?
The City Council is actively seeking the opinions of University City residents on the Recreation Center expansion as well as other aspects of this project. *The University City Council is scheduled to vote on this plan at their regular meeting, Monday, September 15, at 7:30 at City Hall (check the City's wseb site for changes at http://www.ucitymo.org). Supporters of University City schools are urged to come and speak on behalf of our students. Residents can also express their opinions by contacting their Mayor Joe Adams by e-mail ( jadams924@mindspring.com) Council members (see contact info below), or by contacting City Manager Frank Ollendorff.
Meet with, call or e-mail elected leaders now!
MAYOR, Joseph Adams, 924 Wild Cherry, 63130, 314-862-7877, E-mail jadams924@mindspring.com CITY MANAGER: Frank Ollendorff, 2nd Floor, City Hall, 6801 Delmar Boulevard, University City, Mo 63130, 314-862-6767, ext. 204, E-MAIL follen@ucitymo.org CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: FIRST WARD, Robert Wagner, 7052 Kingsbury, 63130, 314-725-1544, rgwagner@charter.net FIRST WARD, Larry Lieberman, 7129 Kingsbury, 63130, 314-721-8912, LarryLieberman@yahoo.com SECOND WARD, Shelley Welsch, 7141 Delmar, 63130, 314-727-6852, billandshelley@ucitymo.com SECOND WARD, Wayne Munkel, 7543 Gannon, 63130, 314-725-9581, wayne_munkel@ssmhc.com THIRD WARD, Arthur Sharpe, Jr., 7131 Willow Tree, 63130, 314-721-5954, lmforsythe@ucitymo.org THIRD WARD , Sandi Colquitt, 7364 Wayne, 63130, 314-863-6605, lmforsythe@ucitymo.org
City of University City Proposition K Citizen's Committee Recommendations for the Recreation Facility
The following July 2003 report is a partial reprint of the Proposition K Committee Recommendations for the Recreation Facility for University City: The Proposition K Committee strongly recommends that University City undertake a master planning study to ascertain the future of all recreational facilities needs. It is acknowledged here that the results of the citizen surveys alone cannot be met if the focus of the facilities is in the current location. For instance, many citizens have requested a new indoor pool. It might be unfeasible to build an indoor pool in the short term and it may not work in Heman Park, however, a study may yield a more satisfactory location and strategic long term plan for accomplishing this goal. With the amount of data that has been collected, much information exists about the population of University City, its recreational needs and desires. Many of the questions that have been directed to Prop K have to do with long term strategies and they simply do not exist. It is time to put them in place.
This one item, a new indoor pool, was the most requested item on the adult surveys. The prospect of a new indoor pool is the catalyst for a joint venture between the City and School District. To create a recreation center with the University City High School and the School District would allow for many of the features requested by citizens and teens plus signal a new direction for the community at large. There are many facilities in the schools that are available for use by the community and what could be designed for the new recreation center would be the "jewel in the crown" for the City and the District.
Concept
Synthesis GroupThe Concept Synthesis Group has been largely responsible for assembling, compiling and analyzing the data collected through the methodologies described here and in more detail in Phase 1. While Phase 1 appeared to be the result of more extensive data and discussion, in fact, the process has been in place for both Phases to be adequately discussed and analyzed as the information gathered has been concurrent. It has also remained the focus of this group to determine what programmatic elements need to be included in the recreation and fitness center as determined by the various citizen input methods.
The Prop K Committee recommends the following feasibility studies be undertaken by the City in order to successfully design a new or expanded recreation facility. (At this point, the term recreation facility will also include the fitness center.)
1. Existing Facility Upgrade Study: It is long been understood that the current soccer facility cannot be updated to include air conditioning. This fact prevents the facility from being a fully occupied year round facility. It is the recommendation of the Prop K Committee that the City study the feasibility and costs associated with adding air conditioning to the soccer facility including long term life cycle costs. The study should also include the feasibility and costs for demolishing the current facility in conjunction with building a new, year round facility.
2.
Alternate Location Study:
It has been discussed that there are limitations associated with
the Heman Park site including parking, ball field retention and
flood way/plain construction issues. It has also been discussed
that joint ventures either with neighboring communities or with
the University City School District could have far reaching benefits.
To that end, it is our recommendation that the City undertake
a study of alternate locations which may be more conducive to
new construction, more effective land use in U City or may present
opportunities for the City to tap into the resources of other
communities. The prospect of a joint venture between the School
District and the City fulfill not only physical and programmatic
needs of our citizens, it could signal a real community effort
to maximize existing facilities while creating new ones that
meet the needs of the broader community, young and old. Possible
sites to consider include the High School, the Transfer Site
and Value City or in some other area of where there may be a
general expansion of Heman Park.
The committee has also discussed the wisdom of sacrificing further green space in this endeavor and whether putting any more buildings in Heman Park should be recommended. It is felt that the park should be used for open field usage, future development of the River Des Peres, and preserved as green space for us and our children.
3. City Facility & Parks Master Plan: There are two facets to this study. First, there are existing facilities which may be impacted by the construction of a new and/or expanded recreation facility. What to do with these facilities? Second, there are substantial requests for additional new facilities (such as indoor tennis and a new indoor pool) that are currently not being considered by the City but can and should be addressed in a City Facility Master Plan. The Committee recommends that the Master Plan address the future and best use of existing facilities, the future planning for additional facilities and the methods by which the plan may be achieved over a longer period of time.
This constitutes Proposition K's Phase 2 recommendations for the recreation facilities of University City. Please contact either Jen Jensen, Henry Berry or Bob Winters for any clarification required.
The University City Council will vote on these recommendations at their meeting, Tuesday, September 15, at 7:30 at City Hall. Supporters of University City schools are urged to come and speak on behalf of our schools.
