City Council - Regular Meetings

Exhibit 1 From: Dave Buck <dave@buckstl.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 8:16 AM To: Arnold, Laura <arnoldl@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Bliss, Pam <blissp@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Alexander, Karen <alexanderk@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Hixson Shepherd, Emily <shepherde@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Hasemeier, Jamie <hasemeierj@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Franklin, David <franklind@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Smith, Emerson <smithe@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Peoples, Marie <peoplesm@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Peterson, Eric <petersone@webstergrovesmo.gov>; njbatty@aol.com; Nakazono, Katie <nakazonok@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Thomas, Tiara <thomast@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Tyler, Renee <tylerr@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Davis, Scott <daviss@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Myers, Robert <myersr@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Alpaslan, Sinan <alpaslana@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Ellis, Brett <ellisb@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Bainter, Gary <bainterg@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Acevez, Vincent <acevezv@webstergrovesmo.gov>; Weimer, Erich <weimere@webstergrovesmo.gov> Cc: Jaime Mowers <jmowers@timesnewspapers.com>; Randy Drilingas <randy@timesnewspapers.com>; reelworld@timesnewspapers.com; Don Corrigan <corrigan@timesnewspapers.com>; Kevin Murphy <newsroom@timesnewspapers.com>; wgecho@wgmail.org; websterjournal@gmail.com; stlintune@gmail.com; Ree Hamlin <rhamlin@bestversionmedia.com>; rebeccanow@sbcglobal.net Subject: Dave Buck's Remarks & City Council Decision on the Indoor Pool at Last Night's City Council Regular Meeting, 10/1/24 Caution: This is an External Message - Please be cautious when opening links or attachments Attention: This email was sent to your @webstergroves.org address. Please inform the sender to use @webstergrovesmo.gov “To hopefully aid your discussion later this evening, here Exhibit 1 are the Cliff Notes version of our indoor pool meeting last week. The simple truth of budgeting is that incomplete assumptions lead to incomplete financial projections. Here is page 75 of the Aquatic Center Master Plan, the only revenue projection for the indoor pool generated. Along with the P&L on page 76 with showed a low revenue, big profit loss and low cost recovery for the indoor pool, it prompted City Council on August 1, 2023, to put the indoor pool on hold and keep it out of Prop W and the Water Park replacement project. So we residents who are steadfastly for the indoor pool started to investigate, particularly the indoor pool’s true revenue potential. A municipal pool has two primary revenue streams: admissions and swim lessons, which often represent 70& of more of total revenue. The standard admission model used for years by Webster’s outdoor pool and ice arena has four revenue components that include 1) Daily Admissions; 2) Season Passes; 3) Resident Rates; and 3) Non-Resident Rates. But NONE of these are included in this projection except the same, flat and low rate of only a $4 daily fee for everyone! Likewise, there is a standard swim lesson model that Exhibit 1 includes 1) Group, Semi-Private & Private Lessons at escalating prices; 2) a progression of multiple lessons from Beginner, to Intermediate, to Advanced; 3) a final capstone class introducing kids to competitive swimming; 4) different prices for residents and non-residents in municipal pools; and 5) adult swim lessons. But NONE of these are included in this projection except the same, flat and low $10/lesson fee for only Group lessons for everyone!!! By simply adding in just a few of these assumptions and making the revenue projection more complete, annual indoor pool revenue projection can dramatically improve and achieve near-breakeven and a cost recovery of over 91%, just like the outdoor pool!!!! Whether you buy into our alternative revenue projection or not, you are leaving lots of money on the table. It’s not too late to take another dip in the indoor pool to find out – and we are here to help you in any way that we can to finally bring a better decision and peace to this indoor pool opportunity.” Postscript: The efforts, voices and positions of resident indoor pool supporters were all in vain. Our revenue projection was not even acknowledged or discussed by Exhibit 1 City Council & Staff last night, as they remain firmly entrenched in the numbers on page 75 & 76 of the Aquatic Center Master Plan, dated July 2023. As such, Council decided and voted to put off any further consideration of the indoor pool for THREE YEARS, until October, 2027 and, as I understand it, no indoor pool foundation will be included in the Water Park replacement. Exhibit 1 Indoor Aquatics Programming Indoor Price Per Session Total Per Session No. Sellable Revenue Mgmt. Assump. Year 1 Year 1 Sessions Year 1 Daily Admissions / Memberships Admissions / Memberships Total Attendance $4.00 22,000 1 $88,000 Swim Team Revenue Meet Rental $/Day $1,500 4 1 $6,000 Club Team $/Lane Hour $10 12 275 $33,000 Master's Swimming $/Lane Hour $40 35 12 $16,800 Aquatics Instruction Revenue Swim Lessons 8 classes/session $80 118 10 $94,680 Water Fitness $/Session $45 35 12 $18,900 Lifeguard Certification $/Session $50 20 1 $981 Food and Beverage Food and Beverage $/Person $1.25 22000 0 $0 Area Revenue $258,361 Expense Mgmt Assump. Year 1 Part-Time Program Staff 50% of gross $65,680 Area Expense $65,680 Net Revenue $192,680 75 Exhibit 1 Operational Summary The following projections detail the pro forma for the Webster Groves Aquatic Center and the recapture rate of operating expenses recouped by revenue. The seasonal options show a cost recovery rate for year one at approximately 70% to 85%. An analysis was performed on the year-round operation of the aquatic center’s lap pool and a cost- recovery rate of 57% has been projected with an increase of expenses to $458,000. _ Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Replacement Concept Indoor Aquatics Construction Cost $5,016,985 $6,406,608 $7,447,493 $9,064,860 $2,902,560 Project Cost $6,489,972 $8,287,588 $9,634,077 $11,726,303 $3,754,752 Capacity 322 432 497 604 96 Total Attendance 32,516 44,268 51,426 58,102 53,204 Expense Budget $344,537 $424,023 $496,971 $558,326 $497,890 Revenue Projection $251,385 $367,979 $428,732 $499,665 $258,361 Cost Recovery 72.96% 86.78% 86.27% 89.49% 51.89% 76 Exhibit 2 Accessory Dwellings Expanding Housing Options Exhibit 2 What is an accessory dwelling? • An accessory dwelling is a small residence that shares a lot with a larger, single-family dwelling. • An accessory dwelling is a self-contained unit which has its own kitchen or kitchenette, bathroom, and sleeping area. Exhibit 2 Forms of Accessory Dwellings Courtesy of AARP’s The ABC’s of ADU’s Exhibit 2 Consumer Perspectives Exhibit 2 What is Driving Interest in Accessory Dwellings? • A lack of options for residents with differing housing needs and preferences. • Rising housing costs and a shortage of affordable housing choices. Exhibit 2 What is Driving Interest in Accessory Dwellings? • A revival of interest in multi-generational housing: affordable and independent living accommodations for young adults living with parents, and elderly parents living with children. • Long-range demographic changes leading to smaller household sizes and increasing numbers of residents aged 60+. Exhibit 2 Demographic Changes • Long-term decline in fertility rates globally, nationally, in Missouri, and in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area. • Missouri and the St. Louis Metropolitan Area have entered a “demographic winter” with more deaths than births. • The average household size in Webster Groves has declined from 3.46 persons per household in 1960 to 2.46 persons per household in 2020. • Three out of ten Webster Groves householders now live alone. • One in four Webster Groves residents are aged 62 and over. Exhibit 2 Homeowner Perspectives Exhibit 2 Reasons Homeowners Would Consider Building Accessory Dwellings AARP Home and Community Preference Survey (2021) • Provide a home for a loved one in need of care (86%). • Provide housing for relatives or friends (86%) • Have a space for guests (82%). • Create a place for a caregiver to stay (74%). • Increase the value of their home (69%). • Feel safer to have someone living close (67%). • Earn extra rental income (63%). Exhibit 2 Community Perspectives Exhibit 2 Common Community Concerns • Change neighborhood character • Reduced backyard privacy for neighbors • Increase density • Add vehicular traffic and on-street parking • Increase school enrollment • Increase demand for emergency response services • Tax sanitary sewer infrastructure (Source: American Planning Association) Exhibit 2 Common Local Barriers • Policymaking barriers such as a lack of understanding, consensus, or will. • Regulatory barriers such as a lack of permissible locations, discretionary approval processes, and overly restrictive zoning standards. • Procedural barriers such as permitting. • Financial barriers such as design and construction costs and fees. Exhibit 2 City of Webster Groves Zoning Regulations Exhibit 2 Land Uses Exhibit 2 Local Land Use Regulations • Single Family Dwelling: a detached building designed for or occupied exclusively by one family. • Family: "one or more persons occupying a dwelling and living as a single housekeeping unit, all of whom, or all but two of whom, are related to each other by birth, adoption, or marriage… .” • Accessory buildings: a subordinate building or portion of the main building, with a use incidental to the main use of the premises.  Exhibit 2 Local Land Use Regulations City zoning allows accessory buildings to be used as living accommodations in Single Family Districts: • For part of the family residing in the main building, or for a domestic service employee; • For a maximum of two people; • Cannot be rented; • Cannot have a separate electric meter; and • Must have a certificate of occupancy. (Sections 53.048, 53.058, 53.068, and 53.078 of the City Code) Exhibit 2 Exhibit 2 Options for Consideration Exhibit 2 • Clarify whether the zoning term "living accommodations" includes a self-contained dwelling unit. • Consider zoning updates to allow living accommodations to be occupied by more than two residents and/or rented. • Consider updating zoning definition(s) to recognize changes in household composition and housing needs. Exhibit 2 • Creating clear, objective standards for "by right" development is preferable to a discretionary case-by-case process. For example: o A square footage limitation related to the size of the main house to ensure that accessory dwellings remain subordinate to the primary use. Exhibit 3 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 3 • • Exhibit 3 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 3 • • • • • Exhibit 3 Exhibit 3