PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES

The City's parks and recreation facilities are in need of repair. Conditions in the recreation facilities range from needing asbestos removed to roofs needing replacement. The need to repair and maintain them is critical to the future of our City. These facilities are a safe haven for many of the City's youth. Without them, many youths will be forced to find other alternatives (which can often be gangs, drugs, theft and any assortment of those activities which take place "on the street") to take up their time.

An important aspect of maintaining our parks is that the beautification of the City is important not only to those who live and do business here, but to those perspective residents and businesses who are vital to the future of St. Louis. Forest Park is among the nation's 10 largest urban parks (over 1200 acres). It also contains the St. Louis Art Museum, the Zoo, the Planetarium, the Missouri Historical Society, the City's only public golf course, and several other important metropolitan facilities. Keeping Forest Park, and all other City parks in top condition must be a priority.

The Parks Department has numerous responsibilities such as managing an extensive horticulture program as well as maintaining highway rose and daffodil programs. Within the Parks Department the Facilities Services Program is responsible for maintaining all facilities within the City's 104 parks, including recreation centers, swimming pools, park buildings and playgrounds.

The Recreation Division operates a total of 18 recreation centers and outpost sites including eight swimming pools. They also provide funding for the Steinberg Ice and Roller Rink, Dwight Davis Tennis Center, and various summer park concerts and special events.

Current Facilities

The City of St. Louis has 104 parks totaling 2,882 acres with Forest Park comprising 1,293 acres.

Current Centers which offer recreational activities include: Buder, Cherokee, Cochran, Dunn-Marquette, Gamble, Wohl, Soulard, Tandy, Tucker & Park, Vashon, and West End.

Needs and Challenges

Current estimates for the cost of running 1 (one) recreation center for the period of 1 (one) year totals $112,220. The cost of running an outpost site (expanded recreation program) is $68,800. The Department of Recreation recommends two, ten week and two, twelve week schedules annually. These costs, coupled with existing capital needs, makes the enormous size of the problem evident.

 
1.   Adams Playground 
2.   Aloe Plaza 
3.   Amberg Park 
4.   Amherst Park 
5.   Barrett Brothers Park 
6.   Beckett Playground 
7.   Bellerive Park 
8.   Benton Park 
9.   Berra Park 
10.  Buder Park 
11.  Busche Park 
12.  Carnegie Playground 
13.  Carondelet Playground 
14.  Carondelet Lions Park 
15.  Carr Square Park 
16.  Chambers Park 
17.  Cherokee Park 
18.  Christy Park 
19.  Clifton Park 
20.  Columbus Square Park 
21.  Compton Hill Park 
22.  Desoto Park 
23.  Dickman Park 
24.  Dwight Davis Park 
25.  Ellendale and Arsenal Park 
26.  Fairground Park 
27.  Forest Park 
28.  Fountain Park 
29.  Fourteenth Street Mall 
30.  Fox Park 
31.  Francis Park 
32.  Franz Park 
33.  Garrison Park 
34.  Gateway Mall (Phase I) 
35.  Gravois Park 
36.  Handy Park 
37.  Hickey Park 
38.  Hodiamont-Catalpa Park 
39.  Hyde Park 
40.  Jackson Place Park 
41.  Kiener Plaza 
42.  Laclede Park 
43.  Lafayette Park 
44.  Lindenwood Park 
45.  Lucas Gardens Park 
46.  Lyon Park 
47.  Marquette Park 
48.  McDonald Park 
49.  Memorial Park 
50.  Memorial Plaza West 
51.  Mestras Park 
52.  Minnewood Park 
53.  Mount Pleasant Park 
54.  Mullanphy Playground 
55.  Murphy Playfield 
56.  O'Fallon Park 
57.  Operation Breakthrough Park 
58.  Parkland Park 
59.  Penrose Park 
60.  Pontiac Central Park 
61.  Pontiac Square Park 
62.  River Des Peres Park 
63.  River Des Peres Park Extension 
64.  Rumbold Park 
65.  Russell Park 
66.  Ruth Porter Mall 
67.  St. Louis Place Park 
68.  Sherman Park 
69.  Soulard Park 
70.  South St. Louis Square 
70.  South St. Louis Square 
71.  Strodtman Park 
72.  Sublette Park 
73.  Tandy Park 
74.  Terry Park 
75.  Tilles Park 
76.  Turner Playground 
77.  Twelfth and Park Park 
78.  Union-Marcus Quarry Park 
79.  Vashon Park 
80.  Visitation Park 
81.  Vivian-Astra Park 
82.  Walnut Park 
83.  Washington Square Park 
84.  Willmore Park 
85.  Windsor Park 
86.  Yeatman Square Park 

 
2.34 
3.35 
2.76 
4.38 
13.16 
3.34 
5.67 
14.30 
4.80 
2.31 
6.20 
2.07 
179.71 
1.70 
3.45 
6.31 
8.90 
32.37 
4.40 
2.16 
29.97 
17.38 
2.17 
9.60 
9.00 
131.46 
1293.22 
1.50 
1.27 
2.69 
60.30 
4.67 
3.36 
1.14 
8.20 
11.96 
16.26 
5.35 
11.84 
1.62 
1.80 
3.17 
29.95 
14.00 
1.09 
10.92 
16.96 
3.00 
16.96 
3.79 
1.09 
4.50 
3.17 
1.92 
10.10 
126.63 
5.00 
2.35 
51.22 
2.31 
1.51 
145.00 
10.76 
3.00 
1.10 
82.12 
14.13 
22.04 
1.94 
1.66 
1.73 
13.52 
10.88 
4.00 
29.00 
1.40 
7.31 
3.18 
5.37 
10.10 
1.10 
2.30 
13.45 
105.61 
3.33 
3.46 

Chart B depicts capital needs of Recreation Centers in the St. Louis area:

 
BUDER 
CHEROKEE 
COCHRAN 
DUNN-MARQUETTE 
GAMBLE 
SOULARD 
TANDY   
TUCKER & PARK 
VASHON         
WEST END REC. CENTER 
WEST END COMMUNITY CENTER  
WOHL     

 
  $376,570 
  $218,400 
  $150,500 
  $455,084 
  $225,640 
  $187,570 
  $392,600 
  $469,210 
  $279,820 
  $251,900 
$1,152,900 
  $616,450 

Capital needs include new roofs, basic building needs such as guttering, tuckpointing, painting, flooring, wiring, plumbing, lighting, ventilation systems, toilet partitions, windows, doors, and asbestos abatement amongst other things.

Major recurring issues in Forest Park include: crime, transportation to and within the park, conflicting demands upon park land, funding for the park, and because Forest Park is actually a regional facility, many non-City residents are users although they do not contribute tax revenues to its upkeep. Current estimates for fixing Forest Park alone are in the 60 - 80 million dollar range.

Recommendations

Both the City's parks and recreation facilities play an important role in stabilizing life for the youth of St. Louis. Maintaining structures and fostering programs tailored towards helping the future generations of St. Louis, is in large part the goal of those who are responsible for St. Louis' parks and recreation facilities. Although many successful programs are in place, expanding those existing programs and developing new ones to attract others is crucial to meeting the needs of the City's youth. Consideration of the following suggestions may fulfill some of the needs.

a) Explore the possibility of a new multiplex facility.

Currently estimates to build a new multiplex facility are under way. The expected costs range from 1.5 million - 2.5 million. This facility would be extremely beneficial in that it will allow for a variety of programs and activities currently not possible.

b) Examine developing an extensive system of supervised year-round, after-school, extended hours recreation facilities.

These facilities are needed as a safe-harbor for young people. Taking youths off the streets also will have a favorable impact on crime reduction. The school system's Community Schools program, existing public schools with recreation facilities, and surplus public, private and parochial schools properties are all resources that need to be evaluated in devising strategies to increase the City's capacity to provide recreation programs.

The City should work with the St. Louis School Board and the Department of Parks and Recreation to develop coordinated and cooperative strategies to utilize Community Schools, manage the inventory of public schools that represent vacant/surplus properties in a neighborhood and reuse where feasible for recreation purposes.

c) Inventory, by neighborhood the location of existing youth centers, and their service levels, and undertake cost feasibility study for expansion.

Where a neighborhood is unserved, identify available area surplus public, private and parochial school properties as possible sites for new facilities. Federal criminal justice money should be sought as a funding source for the cost of extended hours recreation programming.

d) Develop a capital improvements program for neighborhood park facilities.

Such a program should be coordinated with other neighborhood revitalization activities and investments.

e) Coordinate with independent groups planning for Forest Park improvements.

Continue to coordinate with independent groups, such as Forest Park Forever, to plan for improvements to this centerpiece of the City's park system.

Resources

Resources include those existing public schools with recreation facilities, as well as other public, private and parochial schools which have property and facilities not currently being utilized. Current Community Development Block Grant funding is vital to the success of those recreation facilities that receive it as is General Revenue Funds and private donations. Federal Criminal Justice funding is also being sought.

CHILD CARE FACILITIES

Day care facilities can be found in almost every neighborhood in the City. The increase in single parent and two working parent households has added to the need for more facilities with a wider range of services than traditional day care facilities have provided. Overall, the facilities in the City have responded positively to these changes. However, these facilities continue to seek stable funding sources and a more efficient review in terms of City and State regulations.

Current Services

There are two hundred ninety-eight licensed day care facilities with 9,066 spaces in the City of St. Louis. These facilities range from group homes (52 spaces) to home day care facilities (1,597 spaces) to day care centers (7,417 spaces). These facilities offer a number of services from day and nighttime care to Headstart and pre-school programs. These facilities provide care to children from the ages of newborn to seventeen.

Home Day Care Facilities: There are 182 home day care facilities with a capacity of 1,597 spaces in the City. These facilities offer day and nighttime care and have an age range from newborn to seventeen years old. These centers are licensed by the State for a maximum capacity of ten children. However, the City ordinance allows for no more than four children. These child care facilities are located in the providers residence. The State does not require Home Day Care facilities to have separate infant/toddler sections. Therefore, the space requirements are less burdensome to these providers.

Day Care Centers: There are 113 licensed day care centers in the City. These centers provide day and nighttime care, pre-school and Headstart programs. They have a total capacity of 7,417 spaces and range in size from 16-232 spaces each. The State requires these facilities to be separate from the provider's residence and have separate sections for infant/toddlers. Many of these facilities are located in separate structures, making them far more expensive to operate. Furthermore, most of these facilities have multiple care providers. Therefore, the operating budgets reflect salaries, benefits, utilities and insurance. These facilities are the most expensive to operate; however, they provide the largest variety of services.

Group Homes: Group Homes were introduced to the State in 1991 and are very popular in the out-state areas of Missouri. These facilities are a cross between the traditional day care center and the home day care facility. Currently, Group Homes in the City offer daytime care only and have an age range from six weeks to twelve years old. They are licensed for up to 20 children and are not required to have a separate toddler/infant section. However, they must be in a location other than the provider's living quarters. Group Homes provide an economical alternative to the provider operating a small day care facility. There are three group homes located in the City with a combined capacity of 52 spaces.

Needs and Challenges The State of Missouri allows home day care facilities to have a maximum capacity of ten spaces. However, the City will allow only four spaces in these facilities. Therefore, the actual capacity of these facilities become more limited. Currently, these facilities are allowed to use 45.6% of their total capacity. Therefore, there are 869 potential spaces in existing home day care facilities that could be used if the City eliminates or modifies its ordinance that limits the capacity to four children. Often, these facilities are the most affordable form of child care. Any increase in available spaces in these facilities would provide more options to potential and current day care users.

The City requires all day care facilities to comply with the same health and safety standards. This requirement places an extra burden on home and group home day care providers, because they must have provide the some of the same facilities as day care centers (separate sinks, restrooms, etc.). Combined with the City's limitation of the number of children in home day care facilities, these options become less attractive to providers.

Resources

Day care facilities receive their funding from a variety of sources. The three main sources of funding are tuition, local grants, and fund-raisers. Some facilities seek businesses to provide equipment or make donations. Many day care facility users rely on funding from the State to supplement their day care expenses. When State funding is reduced or frozen, the users burden is increased. This may result in the user turning to alternative forms of child care such as unlicensed day care facilities or no day care at all. Furthermore, day care facilities are effected, due to a decrease in their main source of revenue (tuition).

Currently the City of St. Louis allocates $177,500 to six day care centers with a combined capacity of 385 spaces. This funding comes from the City's Community Development Block Grant budget and account for approximately 17.5% of the centers total operating budgets. Four of the six centers operate out of public housing complexes. Another center, operates in a neighborhood that has scattered site public housing buildings. The sixth center operates in a low income neighborhood. All six centers provide services to low income families. These families pay $.50 to $2.00 a day for child care services and receives supplemental funds from various state programs to make up the difference in tuition.

Recommendations

Child care services are essential to every vital community. Affordable access to these services are paramount to the success of single parent and two working parent families. As society changes gears, parent are becoming more dependent on these services to meet their diverse child care needs. Therefore, it is important to continually examine how child care services are delivered so that we can understand how to better meet the City's child care needs.

a) Continue funding daycare in the public housing complexes and areas with scattered site public housing.

Providing services in these complexes allows the parents access to affordable child care services without the inconvenience of securing costly transportation. Furthermore, the location of these centers inside or near the public housing complexes creates the potential to integrate services with those that the Public Housing Authority provides for youth.

b) Review the current City ordinance limiting home daycare facilities to four children.

There are 869 licensed spaces in home daycare facilities that currently cannot be used because of this regulation. These types of facilities often offer the most affordable type of child care services. Additional spaces would provide greater access to affordable child care for low and moderate income families.

c) Review current City policy on facility standards.

The City should review its treatment of the three types of child care facilities. Currently, home daycare facilities are held to some of the same rigorous standards as large daycare centers. They must make the same accommodations for restrooms and other sanitary facilities as large daycare centers. In a private home this can be a costly endeavor, putting separate restrooms for boys and girls. Given that the City only allows four children per home daycare, this policy acts as a deterrent for more centers. A review of current policy may find a more cost effective means for home and group home daycare facilities to provide the same safe environment that large daycare centers provide without being subject to the same costly requirements.

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT

Needed improvements to St. Louis infrastructure relate primarily to problems arising from age, obsolescence and deterioration. Roads, sidewalks, water and sewer lines have served the city for many years often surpassing their expected life span. The City's combined water and sewer system does not meet more stringent federally mandated performance standards. Because St. Louis is an older city with most buildings constructed before 1970, asbestos removal is also a problem which must be addressed as aging buildings are rehabilitated or demolished. Such capital improvements will require millions of dollars to address.

In order to continue to encourage and facilitate private market investment, the City must steadily address these tremendous capital needs. The ability to provide adequate roads, sidewalks, water, storm and sanitary sewers, solid waste disposal, and environmentally clean buildings and sites is crucial to the City's ability to compete in the region for both housing and economic development investment. Expenditures on housing and economic development must be supported by adequate infrastructure to be successful.

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

Trash collection started for the City of St. Louis in 1949 with a once-a-week schedule servicing approximately 50 per cent of the City. It expanded City-wide in 1951. Trash collection started as a simple process of moving refuse to landfills and incinerators. Today trash is a multi-million dollar per year program. The Refuse Division still moves refuse, but it has developed into a sophisticated industry that includes: recycling; educating the public; and developing alternative energy sources.

Current Services

A review of the Refuse Division's 93-94 annual report, outlines responsibilities for 159 full-time positions and 20 seasonal workers. Responsibilities include collection and disposal of all residential refuse, collections of dead animals, and assisting in the removal of snow by attaching plows to collection trucks. Collection is provided twice weekly to all residents, with 60 to 90 trucks operating daily throughout the City. These trucks dump their loads at either the City's North Transfer Station (71 Angelica Street) or the South Transfer Station (4120 S. First St.). The transfer stations are operated by Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. under a long-term contract. Laidlaw is also responsible for hauling refuse from the transfer stations to a landfill for final disposal.

The City has implemented a recycling program. The Refuse Division has allocated 7,000 of its alley containers for yard waste. These clippings are then composted by the Forestry Division. To encourage citizen's participation in composting, Refuse has distributed compost bins made from used pallet tops. Plastic compost bins are also available. Citizens can also bring one pick-up load each month of yard waste to the North or South transfer stations. In a cooperative effort with the Forestry Division, Christmas trees are recycled into reusable mulch.

The Refuse Division also has a monthly bulky item collection program. Residents can have curbside pick up of three times once a month, or deliver bulky items to the transfer stations. The division also has a program for collection of batteries, oil, tires and appliances. Finally the newspaper recycling program collected 94,240 pounds of newsprint. In that same vein, the City participated in the telephone book recycling program, turning an estimated 8,000 pounds of phone books into home insulation.

In addition to the Refuse Division, the Forestry Service under the Parks Department is responsible for refuse collection on vacant lots and buildings. Currently, debris removal from lots is on a complaint basis; however, building clean-ups are scheduled two times per year. This department is also responsible for grass and weed clipping on vacant lots six times per year and vacant buildings four time per year.

Needs and Challenges

Over the last 20 years, the population has decreased by 230,000 but per capita costs have gone up over 500 percent. During this time period, the Division's actual budget has increased by about 340 percent. Table 32 highlights these trends.

Collection and disposal costs in 93-94 were $13,332,036, however, appropriations for the departments were $12,970,416. But for grant monies the Division has received, there would have been a deficit. Increasing costs are indicative of the magnitude of the problem. This problem presents a challenge in several areas: maintenance; reduction in bulk refuse; recycling; and consumer education.

The most significant need is on-going maintenance and equipment replacement. The Department is behind in the replacement cycle of all equipment. The automated collection system uses 30,000 alley containers and 20,000 roll-out carts, each costing $200 and $85 respectively. The containers last approximately 12 years. This fiscal year nine hundred twenty nine dumpsters in salvageable condition were refurbished by residents of a Medium Security Institution on Hall Street. An additional 6,060 containers were repaired and painted using in-house personnel. The first phase of containers is due for replacement at a projected cost of $3,442,600. This figure will continue to roll over the next few years until all dumpsters have been replaced.

Trucks used for refuse collection cost an average of $100,000 each. Currently the trucks receive general service in-house, but major repairs (i.e., engine replacements, body welding) are carried out through contracts let through the Board of Public Service as utilized by all City departments. Costs for vehicle repairs are maintained by the Equipment Services Division.

It is estimated that the Missouri Metropolitan Area has approximately 10 years before landfills reach capacity. Reduction in bulk refuse is a mandate under Missouri Senate Bill 530. The City and County are to reduce the amount of solid waste going to landfills by 40 per cent by 1998. The State goal further specifies a 35 per cent reduction by the commercial sector. The Refuse Division intends to present plans for compliance within two months. Problematic to reducing the refuse is that citizens do not have to pay for collection. All refuse collection is paid from the general revenue.

To augment these efforts, the City has considered a proposal from Trigen Corporation to take solid waste, remove the recyclables and burn the rest at its steam plant. This plant provides steam for many downtown St. Louis buildings. Unfortunately, the proposal is not currently feasible. The Refuse Division has instituted a program utilizing the 11 fire houses throughout the City as collection points for paper, cans, plastic, and glass. Brochures on this program will be mailed later this year. Additionally, a demonstration program named "Blue Bag" kicked off in August. The Blue Bags are for use in yard waste containers. It is anticipated that recycling could reduce landfill tonnage by 15 to 25 per cent per year.

Consumer education will be necessary to successfully reduce trash. Education through school programs would boost consumer consciousness on the importance of recycling and waste reduction. Although most schools do not teach this subject, the Division feels an outreach program designed for children would encourage parents to participate. The Refuse Division is planning to offer an educational program on commercial waste reduction as well.

The Forestry Division is experiencing a continuing problem with debris in alleys. Due to the common dumpsters in some areas, and illegal dumping in others, there is an overflow of rubbish in the alleys. The existing ordinances address the old trash cans, not the newer dumpsters. Furthermore, as the population in the City decreases, the number of vacant lots and buildings increases, creating more work for Forestry. The challenge is twofold, dealing with the illegal dumping, and developing a budget that will allow more frequent clean-up activity on vacant property.

Recommendations

In order to meet the goals of Senate Bill 530, the public should be made aware of the importance of change. The problem areas are not easily addressed. Maintenance, replacement, recycling and education will need to be addressed in a comprehensive approach. Recommendations might include:

a) Develop regular maintenance schedule of existing equipment.

The Department has made positive steps in meeting the challenge of deferring replacement and getting maximum use from existing equipment. In addition to in-house efforts, it has entered into an arrangement with the Medium Security Institution on Hall Street. Residents of that facility sand and repaint carts. Further agreements of this nature would enhance the Departments efforts to maximize the life of equipment without increasing its costs.

b) Develop equipment replacement schedules that reflect the City's efforts to encourage recycling.

The Department intends to explore and possibly develop curbside recycling, as a method of complying with Senate Bill 530. A study of the impact of this recycling campaign would indicate if pick up of trash could be staggered. Wear and tear on the equipment would be reduced, leading to a longer life.

c) Encourage recycling efforts in the community.

In order to encourage recycling efforts, the Department should survey other communities to determine successful methods for promoting participation (e.g., regular reminders, political involvement, and inducements).

d) Design educational programs for different segments of the community.

The Department can encourage participation in its recycling efforts by educating the citizens. For example, school children could benefit from field trips to trash collection sites or wastewater treatment facilities by making them more aware of their environment. Public speaking engagements for Refuse department officials at senior citizen centers could explain the importance of recycling.

e) Review the ordinances affecting illegal dumping and misuse of the dumpsters.

The City Counselor's office should review the existing laws in light of current problems and, in concert with the Refuse Division, determine any changes that should be made.

Resources

Resources are limited due to the City's policy of not charging for collection. The increasing cost of collection will impact the general revenue fund. An ambitious grant writing effort might offset negative cash flows; however, the best long term method to decrease expenses is to educate the consumer to recycle.

An additional, but limited, source of revenue to offset the clean-up of vacant property relates to the absentee owners of such property. When ownership can be determined, they are billed for clean-up services provided by the Forestry Division. Collecting for such services is difficult.

SEWER IMPROVEMENTS

The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District was created in 1954 to provide a sewer system to serve the City of St. Louis and most of the more heavily populated areas of St. Louis County. Before MSD's creation, the City of St. Louis, various municipalities and private sewer companies provided sewer service which collected and transported sewage from small geographic areas to nearby rivers and streams with little or no treatment. Most of the municipalities and private sewer companies serving the area did not have the jurisdictional authority or financial resources required to eliminate the health hazard from untreated sewage.

When it began operations, the District took over the existing publicly-owned wastewater and stormwater drainage facilities within its jurisdiction and began the construction of an extensive system of collector and interceptor sewers and treatment facilities. In 1977, voters approved the District's annexation of a 270 square mile area of the lower Missouri River and lower Meramec River watersheds.

Current Services

The District's service area now encompasses 524 square miles, including all 62 square miles of the City of St. Louis and 462 square miles of St. Louis County. The current population served by the District is approximately 1.4 million.

The Proposed Plan of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, approved by voters in 1954, established the District. The Plan established the governing body of the District as a six-member Board of Trustees with three members appointed by the Mayor of St. Louis and three members appointed by the St. Louis County Executive. The Board enacts District Ordinances, determines policies and appoints the Executive Director, the Internal Auditor, and the Secretary-Treasurer.

The Executive Director and his staff administer the operation and maintenance of the District's collection and treatment systems. The District's sanitary, stormwater and combined sewer collection system includes almost 8,000 miles of pipe and channel and grows larger every year. Many of the sewers in the City of St. Louis are 100 years old.

MSD operates 14 secondary wastewater treatment facilities. These facilities treat an average flow of 330 million gallons per day (MGD). The two facilities serving the City are Bissell Point and Lemay (they also serve the County). Each treats over 100 million gallons per day.

The District also has certain responsibilities for stormwater drainage. These responsibilities range from cleaning and maintaining street inlets to operating and maintaining the floodwall pump stations along the Mississippi River.

In addition to construction initiated by the District to protect the public's health and property from raw sewage and flooding, the District also provides various engineering-related design, review and inspection services for the construction of sanitary and stormwater sewers by individuals, businesses, and municipalities in the community.

Needs and Challenges

Environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Super Fund, and others, have increased MSD's responsibilities and resulted in a dramatic increase in the cost of maintaining and operating this complex system of treatment plants, pump stations, and sewer facilities.

The District faces many challenges of providing additional and improved maintenance of existing facilities. There are additional treatment facilities which need to be constructed. Combined sewer overflows estimated to cost over $700 million must be addressed. The entire City of St. Louis is on a combined sewer system. Sanitary sewer overflows and pollution abatement projects are estimated to be almost $1.5 million. Stormwater management will require $650 million.

Recognizing that MSD is a regional operation, the needs for the City of St. Louis have been estimated at $582 million over a five-year period. A breakdown of activities is as follows:

MSD recognizes that if it is to meet its operating, maintenance, replacements, capital improvements, and other environmental needs, additional equitable funding sources must be identified. In 1993, the District changed the basis of billing for wastewater services. The wastewater user charge is based on the amount of wastewater discharged to the sewer system. This is determined by measuring the amount of potable water used by a property. When properties do not have water meters, the wastewater user charge is based on the property's attributes, such as the number of rooms, toilets, and baths.

In 1994, the District adopted a District-wide uniform connection fee schedule. Previously, a wide range of fees were collected in only 50% of the District's boundaries.

• Develop an adequate and equitable stormwater rate based on impervious area;
• Replace subdistrict tax structure with a uniform District-wide tax;
• Obtain long-term financing utilizing revenue bonds (requires MSD Plan amendment).

Recommendations

MSD has analyzed its operations, maintenance, replacement and capital improvement needs. The challenge facing the District is to find an equitable method of financing. Although the District's service area covers a number of municipalities, each identity will expect a fair pro rata share of the expense to be determined. The District will also need to make the public aware of the major role it serves in the community.

a) Support the Confluence Task Force that is reviewing sewer related financing needs.

A task force constituted by Confluence St. Louis has been formed to examine financing needs confronting MSD. This task force will prepare a position paper that addresses the financing challenges. The intent is that this document serve as the basis to achieve consensus from all communities concerned with the regions sewer needs. Most communities use bond financing to address their infrastructure needs. MSD in conjunction with the task force should investigate the feasibility of issuing revenue bonds to cover some of the capital needs that MSD has identified.

b) Continue to search for the most equitable approach to providing services.

Continued assessments of the cost effectiveness of operating procedures, purchasing, maintenance and other activities should be pursued to identify potential cost savings. MSD has indicated that a reexamination of engineering plan review, permit and inspection fees is a possible source of increased revenues. Adjustments of fees to reflect actual costs should be considered.

c) Allocate renewed attention to the City's sewer problems.

Although MSD's area of responsibility extends much further than the city limits, St. Louis' system represent the oldest and most challenging portion to maintain and repair. An extensive reexamination of St. Louis sewer maintenance should be conducted that will lead to a strategy for addressing these problems.

Resources

Currently MSD's primary funding sources are segregated into two areas, User Charges and Taxes. User Charges represent approximately 90% of the revenue generated. This revenue is subdivided by a Wastewater User Charge, Capital Improvement Surcharge and Stormwater User Charge. In FY 1995, these charges will produce approximately $138 million in revenues. The average single family residential rate is a monthly charge of $14.96, or $179.52 annually.

Tax revenues account for 10% of the total revenue stream to the District. Funds collected from taxes levied during 1994 were approximately $16 million. The total estimated revenues generated from both sources for 1994 equaled $154 million.

• Increased wastewater user charges
• Increased stormwater user charges
• District-wide tax for capital improvements
• Issuance of revenue bonds for capital improvements

STREET IMPROVEMENTS

The City of St. Louis' Department of Streets is responsible for a number of related street activities. The Department repairs and maintains approximately 1,050 miles of improved streets; 10 miles of unimproved streets; 400 miles of improved alleys and 55 bridges and viaduct structures. The Department cleans 1,050 miles of streets; operates a demolition landfill; maintains 55,000 feet of floodwall and levees; and removes ice and snow from 440 miles of major arterial and collector streets.

The Street Department carries out it services through several sections. The Street Maintenance Section is responsible for maintaining all the streets and alley pavement. Ten crews are utilized in filling chuck holes, leveling depressed pavement areas and filling and topping cave-ins. This Section is also responsible for removal of snow and ice utilizing chemicals and abrasives.

The Bridge Maintenance Section is charged with the responsibility of maintaining and repairing City owned bridges, viaducts, pedestrian overpasses and underpasses. The principal duty of this Section is to inspect and maintain these facilities for wear and tear from usage and deterioration.

The Street Cleaning Section cleans all improved streets in the City. These cleanings are carried out on a bi-weekly basis or monthly as the budget dictates.

The Street Department is facing a number of challenges which it has to address. The total appropriations for 1993 was $4,898,000. Last year the Street Maintenance crews resurfaced 650,496 square yards of streets at a cost $1,438,712 or approximately 25% of the total budget. This Section applied 8,132 tons of salt and 33,580 gallons of calcium chloride.

Over the past five years, approximately 2,769,000 sq.yds. of streets have been paved at an estimated cost of $6,219,000. The costs to repair unimproved streets for 1993 was $37,453. Table 38 indicates the costs associated with street improvements over the past five years.

Currently the St. Louis Board of Aldermen determines which streets in their respective wards are repaired and resurfaced. The total budget for street resurfacing is divided by the 28 wards and the prorata amount is assigned. The alderperson for each ward works with the Street Department to determine which street in their ward is to be resurfaced for the coming year. In 1993 the average amount spent in each ward was approximately $36,336.

The Street Department has prepared a listing of 67 streets that are in need of repair through out the City. That listing totals $12,360,800 with the top ten streets totaling $2,830,500. The Department has also identified 21 bridges that are in need of replacement with 8 bridges rated a priority 1. These bridges are estimated to cost $32 million.

Working with various State, Federal and local agencies and departments to determine what resources are available should be a high priority. Making the public aware of the condition of the City's infrastructure through public service announcements and news features should be considered. Specific recommendations include:

a) Identify other funding sources that could supplement the Capital Improvements Sales Tax.

Identification of other potential funding sources for street improvements should be a high priority. An increase in the utility tax is an example of funding sources that might expand the current resources. Such considerations need to be led by the budget department's capital improvements committee.

b) Work with CDA to coordinate neighborhood development resurfacing opportunities with development activity.

Under certain circumstances, Community Development Block Grant funds can be utilized to fund street improvement projects. Working with planners from both the Community Development Agency and the Street Department, a methodology that identifies what conditions CDBG is appropriate should be developed. The emphasis should be on ways that infrastructure improvements can support redevelopment investments.

c) Investigate the issuance of a Citywide capital improvement bond issuance.

The feasibility of general obligation bonds should be examined. This represents a potential source of funds that could be used to address the most critical problems. A "blue ribbon" task force could investigate this matter and provide some insight into the likelihood of voter approval.

The Street Department anticipates that projected costs for surfacing will average $1,036,000 per year for the next five years. The expected General Revenue amount to be allocated for this period is approximately is $5,182,000.

• Federal Aid Urban (FAU)
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
• State Highway Department
• General Obligation Bond Funds
• Increase in construction permits and plan review fees
• Increase percent of utility tax earmarked for street improvements

SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT

The maintenance and repair of sidewalks within the City of St. Louis is the sole responsibility of the adjacent property owner. The City has developed a program to assist in this problem. The Street Department receives approximately 200 complaints regarding sidewalk conditions per year. Not all of these complaints are resolved.

The Street Department currently operates a 50/50 Sidewalk program. This program provides 50 percent of all costs associated with the replacement of sidewalks adjacent to both residential and commercial owners. Based on lists provided to the department by aldermen, complaints filed, and requests from owners, sidewalk segments are replaced The owner has one year to repay.

Replacement of sidewalks are carried out by private contractors who are selected through a bid process. All contract work is done on a ward-by-ward basis. The typical cost for replacement has averaged $36.25 per sq.ft. Generally, except in historic areas, sidewalks are replaced with concrete. In historic areas the sidewalks are replaced with brick pavers at any additional cost of $8-10.00 per sq. ft.

In addition to the 50/50 Sidewalk program, specific improvements to the public right-of-way are often made as part of a housing or commercial/industrial development. The sidewalk improvement costs are typically included in the overall construction costs.

Although the Street Department has been successful in addressing replacement of sidewalks with the 50/50 program, there are still many areas that are not being serviced. Prior to 1994 1/2 cent sales tax revenues were not available for sidewalk replacement. Based on projections of revenues from these sources the Street Department as calculated that they will be able provide funds for the replacement of approximately 1,000 sidewalks Citywide.

Although the City has no responsibility for the maintenance or replacement of sidewalks, its efforts of providing partial relief should continue. The program should be expanded to cover a larger area of need with more discretion on the part of the Street Department in the selection of sites. In order to better utilize its resources the following should be considered:

a) Conduct block-by-block survey of sidewalk conditions.

In order to a better understanding of overall sidewalk conditions, a block-by-block survey of sidewalk conditions should be undertaken and an estimate of costs developed. This would allow the Street Department to determine if current resources are sufficient to address its needs.

b) Develop a comprehensive sidewalk improvement plan.

Based on the results of the block-by-block survey, a comprehensive planning document could be produced that would identify potential sources of funding and recommended staging of improvements by needs.

c) Advertise program to reach more citizens.

Although the current program works well, continued effort should be taken to make citizens aware of the program.

d) Continue an active curb cut installation program.

An ongoing program of curb cut installation and maintenance will continue to be an important component of the City's efforts to meet the needs of the disabled community.

In order to finance the replacement of sidewalks, the street department utilizes to three sources of funding, Utility Tax (St. Louis Works) revenue, the 1/2 cent Sales Tax and recirculated owner payments. The Street Department estimates that approximately 1/5 of the utility tax revenues are targeted toward the 50/50 sidewalk program. The Street Department has estimated that the total revenues from the utility tax that is applied to the 50/50 program is approximately $440,000 for 1994.

The 1/2 cent sales tax provides approximately $377,000 of tax revenue for street improvements while recirculated owner payments are estimated to contribute $205,000 annually. The total amount of potential funding from these sources is $1.02 million (see Table 39).

ASBESTOS REMOVAL

As one of the oldest cities West of the Mississippi, St. Louis is experiencing an increasing problem with the cost of removal or encapsulation of Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) in its existing structures. Most of the buildings in the City contain asbestos in one form or another. A primary potential source of airborne asbestos is renovation or demolition of these buildings and the disposal of the associated waste material Asbestos is dangerous when it is friable (i.e., that, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure), for instance ceiling tile. Because of its clear and present health risks, airborne asbestos has been identified by the U.S. EPA as a hazardous substance under the Clean Air Act's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Although there are many asbestos related rules, there are no federal rules governing the extent of asbestos removal in buildings other than schools.

Current Services

The Federal government does not conduct asbestos reviews on residential or commercial properties. They have passed their responsibilities on to the state who in turn works with the two City Departments handling oversight of asbestos removal, The Air Pollution Department and the Land Reutilization Authority. While Air Pollution's primary responsibility is enforcement of the air pollution on stationary industrial sources with secondary responsibility for monitoring and inspection of vapor recovery in service stations, they do asbestos inspections triggered by the NESHAP requirements. City Air Pollution is responsible for enforcing asbestos mitigation/monitoring on buildings that are commercial rentals and commercial/industrial property. Buildings that are four family or less, and owned by the City, are handled by the Land Reutilization Authority in conjunction with Air Pollution.

Single family and two to four family ACM units are under a voluntary compliance requirement as charged by the EPA and enforced by the State. A homeowner planning removal of friable material is required to notify the State if the amount of ACM exceeds 120 linear feet or 160 square feet. The State charges a $100 fee for this permit and the homeowner must specify the amount, type and disposal method for the asbestos. The State retains the right to inspect, but generally does not follow-up. One to four family structures that threaten public health and safety may be demolished without regulation; however, the entire building must be handled as ACM, bagged and deposited in a hazardous waste landfill. Commercial structures are not exempt under any circumstances.

The Air Pollution Department regulates all asbestos removal on commercial/industrial sites and commercial rental properties. Monthly, they average processing 32 NESHAP level notifications, each carrying a $100 fee to review, and between 9 to 30 job site inspections. The inspection fee is $100 per visit, but they may charge for no more than three visits. Last year, Air Pollution generated $50,000 through these fees. Currently there is only one man assigned to ACM inspections through Air Pollution Department. In order to thoroughly carry out inspections, two more staff would be desirable.

Needs and Challenges

Turn of the century buildings are economically as well as functionally obsolete. Increased regulations on hazardous material and the cost of mitigating those hazards decrease the desirability of owning property in the City. A building owner can never be legally free of the liability for hazardous waste associated with that property. If a contractor is hired to mitigate the problem and the State finds fault with the removal process, the owner as well as the contractor can be fined. Once the ACM is placed in a landfill, should the material be dug up at some later date for any reason, the owner is responsible for its removal again. When facing the costs associated with clean-up, owners of smaller buildings opt to let the property go into tax foreclosure. The cost for the City to pursue these owners for clean-up funds would exceed the cost of clean-up and in many cases, the owners do not have the funds necessary to clean a site. On larger buildings, the City has pursued action, but asbestos is not covered under Superfund Liability by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) making enforcement difficult.

On the residential front, the City currently owns 11,075 properties, 2,956 are under option or in the process to being sold. Of the remaining 8,119 properties, 6533 are lots and 1,586 have improvements. As a result of tax foreclosures and donations, the City takes another 500 to 1,000 buildings per year. From this inventory, approximately 200 buildings are demolished per year. The funds for those demolitions come from Community Development Block Grant and the proceeds of sales of inventory. Eighty to ninety per cent of these properties are normal demolition costing $3,000 to $4,000. The remaining ten per cent may push that cost up four to ten times if asbestos is present. The increased cost is due to the testing (i.e., 5-15 samples per building at $20-30 for each sample) required to make a determination of the presence and condition of any hazardous material and the clean-up itself. If buildings with ACM are vandalized or collapse while awaiting disposal, the entire building may be considered a health or safety risk generating hazardous waste. The cost can climb to $10,000 to $20,000 for each building. A study recently undertaken by LRA shows that the City is losing $2 to $70 per sq. ft. on resale of property it owns due to the cost associated with hazardous clean-up. The City has been declining donations of commercial structures for this reason.

Recommendations

Due to increasing donations, tax foreclosures, and business relocation, the City faces an increasingly expensive problem in mitigation of hazardous materials.

Asbestos containment and/or removal and its associated cost carries a high price tag, recommendations that might offer the City some relief with continued enforcement, are as follows:

a) Restructure the process for demolition evaluation to insure appropriate consideration of asbestos removal costs.

Every building the City plans to demolish goes through an evaluation and permit process. The building department, historic preservation, and air pollution all review each property adding weeks to the process. Timeliness of reviews should be based on potential ACM problems and a determination made on the stability of the building. If the condition is questionable, the building should be demolished before becoming a safety risk that escalates cost.

b) Review funding sources for demolition to maximize efficiency.

Federally funded demolition triggers additional requirements (i.e., bidding requirements) and increases time. Another source of funds for demolition would offer the City some relief.

c) Review staffing levels for Air Pollution and Land Reutilization.

Additional inspectors would The current inspector handles between 9 and 30 inspections each month. Last year those inspections generated $50,000, more income than the inspector's salary. The Air Pollution Department should conduct a study to determine what level of staffing could be supported through inspection fees. Air Pollution and LRA should explore the possibility of having an LRA inspector certified for ACM. This would allow LRA to move along based on in-house scheduling. Any question of a conflict of interest should be explored by the City's legal department.

d) Pursue authority to use deed restrictions in place of current requirements in certain commercial and industrial situations.

The City owns several sites suitable for redevelopment, however the cost of clean-up is prohibitive. The City of St. Louis along with other major cities across the nation has taken the position that total clean-up is not necessary if the lot is to be paved over for commercial use. If a site will no longer be used for residential, a deed restriction would allow a lender to lend without the contingent liability. Currently, lenders won't lend and often won't foreclose on properties that are contaminated. This tactic would require action by the EPA and DNR.

Resources

Currently all LRA demolition is funded through Community Development Block Grant. In 1993 demolition costs were $760,000. While the smaller buildings are of some concern, one or two commercial sites could use the entire budget. Other funding sources are limited.