DECEMBER 2, 1996

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, December 2, 1996, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri.  The roll was taken with the following results:  Council Members JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, and COBLE were present.  The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of November 18, 1996, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Campbell.

    The agenda, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Ms. Coble.

1.       Resolution of Appreciation - Lee Daniel, retiring City Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman read and presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Launa H. (Lee) Daniel, noting her 22 years of service to the City.

1.     John Clark, North Central Columbia Neighborhood Association regarding Homeless Shelters.
    John Clark, 2000 Alan Lane, Secretary/Treasurer of the North Central Neighborhood Association, distributed vision and mission statements of the Association.  He said their vision and goal was the preservation of a viable, sustainable, and stable residential community in their neighborhood.  He said this had been adopted because they perceive that the continued viability of such a stable, sustainable residential community was at risk.  Mr. Clark stated their strategy was to increase the percentage of owner occupancy in the area from 20% to 35-40%.  He said this would mean decreasing the number of rental housing units from 80% to approximately 60%.  He said the Association identified some barriers to investments in owner occupied property.  He said they were best described as uncertainties -- things that keep people from eventually writing a check.  He spoke about investments in places where people themselves were going to live.  He said the owner occupied single family could be a duplex or a four-plex, but the people who own it would live there.  He said one of the uncertainties was the School District's support and investment in Field School.  He said this had been partially resolved by the building of the Media Center and work on the elementary school playground.  Other uncertainties were the Columbia College expansion plan and the City's commitment/investment in the area.  The last uncertainty was the increased density of housing arrangements serving community-wide needs and the lack of public regulation.  He said it did not pertain to homeless shelters, depending upon the definition.  He said there was a wide range of group homes, treatment homes, and similar facilities in North Central and other parts of Columbia.  Mr. Clark reported the Association wanted to establish a standard by which they could measure what goes on and is proposed in their neighborhood.  He said if a proposed change did not contribute to the preservation of a viable, sustainable, stable residential community in the North Central Neighborhood, the Association would likely oppose it.  His group encouraged the Council to look into these matters and to find better ways to keep them abreast of the issues concerning their group.  At a minimum, he said they would request timely information to their President and the neighborhood contact person of the events.  He said their President was able to funnel information to other members of the Board.
    In the staff's efforts to notify the Neighborhood Association, Mr. Harline understood that one of the Board Members had been contacted.  Mr. Clark said unless their designated contact person was notified, the Board would not be contacted.

B299-96A     Establishing permanent zoning on recently annexed property south of West Broadway.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this bill had been amended at the last meeting and held over for action this evening.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Scott Williams, 101 Dayspring Drive, spoke on behalf of the King's Meadow Neighborhood Association.  He said that they were in favor of the amended zoning request to R-1.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Harline said he was going to vote in favor of the amended bill.  He said he had been opposed to the R-3 zoning because it was not good planning to take a 2.2 acre piece of property at the outskirts of town without knowing what the rest of the area was going to look like.  He said he personally rejected the argument that since there is no R-3 in the area, this would not be a good place for it.  He said they were realizing that if they establish zoning categories only in one area, it made for bad planning decisions, and makes it difficult to provide transportation and supply infrastructure.  Mr. Harline stated he thought the applicant made a good point in that the City should not discourage people from trying to help with planning by not wanting their properties to be annexed into the City.  He said as West Broadway develops and if it should become a major thoroughfare, R-1 zoning would not necessarily be the best policy; however, he thought it was appropriate at this time.
    Mr. Kruse asked the staff to comment on the possibility of West Broadway becoming a major thoroughfare.  Mr. Beck said it was shown on the Major Thoroughfare Plan as an arterial street.  Mr. Kruse asked where it would go.  Mr. Hancock said it would hook up with a street system that would eventually connect with the Midway exit.
    B299-96A, was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B356-96     Authorizing payment of differential costs for a 12-inch water main to serve Meadowlands,
                    Plat 12.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted this request was in accordance with City policy wherein we pay the cost differential between, in this case, a six inch water main and a twelve inch water main.  The cost to the City's Water Department would be about $18,000.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B356-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B358-96     Approving the 1996 Columbia Sidewalk Plan.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this Plan would provide a guideline for new sidewalk construction, but did not include reconstruction of such.  He said the City had been working with other plans for reconstruction.  Mr. Beck stated this Plan would update the 1992 Plan.  There are two categories: Sidewalk projects on existing improved streets, and sidewalks that would be built in conjunction with new street construction projects.  Because of the limited amount of funding available for sidewalks, he said there was a formula devised to prioritize where the need for sidewalks would be.  He said that formula had been revised to take into account such factors as where schools and parks are located, and pedestrian areas that are heavily used.
    Mr. Janku asked how sidewalks would be added to the Master Plan.  He thought there should be a procedure where in the Council could recommend that the staff evaluate a particular street for sidewalks.  He said they could be placed into different classes such as Class A, Class B, etc., or indicate that it should not be part of the Plan.  Mr. Hancock suggested that they look at amending the Plan every two or three years for additional sidewalks.  He pointed out that any of the new streets in subdivisions would have sidewalks and that the Council would have purview over sidewalks on publicly funded projects.  Mr. Hancock asked Mr. Janku if he was suggesting that they go back periodically to see if any areas had been overlooked.  Mr. Janku said that was what he was thinking.  He suggested that they ask the staff, at the end of the meeting, to evaluate a particular sidewalk location to see if it needed to be added.  Mr. Beck felt that the Council could direct that a particular sidewalk be included at any time, not just at the time of updating the Plan.
    Mr. Harline said as in the case of Providence Road being a state road, it was hard for them to plan some of these things because of multiple jurisdictions.  Mr. Hancock said they had been considering a series of sidewalks on Providence Road for some time, and it was not included on the Plan because they were still in the process of evaluating it.  Mr. Harline said he thought the Plan was good, but from time to time amendments would be requested and perhaps staff should follow-up with some kind of policy resolution to decide how to update it.
    Mr. Beck said if a question regarding a sidewalk comes up before the Plan is updated, it could be referred to the staff.  He said they would use the evaluation criteria and bring back a report.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Kruse said the Plan basically calls for two categories of sidewalk projects and asked if there was a way to accommodate other methods to move pedestrians.  For example, he said they discussed an asphalt sidewalk or a pedestrian way on unimproved streets.  Mayor Hindman said he had wondered about that also.  He said he understood that there are some policy issues yet discussed and that they would be included in the issues yet to be considered.  He asked if that was correct.  Mr. Hancock said that was correct.  He reported that in the last line of the introduction it stated that, per Council direction, staff wanted to do an overall pedestrian plan for Columbia.  Mr. Hancock said a sidewalk was one element of that.  He said a sidewalk in their mind was a traditional sidewalk for spending City money along the street.  He said they would be taking into consideration an unimproved sidewalk along an unimproved street.  He stated they should have something after the first of the year to send to the City Manager.
    Mr. Janku asked if all new streets and reconstructed streets, as a matter of policy, have been considered for sidewalks.  He was referring to Sunflower in particular.  Mr. Beck noted that the policy resolution calls for a sidewalk on one side of all collector and arterial streets.  He said they would automatically be built as such unless the Council decided they did not want a sidewalk on one side.
    Mayor Hindman said this was another item they needed to think about.  The idea was to have a sidewalk on one side of the street and an additional one would be added to the other side as it develops.  However, he said sometimes they rebuild an arterial street within the City which is already developed with no chance that the other side would be built by the property owners.  Mr. Beck said this might be evaluated on an individual basis.  He thought the reason it was set up this way was because there were right of way acquisition and the front yard problems associate with the reconstruction of streets.  Mayor Hindman said there were situations where neighbors could object to it on both sides.
    Mr. Campbell suggested that they keep in mind that the Plan was a guide and that the Council could raise questions when the projects come up.
    Because of limited funding, Mr. Janku said he thought staff should look at using CDBG money as a funding mechanism because approximately one-third of the projects were in eligible areas.  He stated when street improvements are made in CDBG areas, there is a strong desire for sidewalks and thought there was an equally strong desire to go back and construct new sidewalks.  Mr. Beck said that was on the list.
    B358-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B365-96     Approving engineer's final report and levying special assessments for the Aztec
                    Boulevard and Cherokee Lane project.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck commented that the two streets and parking lot had been constructed with CDBG money and tax bills.  Because tax bills will be issued against some of the properties, he said Mr. Patterson would give a brief report.
    Mr. Patterson explained that the project consisted of about 150 feet of Aztec Boulevard and Cherokee Lane for the purpose of connecting two street segments.  He said that Aztec was built to a 38 foot width and Cherokee to a 32 foot width to match the existing surfaces.  He said the contract specified asphaltic concrete for a surface so it would match what had already been constructed in the area.  Mr. Patterson noted that sidewalks had not been constructed since there were none in the neighborhood, but they graded in such a way to allow for future construction should they be placed in the neighborhood.  He pointed out that they had improved storm drainage in the area with drop inlets and piping.  The City owned parking lot serving the park was also resurfaced as part of the contract.  The total cost of the project was $55,647.98, with about $2,938.88 being spent on resurfacing the parking lot.  He said it had been proposed that CDBG funds be used.  Under current City policy when those funds are used, adjacent property owners can be assessed up to one-half of what the normal tax bill rate is.  In this case, that amount is $13.06 per foot.  Since the City owns all of the abutting property, any tax bills assessed would be levied against the City.  He said it was proposed that taxbills be paid from the balance of CDBG funds.  Mr. Patterson had been assured that those funds were available for that purpose.  He said if they issue the tax bills, they need to determine that benefits have accrued to the properties at least equal to the amounts being assessed.  Typically, the following is considered when making that evaluation:  The curb and guttering and storm water piping would improve the overall storm water management of the area, as well as improving the appearance and maintainability of the properties; the new street surface would enable improved street maintenance, particularly for cleaning and snow removal.   Mrs. Crockett questioned since the tax bills will be paid from CDBG money and if the City decided to sell the lots, would the money go back into the neighborhood where the original CDBG money was intended.  Mr. Patterson said he assumed that would not happen because the improvements are for the street and the sidewalks in the public right of way.  Mayor Hindman said the neighborhood would have the benefit of the expenditure.  Mr. Patterson added that it would improve the sale of the property.  Mrs. Crockett said she did not want to see anything taken away from the neighborhood.  Mr. Beck said a large amount of money had already been put into this neighborhood.  Mrs. Crockett asked if there was bus service to the area.  Mr. Patterson said there had been bus service there since July.  He said they do not go around the circle because of the traffic problems there, but service was available.  Mr. Patterson said door hangers had been placed throughout the neighborhood so that people would be aware of the service.  Mrs. Crockett asked whether door hangers had also been placed on the apartments.  Mr. Patterson said he was under the impression that they had been distributed throughout the entire neighborhood.  Mrs. Crockett asked if the City was going to sell the lots.  Mr. Beck said they had been looking at the possibility of selling a couple of lots and keeping some.  Mrs. Crockett asked why the City would keep any at all.  Mr. Beck said he was referring to the lots that tie into the parking lot or were right next to the park.  Mrs. Crockett said she could understand the City keeping lots next to the park.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B365-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A)     Storm water drainage, sidewalk and sanitary sewer improvements in the Garth Avenue and
          Sexton Road area.
    Item A was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck commented that this was a major storm water drainage project beginning at Garth and Sexton Road where a lot of flooding has occurred.  He explained that improvements would go northward up Garth Avenue to Austin Avenue.  He said it was an approximate $475,000 project.  The proposal for improvements came from the quarter-cent sales tax for new sidewalk work.  This would be done in conjunction with the box culvert and the major portion from the storm water utility.
    Mr. Campbell noted that the report said one of the culverts was for ten years and others were from ten to twenty-five years.  He asked what engineering standards would be used for the new construction -- 25 years?  Mr. Patterson said improvements would be designed to 25 year flood standards.  He said when they refer to the uncertainty of being able to accomplish the project in its totality, it is due to the existing downstream constraints that need to be replaced at some point in the future.  On Garth Avenue the project would consist of about 680 feet of box culvert along the east side of the street.  He said it would also have about 1500 feet of pipe in conjunction with it.  Mr. Patterson pointed out that the area had been expanded to encompass the Grand and Sexton areas to resolve a problem at the school.  He noted that the project includes about 1290 feet of sidewalk.  He added that they would be doing about $12,000 worth of sewer rehabilitation work as part of the project.  Referring to the new construction above the area of the box culvert, Mr. Campbell asked if there was a possibility that improvements would increase the severity of flooding near the culvert.  Mr. Patterson questioned whether he was referring to the rehabilitation center.  Mr. Campbell said he was.  Mr. Patterson stated it certainly was not going to help it and that they tried to get detention put on the facility.  He said the City designed the project for full development, but downstream problems could be increased because of the failure to control the water upstream.
    Mayor Hindman asked if this would increase flow into Flat Branch Creek.  Mr. Patterson said it would.  He said the main constraint right now will be storing water in the pipes because the downstream culvert is not designed for the full twenty-five year capacity.  However, he said this would certainly relieve the homes and intersection flooding that presently occurs quite frequently.   Mayor Hindman asked if this would put more pressure on Flat Branch and whether there would there be any kind of energy reduction down at the bottom end.  Mr. Patterson said currently the pipe itself is a throttle downstream.  They are increasing the storage capacity within the pipe, but could only get so much through the downstream pipe.  He said it would increase the flow, but it would be dampened by the reduced capacity.  Mayor Hindman asked if the pipe was filling up now.  Mr. Patterson said it was.  He said it would be improved, but it would still be restricted.  Mayor Hindman understood that the flooding would be improved at one end, but asked if there would be a heavier discharge at the other end.  Mr. Patterson said there would be a heavier discharge at an area where it will not cause structural flooding.  Mayor Hindman asked if nothing could be done about the bottom end where it enters into Flat Branch.  Mr. Patterson said there would be additional flow there.  He explained that the options in an area like this were extremely limited in the fact that they did not have the ability to detain water upstream.  He said what occurs now is water being stored in basements when they flood.  This way water would flow into Flat Branch Creek.
    Mr. Harline asked if they would have increased velocity when it comes above ground to the Flat Branch Creek.  Mr. Patterson said there would be more flow and more pressure at the outlet of the downstream box, but it would be incremental.
    Mayor Hindman said he was in favor of the sidewalk, but asked if it could be paid out of CDBG money.  Ms. Coble said the Sidewalk Plan they just reviewed shows this as an area with some of the heaviest foot traffic ruts.  Mayor Hindman said it was an area where CDBG money could be used while continuing the sidewalk program.  Mr. Janku agreed it was a priority area.  He asked if there was a way, without holding up this project, that as CDBG recommendations are made, they could be brought forward as part of that.  Mr. Patterson said he did not think that was a problem.  He said they could direct the payment of that portion, but they simply had not shown it as a utility.  He said by the time it could be constructed, there would be ample time to provide whatever direction the Council wanted.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    David Anderson, 913 N. Garth, stated his house was right in the middle of this and had been fighting water in his basement for 26 years.  Mr. Anderson said he had two pumps in his basement to try to keep the water out.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Ms. Coble made the motion that staff be directed to proceed with the project.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B217-96     Amending Chapter 18 of the City Code re: pensions for police officers.
B354-96     Amending Chapter 18 of the City Code re: pensions for police officers.
    Both bills were read by the Clerk.
    The Mayor noted that the bills would be voted on separately.
    Mr. Beck stated that the ordinances were initiated by the Police Retirement Board.  He said they were also supported by the Police Officer's Association and there would be no cost to City government.  What is proposed is police and fire retirement programs will be comparable to other retirement programs in so far as to what the City's participation is in the plans.  He said the plan benefits for police and fire were different from the general government, but they were putting in a greater amount of their own personal salaries to make up the difference.
    Lori Fleming, Director of Finance, explained that they had an actuarial review done to determine what the costs would be.  She said the first ordinance of the two was introduced earlier in the year, but there had been some problems with the wording of it and how the City segregated the costs.  She said they were asking that the first ordinance be defeated because the second ordinance had the proper wording correctly allocating the cost to the officers, and clarifies how the City calculates the cost differentials.
    B217-97 was read by the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES: NO ONE.  VOTING NO:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  Bill defeated.
    B354-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B348-96     Appropriating funds for construction of golf cart paths.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that they bid the project to be paid for by the golfers.  He said money had been appropriated for the cart paths; however, they needed an additional $70,000 to award the contract for both of the projects.  He said that base bids ranged from $406,000 to $702,000 and saw no reason to rebid it.  Mr. Beck said in discussions with Mr. Green, they considered doing the project in phases, but decided it probably would not work very well.  He was recommending that they take the $70,000 from the designated loan fund.  Mr. Beck thought it could be paid back over a period of about three years.
    Mr. Campbell said when the golfers were before them, there had been a number of items on their priority list and this was at the top.  He assumed this would delay major priority items, such as irrigation, by two or three years.  Mr. Beck said that depended on what kind of season they had.  He said a good season would increase the amount of use, thus stepping up the amount of revenues taken in at the courses.  He said there have been some limitations and some maintenance problems.  He said the other items could be hindered if additional revenues did not come in.
    Mr. Harline said later on the agenda they would be discussing a right of use permit for a sewer line across the Lake of the Woods golf course, and wondered if the two projects would be coordinated.  Mr. Green pointed out that the agreement states the sewer line will be put in between the first of November and the first of March.  He said the sewer line would be installed before the cart paths were started.
    B348-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B351-96     Amending Chapter 5 of the City Code regarding exotic animals and reptiles.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman said the staff had not worked on this as the Council referred it directly to the Board of Health.  He said there was no written staff report on the issue.  Mr. Sanford commented that representatives from the Board of Health were present to answer questions.  In lieu of a staff report, Mayor Hindman asked the Chairman of the Board of Health to step forward.
    Dr. Michael Szewczyk said the Board held a public hearing where they looked at these issues and then issued a report.  In terms of exotic animals, he said that could be split into two separate issues.  One was the question of gerbils, mice, and hamsters.  Presently, the ordinance states these mammals cannot be sold in Columbia, but Dr. Szewczyk said they were being sold anyway.  He said the law was being broken every day and it was the Board's feeling, not knowing what the Council was thinking at the time of passage, that they probably did not want to outlaw gerbils and hamsters.  He said this is similar to a housekeeping change.  He said the current ordinance does not outlaw owning hamsters, gerbils, and mice, it only outlaws the sale of them.  Dr. Szewczyk said the Board had a big debate about whether or not to try to identify certain small mammals that could be sold.  He thought the Council would be opening a Pandora's Box if they tried to do it.  He explained that the ordinance clearly states that dangerous animals are not allowed to be sold and the Director of the Department of Health has the ability to declare an animal dangerous.  He said if the Council was looking to stop dangerous animals and adopted this change, these animals would still be prohibited, but citizens would be allowed to buy hamsters, gerbils, and other similar animals.  He said the second issue was reptiles.  He said this was a much more controversial issue because there were some health concerns regarding reptiles.  He said there was a risk for salmonella exposure and the current ordinance does not stop anyone from owning reptiles in Columbia, it only prevents the sale.  On the outskirts of the City, he noted that there is a pet store that sells reptiles.  Anyone that wants one can make the purchase and bring it back into the City.  The Board felt this was an opportunity to let people sell the reptiles, while also providing some education at the same time.  He said the Board felt that this was not unreasonable.  Other communities have similar policies requiring pet store owners to supply information regarding potential health risks to the buyer.  If the person buys the animal, then they are at least getting some education.  He said this would be a positive step because they would be getting information on the animal.  He said the Board also thought it important to have an age limit on the purchase of reptiles.  The Board recommended a person must be 18 years old or accompanied by a parent to prevent impulse buying by youngsters.
    Mr. Kruse asked about the salmonella risk.  Dr. Szewczyk said they reviewed CDC and lay reports.  He said it was really very sensational because a newspaper will pick up on an article stating a youngster died from salmonella linked to a pet iguana.  He said things like that do happen, but probably in less than 1% of all of the salmonella cases.  He said the vast majority of poisoning occurs from poorly cooked chicken, turkey, and other food related exposures.  He said the risk was minimal and no one could really define the risk because the denominator is not known.
    Mayor Hindman thanked Dr. Szewczyk and the Board of Health for their efforts in preparing their report.
    Mike Bushman, 818 W. Rollins, owner of Columbia Pet Center, spoke in favor of the revision.  He said this provision would not change much of what is currently being done.  He said only harmless, domesticated mammals would be sold.  Regarding the sale of reptiles in Columbia, he felt it was time for a change in the law.  He said there was much more known now about how to care and maintain reptiles in captivity.  He said most common pet reptiles now are kept and bred -- not taken from wild populations.  He said as long as it was permitted for reptiles to be owned in Columbia, it should also be allowed for them to be sold here.  He said local stores had been left out of the huge increase in demand for reptiles for years and felt that was unfair.  Mr. Bushman said that 578 signatures were recently collected in three weeks time at the local pet stores from customers who are interested in purchasing reptiles in Columbia.  He urged the Council to vote in favor of this provision.
    Gwen Becker, President of the Mid-Missouri Herptelogical Society, explained that one of their objectives was to provide education and information about the proper care and treatment of reptiles and amphibians.  Approximately eight people from her group stood in support of the proposed changes.
    Troy Whitaker, Fulton, Missouri, explained that he was a small home based business operator who moved from Columbia a few years ago because of concerns that his part of town might be annexed into the City, and he would be operating against the law because of selling non-venomous reptiles.  He spoke in favor of the revision and noted that his business has grown every year for the last four years.  He pointed out that Columbia was not getting that business.
    Kevin Erig, 200 W. El Cortez, owner of Pet Avenue in Columbia, agreed with Mr. Bushman's comments.  He said neither he nor Mr. Bushman obtain their snakes from the wild, although some people do.  He said it was a very strange law that allows people to own the snakes, but does not allow the snakes to be sold.  He said people call all the time with questions about how to keep their snakes alive, but his business is not allowed to sell them.
    Cathy Mason, Director of Missourians Against Cruelty to Animals, said when this ordinance was passed 20 years ago, she and Mr. Sanford wrote the by-laws and the articles of incorporation of the Central Missouri Humane Society.  She was President of the Society at that time.  She said the Humane Society, as a membership, was not polled nor did they vote on this ordinance.  She said they were not in support of the proposed changes.  Ms. Mason stated the trade and the selling of exotic animals in this country was a national disgrace and of the animals that even make it to the pet stores, within two years only 10% of them survive.  She said it was an ever-renewable income source for the animal traffickers.  One should not be fooled into thinking this was an issue of education because she said it was an issue of money.  Ms. Mason stated the Board of Health has essentially ignored the CDC weekly morbidity and mortality reports.  She argued that from those reports, salmonella poisoning from reptiles across this country is a problem.   Ms. Mason said people buy these animals and decide they do not want them, they then end up on the streets where they become a problem for Animal Control and the Humane Society.
    Ms. Coble asked Ms. Mason, regarding her previous affiliation with the Humane Society, if there were many reptiles.  Ms. Mason said this was really about pocket pets.  She said if the argument was to get tax dollars, those businesses would sell whatever the people wanted.  She said that pocket pets were small mammals and when people got tired of them, they would be dumped out on the streets.  Ms. Mason said she did not remember reptiles being a significant problem at the time she was affiliated with the Humane Society.   Mrs. Crockett said as long as we have an ordinance that does not prohibit these animals or reptiles from being in the City, she saw no reason why we should not be able to sell them in the City.
    Mr. Campbell stated keeping exotic animals, reptiles, or pets in his home was something he did not do.  He said he did not think pets should be taken from the wild, but on the other hand, he thought people should have the right to sell what is legal to have in the City.
    Mr. Janku said there was obviously an underground economy in this industry and thought the educational efforts would provide some benefit to address a few of the issues raised here.
    Mr. Harline felt the reputable stores who sold these animals, with the requirement that they give out information about the salmonella poisoning potential, would be an improvement over an underground industry.
    Mr. Kruse said he felt like he needed to know a lot more about the capture, sale, and distribution of exotic animals.  He believed that most were bred in captivity, but obviously at some point they are obtained from the wild.  He said he did not feel educated enough about the issue to support the ordinance right now.  He recognized that it is legal in the county and in most other cities, but said he liked the idea of Columbia being different and standing on principle.  He said he would vote against it at this point.
    Ms. Coble said she had a long-standing concern about the treatment of the everyday, run-of-the-mill mammals in this town.  She said she witnessed dogs dying near her home from lack of food and water, and had seen dogs shot within the City limits.  She had also seen horribly malnourished kittens and adult cats running around because of owners not knowing about spaying and neutering pets.  Ms. Coble stated her level of concern in the pet kingdom food chain was very basic and did not know about the exotic animal sales because she was dealing too much with what people think of the average, every day pet.  She said there was a direct link between the maltreatment and lack of understanding of how to treat animals as pets, and people not knowing how to parent children and the relationship between abuse and other situations that go on.  She said she did not mean to be unkind to those who are concerned about horrible occurrences in the lives of exotic animals, which are now being sold as pets, but felt there were too many everyday horrors with the run-of-the-mill dogs and cats.  She said we did not have a very good system for investigating the treatment of these animals, educating people, or screening their ownership, so she did not have a problem with this proposed amendment.
    Mayor Hindman said he would vote in favor of it, but did not like it very much.  He agreed with Mr. Kruse in that they did not know enough about the issue.  He said one thing they could do was to try to have responsible dealers.
    B351-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  KRUSE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B352-96     Amending Chapter 5 of the City Code re: confinement of dogs.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Dr. Szewczyk said at the public hearing regarding the leash law, not a single person got up to talk about a problem they had with it.  He said leash laws sound like an infringement on rights, but after looking at it and reading different ordinances, he said Columbia was actually an extremely liberal town in terms of what they allow a dog owner to do.  He said when dogs generally bite people, it does not occur because someone is trespassing on another's property, but because somebody is out with their dog and think they have control of it.  He said there had been unanimous support for a leash law.  There had been some discussion regarding other cities that had "free-for-all areas" where a dog could be taken and allowed to run.  From a health standpoint, the Board felt a leash law was important and that it was not too restrictive.  The Board heard a lot of horror stories about people being on the MKT Trail and dogs have charged them.  Dr. Szewczyk stated one exception to consider was permitting a person that formally trains dogs to be allowed to keep these animals off of a leash while working with them.
    Mr. Harline asked if it would be reasonable to look for some sort of amendment where a person could certify their dog as well-trained and responds to voice command.  Dr. Szewczyk said that Dr. Rose, the veterinarian on the Board, wrote that paragraph and felt fairly comfortable with it.  There was no way to be really sure about any animal.
    Tom Witte, said he was shocked and dismayed about this ordinance being passed.  He said he was a dog owner and had an eleven year old lab that he likes to walk quite frequently at Twin Lakes.  He said one of the things he likes about taking his dog to that location was that the dog could run free, get exercise and stay physically healthy and active.  He had yet to observe anything like what had been described earlier, or any instances of a dog attacking another person, or even a dog attacking another dog.  He thought the ordinance, as is, requiring that the dog be obedient to either a command or on a leash was adequate enough.  He did not know why all dogs had to be penalized for the actions of what has to be a minority of animals.  Mr. Witte said he had not heard any statistics mentioned.  He said there were dogs that are responsive to voice command.  He felt the owners should have the responsibility for their dog and if anyone was penalized it should be the owner, not the dog.
    Mrs. Crockett said she was one of those statistics having been bitten twice by two of the friendliest dogs in the world.  She explained the circumstances and said there are people who are just afraid of dogs.  She did not feel that any pedestrian should be afraid to be on the streets because of dogs when these animals could be kept on leashes.
    Charles Ailor, 1212 Jake Lane, explained that he has a large dog and said it was very hard for a dog that size to remain in a confined area.  He said he also walks his dog at Twin Lakes.  Regarding the reference to a free-for-all area, he suggested that it be looked into.  He rarely saw people in the Twin Lakes area with their dogs.  He said the few that he had seen had been well mannered.
    Paul Albert, 2703 Parker, spoke in favor of a leash law.
    Ben Schwartz, 1324 Weaver Drive, owner of a yellow lab, said he met the Mayor a few times at Twin Lakes with his dog.  He said he rarely saw anyone at the Twin Lakes area early in the morning.  He thought the current ordinance allowed people to let their dogs exercise in a way as to not annoy other people.
    Mr. Janku noted that the effective date of the ordinance, if passed, would need to read May 1, 1997 instead of 1996.  He said they were anticipating a grace period.  Personally, he would like to see that there are some places where the animals could run.  He said that a grace period would allow time to work on something like that.  Mr. Beck said he thought they should have a full staff report on the issue.  Mr. Kruse said he thought the Parks and Recreation Department might want to think about parks or areas within parks that might be available for dogs to run.  Ms. Coble said all they were doing was making rule after rule of where a person could have a dog, where that would be and what would be allowed, when there are lots of places around the City where there are no problems, people have not been attacked by dogs, and people do keep their dogs under control.  She said if the ordinance passes, there would be a prescribed list that nobody could go beyond.  Mr. Kruse said he had also been attacked by different dogs in Columbia on a number of occasions that were supposedly under the voice control of their owners.  He said he also witnessed vicious attacks on the MKT Trail, as well as a couple of dog/bike accidents on the Trail because of the dogs not being on leashes.  He felt a leash law was important, but said he liked having some kind of opportunity for the dogs to run because it was necessary.
    Mr. Campbell said he was a 15 year veteran of walking dogs on public streets here.  During that time, he said his dog was always on a leash.  However, he learned to carry a club because often his dog would be attacked by other dogs while their owners were yelling at them to "stay".  He had been bitten twice on public streets when not walking a dog.  Mr. Campbell was in favor of having an area in which dogs could run, but thought it had to be clearly at the owner's risk.  He was in favor of more rules and regulations if they were to protect people.
    Mr. Harline said there was an awareness that they were, once again, trying to impose a regulation to restrict a type of behavior that can, in some cases, cause problems.  He said the problem itself is already regulated against; however, he said he understood the need to try to prevent these incidents from happening in the first place.  He said the crux of this argument was how much of a problem this is.  He said they were all aware that they could not regulate everything to make life perfectly safe and, by the same token, when one is walking down the street they should expect some safety in not being attacked by domesticated animals.  Since being on the Council, ordinances had been passed that required scooping up dog feces, regulated where a container of alcohol can be carried, where to skateboard, and a variety of other things.  He said the one comment he heard was regarding all of the crazy laws in the City and why this particular person never wants to live in the City.  Mr. Harline thought they needed to be more careful when they pass ordinances that benefit the public health.  He did not think we needed this ordinance, but if it did pass, thought a place for dogs to run was needed.
    Ms. Coble said she did not think this would change the bad behavior of just a few dogs.  She did not think it would be enforceable and would be something for an unhappy neighbor to use against someone.
    Mayor Hindman said he was also opposed to the ordinance because he felt it was unnecessary regulation.  He thought it was being regulated as well as it could be right now.  He pointed out that currently there is a leash law on the Katy Trail and yet there are still problems.  He said there is an existing ordinance that states a dog must either be on a leash or under voice command of the owner when it is off the owner's property.  He said when Mrs. Crockett was bitten it occurred on the owner's sidewalk so, in effect, this would not have done any good because the law does not apply on a person's property.  He did not see where this amendment would solve anything.  He said when Mr. Campbell was bitten, that dog was in violation of current regulation.  Anybody that has an inappropriately trained dog that is not really under voice control, that person is presently in violation and could be turned.  He said this would be unpopular with a lot of people and would be violated over and over again.  The revised ordinance would not accomplish anything that has not been already accomplished.  Mayor Hindman said he was in favor or having brochures in the pet shops to remind people what present rules are.  Mayor Hindman said the rules the Council passes were not really designed to be criminal enforcement laws, but to inform people what behavior is expected.  He said they were setting forth what they thought people needed to do to get along with each other.  He said if it did pass, the City needed to come up with areas where dogs area allowed to run free.  He agreed they could get the reputation of passing a lot of unnecessary regulations and they should not do that.
    Mr. Janku said he had somewhat initiated this amendment because a concern had been brought to him by a constituent who had a problem with her neighbor.  He said it involved someone who might not have been that responsible with their pet, which happened to be a rottweiler.  He said the lady had a young child and she was very much in fear of that child's safety.  Mr. Janku stated before this issue came up, many people assumed that Columbia had a leash law.  He said they were surprised to learn that we do not have one.  Because of public discussion, a lot of people who were not aware that the City did not have a leash law will no longer voluntarily cooperate.  He thought we would see more dogs without leashes.  Mr. Janku said there were certain areas with restrictions and he did not understand why other areas should not have similar types of protection.  He said he would vote in favor of the amendment, but agreed that the City, at times, came up with ordinances that seem to be unduly burdensome.  He was in favor of opening up areas for the animals to run at large.
    Mr. Campbell said he conducted an informal poll in his neighborhood and found that most of his neighbors were of the opinion that we did have a leash law at the present time.  He said if the amendment passed, he would make a motion that the staff, working with the Parks and Recreation Commission, examine and designate one or more places where animals can be allowed to roam with the owner's permission.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that B352-96 be amended per the amendment sheet and further that the effective date be amended to read May 1, 1997.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved by voice vote.
    B352-96, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

    Mr. Campbell asked the staff to prepare a report on an area where dogs could be allowed free range.  Mr. Janku asked that the report include areas throughout the community, and in order to increase the flexibility,  asked that they look at times of the day also.  He said there may be areas appropriate for free play for dogs early in the day or late in the day and asked that the report be as creative as possible.  It was decided the issue would be brought up at the end of the meeting.

B353-96     Amending Chapter 5 of the City Code re: vicious animals.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Darren Hellwege, 1610 Highridge Drive, spoke on behalf of the Board of Health.  He said the Board's ultimate goal was to identify a dangerous dog before, rather than after, an injury occurs.  He said this change would provide extra protection for residents from animals that may not actually be biting somebody, but are threatening or causing problems.  He said he personally talked with a lot of people who have been terrorized by animals who were not covered by the ordinance as it exists presently.
    Mayor Hindman asked what would happen when a dog is classified as vicious.  Mr. Hellwege said presently, and this amendment would not change it, the ordinance would provide for stricter regulation of how the animal is kept.  He said a regular three foot high fence that might be suitable for a lot of dogs, is not going to be the case in this instance.  He said it would have to be a covered pen sunk, into the ground, and several other types of regulations to keep a stronger hold on the animal.
    Mr. Campbell asked if a dog runs up to him once and growls at him, whether that would be considered a terrorizing manner.  Mr. Hellwege said if someone is approached by a dog in that manner, they should contact the Animal Control people and they would conduct an investigation to determine whether this was a dangerous animal.  He said what they were doing was broadening the definition of a vicious dog.  He said it would still be handled on a case by case basis following an investigation by the City.
    Mr. Janku understood that the requirement of special pens was already in place and that the change was for the expansion of the definition of vicious dogs.  He also understood this was not breed specific.  Mr. Hellwege said that was correct.  It had been determined early on that the Board should not approach it from that standpoint.
    Mr. Harline had a question about his dog that stays outside during the day on a chain.  He said the dog runs and barks at service people, but she is chained so she can not reach them.  He said he did not want to discourage that behavior because he expects her to do that when people come on his property.  He said they purchased her as a deterrent to make them feel safer at home, particularly if someone were to come in their home at night and she was there.  Mr. Hellwege said the intent was to protect people walking on public property.  He said if someone who is uninvited is coming through the window of another's house, he thought it was perfectly appropriate for the dog to go after that person.  He said they were dealing with someone walking past a property and having a dog lunge at them.  Mr. Harline said he did not understand how this would make things safer.
    Mayor Hindman asked if someone has a dog that barks and growls, whether it would have to be put in a fenced area with a top over it.  Mr. Hellwege said it was not their intention to outlaw barking or growling dogs.  He said they were referring to dogs approaching in a terrorizing manner.  Mayor Hindman asked what dogs would be placed in confined areas beyond what was already established.
    Mr. Campbell asked about the difference in enforcement.  Mr. Sanford explained that there are three Animal Control Officers.  He said a typical situation was that they would receive a complaint.  He said when a person is frightened, that is a perception on their part.  He said oftentimes Animal Control would canvass a neighborhood to see if there had been any other incidents, and try to get some history of what was going on.  He said if push comes to shove, they would take the word of the complaining party and that person would have to be prepared to be a witness in court.  He said Animal Control would advise the animal owner as to what the regulations are.  The owner would then have a choice, they would either comply or get a ticket.  He said if they were issued a summons, the judge would decide.  Generally speaking, Mr. Sanford said with the existing wording they have not had very many challenges to it.  He said it was usually a pretty strong case.  Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Sanford what he saw as differences between the existing number two and the new number three and possibly four.  Mr. Sanford saw it as a moderate strengthening, with number three and four being probably a little less overt than one and two.  However, he said that was just a matter of interpretation.  He said numbers one and two were probably more offensive acts than three and four.
    Mrs. Crockett asked what could be done about a situation about a neighbor who is afraid of the two pit bulls next door breaking their chains and attacking his wife.  Mr. Hellwege said the process Mr. Sanford outlined would be followed.  He said that might be a very specific example of something that would be covered under the ordinances.  He said if it was determined that the animals are a danger and declared a vicious dog, then the owner would have to undergo the changes in the pen.  He said that would probably give the neighbor a little more piece of mind.  Mayor Hindman said he felt that number two would cover that.  Mr. Hellwege said it very well may, but that was something that would be handled on a case by case basis.
    Mr. Janku asked if someone could be prosecuted for the conduct of their animal on their own property.  Mr. Sanford said they would do that, but the disposition would be up to the judge.  He said most of us do not live in places where nobody else ever goes.  He said that dogs are protective and territorial, but the unsuspecting person has to be protected.  Particularly, the child that just happens to be there.  He said if the dog has this disposition, he personally thought it needed extra control whether it is on the owner's property or not.
    Paul Albert, 2703 Parker, commented that chains snap and dogs get loose.
    Mr. Janku said he was concerned about numbers three and four, and in particular, three.  He said the language was vague.  He said the criminal code in Missouri had been redefined a few year's ago and uses terms like reasonable fear of immediate serious injury.  He said it was a pretty well-defined term in the law, but did not exactly know what the concept of terrorizing meant.  He thought they could do without it.  Mr. Janku said he was concerned about number four because he thought the standard was so high.  He said that serious physical injury meant physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death, or causes serious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body.  He thought that was a high burden to establish.  He suggested they strike the word serious and have it read reasonable fear of immediate physical injury.
    Mr. Campbell said he had some concerns about what was meant by a terrorizing manner.  He thought it would be a very vague thing to try to prove.  He thought it would open up even more neighbor conflict.
    Mr. Kruse said he did not think many people would go through the process just because they are upset with a neighbor.  He said they would do it because they  seriously feel there is a hazard to them or to others.
    Mr. Sanford pointed out that with the existing ordinance, they would have to show a pattern of behavior.  He said if either numbers three or four passes, they would not have to do that.  He said he would try to do that, but he could imagine situations where he would not want to do that.  He said he could think of situations where a dog would be so threatening and a person would be so frightened, even though no injury occurred and it would be the only time it ever happened, that they ought to take some action.  He did not want anyone to think they always have to show a pattern of behavior if either of the changes pass.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that B353-96 be amended by striking number three.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
    Regarding terrorizing, Mr. Hellwege explained how the Board had come across it.  He said when they talked about the revision of the ordinance, they studied the Kansas City, Missouri Animal Control ordinance and this was where it came from.  He did not think there would be significant objection from the Board to dropping this particular part of the ordinance.
    The motion to amend, made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mr. Kruse, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
 B353-96, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  HARLINE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B355-96     Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code to establish a policy to accept gifts of art.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the Council asked the Cultural Affairs Commission to submit a guideline for accepting gifts of art.
    Ms. Hills noted that the ordinance outlines what would have to be in a proposal if a person decided to donate a gift of art to the City.  She said this was found in Section 2.  She said it outlines the duties of the Office of Cultural Affairs to notify the Commission of the proposal, and also notify other departments if they are affected in any way.  She said that the rest of the ordinance outlines the criteria by which the Commission would judge the piece.  She said they had researched other cities to determine how to word the ordinance.
    Betty Cook Rottmann, 1200 Coats, a member of the Cultural Affairs Commission, explained that she was on the policy sub-committee that worked at length on preparing this.
    Mayor Hindman thanked Ms. Rottmann and the committee for all of their work.
    B355-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B360-96     Authorizing the acquisition of a piece of land behind the Daniel Boone Building.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this was a small tract of ground, 18' by 22', northeast of this building.  He said the City previously adopted a strategy of trying to negotiate the purchase of land in this half block as a part of an administration building complex for future use.  He said the purchase price was $6,000.
    B360-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B362-96     Calling for bids on the Sixth and Cherry parking structure.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck commented that a public hearing had already been held on this second major parking structure being built in the central business district in accordance with the Council's master plan for downtown parking.  The estimated cost was approximately $4.5 million to be paid for from parking utility funds.  He noted that the structure would provide 375 parking spaces.  He said they had looked at the setback situation and included a 9' 2" sidewalk on the east side of the structure.  Mr. Beck stated they looked at the landscaping area, laid out on the plan to be 8' wide, and were thinking about reducing it a bit.  He said because of some underground electrical facilities, it would have to be relocated to do that.  They were proposing to bid the plan as had originally talked about, an 8' planting strip on the east side of the structure and the north side would remain the same.  He said they were working with the Health Adventure Center on the west part of the block.  Mr. Beck said the City had talked to them about possibly reducing the landscaping strip so they would not need as much of the other half of the block.  He said they were still working on what the design was going to be.
    Mr. Janku said there was a lot of exciting redevelopment going on in that area in addition to the potential for the Health Adventure Center.  He was glad they could support it with this additional parking.   B362-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B368-96     Authorizing an agreement with Larkin Associates for engineering services re: Scott
                    Boulevard improvement project.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said the Council earlier approved legislation wherein the City and County would work together on this section of Scott Boulevard in southwest Columbia.  He said this ordinance would provide for the hiring of a firm to do the evaluation of the construction on that section of Scott Boulevard.  He said the City would pay 50% of the cost with the County paying the other 50%.  He said after receiving this preliminary report and if the Council decides to move forward with detailed plans and specifications, special action by the Council would be required.
    Mrs. Crockett asked why the feasibility study and the preliminary and final designs were all on one contract.  Mr. Patterson said typically they prepare a contract if a design memo is required to determine if we want to proceed with it in that manner.  He said they always give themselves a stop gap in case they decide not to proceed.  Mr. Patterson stated they could do this without expending the whole amount.  In a project of this size, not a large design project, it would be inefficient for them to change engineers between the feasibility and the actual design because there is interrelation of all the survey work.
    B368-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B369-96     Authorizing a right-of-use permit allowing the construction of sewer line at Lake of the
                    Woods Recreation Area.
    The bill was given second reading by the City Clerk.
    Mr. Janku asked if there was an existing lagoon on the golf course property.  Mr. Green said there was an on-site treatment plant they were going to do away with when construction of the sewer line is completed.  He said there were private lagoons just to the west of the golf course which also would be removed.
    Mr. Harline understood the work would take place between November 1 and March 1.  He asked if that would allow for enough time.  Mr. Green said they were not sure if the work would be done this year or next year.  He said it was based on when they get all of the agreements, rights of way, and easements taken care of.
    B369-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

    The following bills were given second reading and the resolution was read by the Clerk.

B349-96     Authorizing a contract with the Department of Health for family planning services and
                    appropriating funds.
B350-96     Authorizing an agreement with the Department of Health for nursing consultation services
                    and appropriating funds.
B357-96     Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B359-96     Authorizing land acquisition for the airport water main extension project.
B361-96     Calling for bids for street construction on Seventh Street from Wilkes Boulevard to
                    Hickman Avenue.
B363-96     Confirming the contract for improvements to Eastwood Drive from Sylvan Lane to Clark
B364-96     Confirming the contract for the Coats Street and Fairview Avenue improvement project.
B366-96     Accepting engineer's final report for the Air Carrier Apron Extension, Phase 2, project at
                    the airport.
B367-96     Accepting various easements and quit claim deeds.
B370-96     Granting a variance allowing a structure to encroach on sewer and utility easements.
R170-96     Setting a public hearing regarding construction of an 8-inch water main serving Arcadia
                    Subdivision, Plat 4.

    The bills were given third reading and the resolution read with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:   JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bills declared enacted and resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R171-96     Authorizing a petition for annexation of City-owned property south of the MKT parkway
                    and east of Scott Blvd.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said about 18 months ago the City purchased approximately 100 acres from Mr. Baurichter in the southwest part of the City as part of the Open Space Plan.  Recently, Mr. Beck said he was contacted by Mr. Baurichter regarding the possibility of annexing his remaining farm property.  To make the area contiguous with the City should Mr. Baurichter decide to go ahead, Mr. Beck said the City's property needed to be annexed because it lies between the remaining part of the farm and the City limits.  He said approval of this resolution would authorize the City Manager to initiate an annexation of City property.  Mr. Beck said he could contact Mr. Baurichter and if he agreed to go ahead with the annexation, both properties could possibly be annexed at the same time.
    The vote on R171-96 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R172-96     Approving the charter of the Oakland Manor Neighborhood Association.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said this request, as well as the following two, had been reviewed by the staff and found to be in accordance with our guidelines.
    As a resident of Oakland Manor, Mr. Janku said he was pleased to support this.  He pointed out that the white space between the two neighborhoods on the map was the greenbelt along Bear Creek.
    The vote on R172-96 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R173-96     Approving the charter of the Highland Park Neighborhood Association.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Ms. Coble questioned whether in the information provided to the staff, if there was any information about those not wanting to be in a particular neighborhood association by the boundaries submitted to the department.  Mr. Hancock said there sometimes was.  She asked if this particular application had any of those issues.  Mr. Hancock explained that Smithton Valley surrounds this neighborhood.  He did not think there was animus or anything of that sort, but rather they saw themselves as having different issues to address.
    Lester Reschley, 1011 London Drive, said there were people who were members of both groups.  He said Highland Park had discussed a neighborhood association since he had been there, but had not taken an active move to become organized and recognized.  He said with Smithton enlarging and encompassing the area they were in, action was probably prompted to occur.  He said there were no disagreements with Smithton, but their issues were just different from each other.  He said they had several meetings and would enjoy working with them.  They had no objections to people joining both groups if they wanted to.
    Mr. Janku asked about the commercial area along I-70 Drive SW.  Mr. Reschley said he didn't know that either group needed that as their boundary.  Mr. Janku said the only problem he could see would be if there was a rezoning and staff has to notify people.  Mr. Reschley said the staff could notify both groups.  Mr. Hancock said they notify everyone within a mile anyway.
    Mr. Harline said he thought it was great that more and more neighborhoods were getting involved.  He said it was good for the City because it helps us communicate with our citizens, and for them to communicate with us.  He stated these two neighborhoods would be affected by changes similarly and would have to work together, which would be beneficial for them to do so.
    The vote on R173-96 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R174-96     Amending the by-laws and redrawing the boundaries of the Smithton Valley
                    Neighborhood Association.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Verna Harris-Laboy, 611 W. Worley, President of the Smithton Valley Neighborhood Association, said they would be there for support of the Highland Park neighbors if the need arises.  She noted that their treasurer was a member of both associations.  Ms. Harris-Laboy said it was exciting if their joining encouraged the other group to get together.  She felt they had done a good job.
    Mr. Harline said he was glad to see neighborhood associations with both commercial and residential zoning.  He said when they work together as a community with both aspects it provides for more opportunities.
    The vote on R174-96 recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R175-96     Authorizing an amendment to an agreement with the Museum of Art and Archaeology.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this would expand our agreement by two years.
    The vote on R175-96 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R176-96     Appointing Penny St. Romaine as City Clerk.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Comments were called for with none received.
    The vote on R176-96 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R177-96     Authorizing a four-party agreement for the installation of floor drains in the Tenth &
                    Cherry parking garage.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said he understood this would correct the drainage problem in this garage.
    The vote on R177-96 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R178-96     Terminating the lease of the Bear Creek lagoon site to the Columbia Soccer Club.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that in 1994 we were approached by the Columbia Soccer Club about leasing the abandoned Bear Creek lagoon site to put in some soccer fields.  Since that point in time, the Soccer Club has been developing a large athletic field area just north of the Columbia City limits so they no longer plan to develop this site as a soccer field.  He said this resolution would terminate that lease.
    Mr. Janku understood this area would now be under the control of the Parks and Recreation Department because there are people misusing the area.  He said it was important that they have management of the property.  He was hoping it could be dedicated to Parks and Recreation as part of the Open Space Plan.  Mr. Janku said this site may be appropriate as a free range area for dog uses as mentioned earlier.
    Mr. Beck said their plan was to bring to the Council legislation that assigns this property to a department.
    The vote on R178-96 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

    The following bills were introduced by the Mayor, unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:

B371-96     Approving the final plat of Spencer's Crest, Plat 3.
B372-96     Approving the final plat of Hunt Manor, Plat 1.
B373-96     Approving the final plat of Katy Lake Estates, Plat 2-D.
B374-96     Granting a variance regarding sidewalk construction along the west side of Rollins Court,
                     north of Rollins Road.
B375-96     Approving the O-P development plan of Boone County Teacher's Credit Union.
B376-96     Vacating a waterline easement across Lot 4 of Spencer's Crest, Plat 1.
B377-96     Appropriating funds for 1997 water and electric capital improvements.
B378-96     Appropriating funds for power plant landscaping project.
B379-96     Authorizing an extension of an existing agreement with Union Electric for power
B380-96     Authorizing payment of differential costs for a 12-inch water main to serve Arcadia
                    Subdivision, Plat 4; and appropriating funds.
B381-96     Accepting a conveyance; engineer's report; authorizing payment of differential costs for a
                    12-inch water main on Smiley Lane; authorizing payment of differential costs for an 8-inch
                    main; and appropriating funds.
B382-96     Authorizing Change Order No. 1 and accepting engineer's final report for the South
                     Providence landscaping project.
B383-96     Confirming the contract for sidewalk construction along portions of Providence Road,
                     Arbor Drive, Arbor Court, Woodridge Court and Cedar Lane.
B384-96     Amending the speed limit on Brown Station Road from its intersection with Route B to
                    north of Rutledge Drive.

(A)     Administrative Plat Approval
    Mr. Beck explained that this was regarding plats being proposed in south central Columbia.
    Mr. Patterson said he did not think this was necessarily a problem, but said they were in the process of discussing changes to the administrative plat process.  He said this plat is in the middle and out of concern for the platting of properties where additional signs can be placed similar to what was established in the past.  Mr. Patterson met with the developer and the attorney representing the developer and said they were agreeable to a plat process where it would come back to the Council.  However, there were some unavoidable delays and they were not able to get the platting at the time they met their financial needs.  The developer agreed to voluntarily restrict the placement of signs on the stems that have been created by this plat.  Mr. Patterson said the plat was legal at this time and there was really no reason to turn it down, but wanted the Council to be aware of the efforts that had been made to try to avoid the problems experienced on Clark Lane.
    Mr. Janku said he appreciated the staff's efforts on this and the follow through on what had been discussed.  He asked if anyone knew about the purpose of the stem.  Mr. Patterson said it could not be sold off as a legal lot unless it has street access, and there may be some other ramifications he was not aware of.  He said the attorney for the developer was present to answer any questions.
    David Rogers, an attorney with offices at 813 E. Walnut, spoke on behalf of the Barkley General Partnership and John Peters.  He said there was one slight misstatement in Mr. Patterson's memo to the Council in that a couple of the stems are actually functional and serve as drives for the lot in question.  He said the two 27-foot stems that come off the outer road for Providence provide a driveway.  He said this was an intensely commercial area and was zoned C-3.  He said as the buildings are being developed, he thought the area was approximately half full and some of the lots were going to be sold off.  Mr. Rogers reported that under state law and city ordinances, you must be on a legal lot to affect a sale.  In addition, a legal lot requires frontage on a public street.  He said all of the lots, including the stems, are served by the rather large commercial street that runs through the area and have frontage on it.  However, he said this land remains private property and, therefore, the lots could not be sold off.  Mr. Rogers said that was why they were here.  He said this could not be compared to the Clark Lane situation where the stem was created exclusively to comply with the ordinance to allow a sign on Highway 70.  He said the additional buildings would be served with signage very similar to what is there now, which is considerably less in both height and area.  The signs are 12-foot high and merely identify the businesses within a particular building.  Mr. Rogers said as a show of good faith to ensure the only reason the developers were coming forward was to obtain access to the public street, a voluntary condition was placed on the plat indicating that no signs would be permitted on any of the stem lots.  He said it was their intention to do that.  The stems would either be used for drive purposes, or in the case of lot 59, to connect to the public street so it could, in fact, be conveyed.   He said this meets all of the requirements of an administrative plat; however, because this legislation is presently in flux, they wanted to at least meet the spirit of what they thought the amendments would be.
    Mayor Hindman asked why the commercial street was private.  Mr. Rogers said he thought it was because it was entirely within a contained commercial area, and it does not have the setbacks that in some cases would otherwise be required for a public street.  He said he did not think it would be a desirable objective to prevent that kind of situation.  He said when dealing with residential property, some of the stem and tier lots warranted a certain obligation to protect the public who may not exactly know what they are getting into.  He said people who are paying anywhere from $3 to $10 a square foot for land, pretty much protect themselves.  Mr. Rogers stated there would not be any surprises as to the boundaries of these lots.
    Mr. Kruse assumed there were no sidewalks on these streets because they are private.  Mr. Rogers said that was correct, but there was only one private street.  Mr. Kruse said it was the newest one.
    Mr. Janku said he would like to see a way to encourage pedestrian access to commercial areas through signage or something similar.  He said in this case it was obviously automobile, but wondered if there was some way to create something to allow for pedestrian access in the future.
    Mr. Campbell said he has a problem with stem lots.  He questioned what kind of problems were being created for future Councils when someone wants to change something that requires Council action and this gerrymandered kind of lot development exists.  He said he could not support this.
    Mr. Harline said he understood Mr. Campbell's concern, but in this case, he said one can build multiple buildings on a single commercial lot.  When the property owner wants to transfer that lot separately to allow for a building on one lot, street access would have to be obtained to make it a legal lot.  Mr. Campbell said that was true, but the requirement that it be on a street was not something that was just initiated.  He said that was known when the street was laid out.  Good planning on the part of the developer should have anticipated the need for having that kind of a development.  In this case, Mr. Harline thought it was a practical concern and said he thought it was acceptable.
    Mr. Kruse said he thought it was probably justified too, although, he said this was probably one of the more poorly planned commercial developments he had ever seen.
    Mr. Janku said there was clearly enough space for access by public safety vehicles through the private streets.  Mr. Patterson said they had no provisions under administrative platting for doing that.  He said the only question was whether to approve or disapprove the administrative replat.  Mr. Janku said the tier lot access was the concern that frequently has arisen.  Mr. Patterson said they really did not have anything to give them direction in the ordinance.
    Mayor Hindman said he thought they needed to approve the plat although there was something wrong somewhere to end up with a private street that allows for no sidewalks, and minimum setbacks with gerrymandered lots.  He said it was an administrative action that was created through present ordinances and would have to be accepted at this time, but it might be worth trying to figure out how this situation was arrived at.
    Mr. Campbell said he thought the developers were trying to have the best of both situations.

(B)     HTE Computer Report
    Mr. Beck said this report was regarding studies undertaken by the staff relating to projecting computer needs for the next three, five, and ten years.  There was also an evaluation conducted of the existing system versus a new system.  He said this report had been discussed at the pre-Council dinner earlier in the evening.  Mr. Beck stated that at the end of the report, staff included three alternatives for the Council to consider.  The first recommendation was the staff proceeding with signing the contract.  The second was to refer the report to a meeting with the Computer Advisory Committee and proceed with purchase subject to the concurrence of the Committee.  The third was to refer the report to a meeting of the Computer Advisory Committee for their review and report back to the Council.  Mr. Beck suggested to the Council that they consider number two, unless the Council had questions in addition to what had been answered earlier.  Mr. Beck said they would like to meet a deadline of contracting in January.  To do this they would need to have a timely meeting so they could move forward with the project.  The staff's recommendation was to move forward with HTE.  He said earlier in the evening a question was raised regarding department involvement.  Mr. Beck stressed that all of the various departments had been involved in the evaluation, which included the directors and department users.  He said there had been some field trips to evaluate how well the system works in other cities.  He said all of the reports had been positive and that it seemed to be the most cost effective way for the City to move forward.  Mr. Beck said the money had been appropriated and it looked like the purchase could be made within the budget.  He said normally this would be an administrative procedure, but because of its significance, Mr. Beck said he felt the Council and the Committee should be involved in the process.
    Mayor Hindman said he had been very impressed by what they had heard earlier this evening.  He said the staff had obviously worked very hard and thoroughly on analyzing the issue.  He said staff had contacted numerous vendors regarding HTE.   Lori Fleming, Finance Director, said that she and Ray Pope, the Information Services Director, had, over the past year, coordinated an effort on the part of City staff to review the status of the computer systems.  This was mainly to examine how it relates to present financial systems, and to decide what would be the best alternative to proceed.  Upon their review, she said they discovered that the City may not be operating efficiently due to the number of separate systems operating that require reports to be manually posted into the base general ledger system.  In addition, and probably most importantly, she said many of our packages will not be functional during the year 2000.  She said we need to plan ahead and develop an alternative to proceed that will help the City meet the year 2000.  Ms. Fleming said they had gone through a very long request for proposal process.  A list of over 300 vendors were contacted and over 100 request for proposals were sent out.  Three responses were received and these vendors were brought in and asked to give detailed demonstrations.  She said each vendor was given two days to make their presentation.  She said HTE seemed to be the most comprehensive and integrated solution.  Ms. Fleming explained that HTE is a software firm that has been in business for 15 years and works exclusively with governmental clients.  She said they were in the business of developing software for governments.  This was seen as a big advantage as this company would understand the needs of government.  In evaluating the cost of HTE's proposal, Ms. Fleming said it was determined that the City would be able to reduce operating costs from the present mainframe system to the new system by about $180,000 annually.  They were proposing to use that cost savings to make payments on the lease purchase of this package.  The committee evaluated what it would take to upgrade the existing system.  The approximate five year cost of upgrading the present system compared to the proposal was over $1 million more.  Ms. Fleming said they believed this was the most effective solution that could be obtained.  The goal is to implement the system this fiscal year and if that is accomplished, approximately $100,000 could be saved on existing software maintenance costs.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that they proceed with alternative number two which would refer the report to the Computer Advisory Committee and authorize the staff to proceed with the purchase subject to concurrence of the Committee.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Harline and approved unanimously by voice vote.


    Mr. Harline commented that Ms. Coble mentioned that the neighborhood associations had been discussing the idea of having a neighborhood convention.
    Mr. Harline made the motion that staff be directed to provide assistance in helping organize such a neighborhood convention tentatively scheduled for sometime in February.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Kruse said he had been at a meeting recently where he heard a report from a representative from the Missouri Department of Transportation regarding the implementation of control on outdoor advertising on the national highway system roads.  Specifically, this would include part of Providence Road and all of Stadium Boulevard.  He said Mr. Boeckmann had also attended the meeting.  They discussed the report and felt the City probably needed to move ahead with some amendments to the present ordinance.
    Mr. Kruse made the motion that the staff be directed to draft an ordinance that would control billboards on Providence Road and Stadium Boulevard, and refer it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and report.  The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Campbell noted that they all received a letter from Andy Tribble concerning the St. Francis House.  He asked that it be made part of the record.  (Letter has been filed with Reports A and B of this meeting)
    Mr. Campbell said the Council received an excellent report on day care centers.  He thanked Mr. Steinhaus for preparing it.
    Mr. Campbell asked that the staff be directed to prepare an ordinance that would bring the City's ordinances into compliance with the state ordinances, except for four issues (Numbers 4, 5, and 6 on the listing under attachment C).  He further motioned that a number 14 be added to read that privacy fence be constructed between the day care center and adjacent residential areas unless agreed in writing by abutting neighborhoods not to have such a fence.
    Mr. Janku said there has been a lot of discussion in many cities across the country about telecommunication towers being constructed to meet the growing need for various communication devices.  Under the present law, such towers could not be prohibited because they were necessary, but said there were options communities could develop in terms of regulating them.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be directed to work with the Planning and Zoning Commission to come back with any appropriate recommendations for Columbia.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
    Mr. Kruse said this subject was also discussed at the meeting he attended.  He said there were a couple of model ordinances that Mr. Boeckmann probably had copies of.  He suggested that they be sent along with the request to the Commission.
    The motion made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mr. Kruse, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Janku said the League of American Bicyclists has certain standards that a community may meet to be designated as a Bicycle Friendly Community.  He asked that the staff check into whether or not that was something the City of Columbia could apply for.
    Mr. Campbell asked the staff to report on the possibility of having one or more areas where dogs could roam freely.
    Paul Albert, 2703 Parker, talked about the need for restraining vicious dogs.
    Sam Karl, 1404 Gary, spoke on behalf of Citizens for Sustainable Resource Use.  He said in 1992, at the suggestion of the Solid Waste Task Force, the City Council passed an ordinance to encourage the consideration of products with recycled content when purchases were being made by the City.  He said that requests for such products were department driven and he was told that Purchasing seldom has the time to inform the departments about recycled content alternatives.  In examining this problem and several other environmental efforts, Mr. Karl said this group was suggesting that a volunteer employee committee be formed, similar to a task force.  He said it should be chaired by an Assistant City Manager and would have some citizen participants.  He said such a committee would steer City departments towards goals of more energy efficiency, waste minimization, and consideration of products with recycled content.  He said the committee could also consider City vehicle fuel.
    Ms. Coble asked about the process of establishing a committee.  Mr. Beck said he would invite comments for the citizen committee to pass along to the departments, which is presently done, but said he did not think the Council would want to enter into the type of mix that was being suggested.  He said he thought the citizen committee should make recommendations to the Council, and then the Council could direct the staff.  Ms. Coble said some of the comments were that there are City staff members who would know of ways to look at conserving energy or some alternatives.  She said that was something very distinct from policy making groups like Energy & Environment.  Mr. Karl said a task force within the City might be more effective.  He said Purchasing knows about products that are available and practices may be known in Water & Light that are not applied.  He said citizens could only do so much and usually that is seen as unprofessional and unsubstantiated.
    Mr. Beck said there was a process where a committee makes a recommendation to the Council, the Council asks for a staff report back on it, and they review the staff's report against the citizens committee.  He suggested maybe they, the Energy & Environment Commission for example, and this committee could meet.  Mr. Beck said after the process is followed and if the Council wants to make a recommendation, it was their option.
    Ms. Coble asked Mr. Karl what his suggestion was.  Mr. Karl said the suggestion was to try to get employee volunteers, see how many there were, then make a committee out of that.  He suggested that an Assistant City Manager chair the committee so it would have the attention of Department Heads.  Mr. Karl said then a citizen could be appointed so this person could report back to the Council as to whether or not the committee was working.
    On behalf of the City staff, Mr. Beck thanked Lee Daniel, the retiring City Clerk.  He said she had done an outstanding job over a period of 22 years.  He presented her with her nameplate.
    The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
                                                                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                             Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                             City Clerk