The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, January 6, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, and CROCKETT were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of December 16, 1996, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Ms. Coble and a second by Mr. Campbell.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
Mayor Hindman noted that R7-97 would be added under New Business.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Kruse and a second by Mr. Harline.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
B389-96 Approving the preliminary residential manufactured home development plan of Richland
Heights, Phase 2.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman noted that the applicant requested that this item be tabled to the first meeting in February due to health reasons.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that B389-96 be tabled to the February 3, 1997 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.
Because this was an advertised public hearing, Mayor Hindman asked for any comments before tabling the issue. There were no comments.
The vote to table B389-96, made by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
payment of differential costs for a 12-inch water main serving Corporate
Plat 12, and appropriating funds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this was in accordance with a Council policy previously approved. The staff was recommending approval of the $8,000 appropriation to pay for the extra sized, larger pipe.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B398-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B385-96 Approving the final plat of Sidra East Subdivision.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck reported that this tract of land was located in northeast Columbia and explained that it would create three R-3 lots, two of which would be tier lots. Because the submission was for tier lots, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial because they felt the request was not in accordance with the intent of a tier lot.
Mayor Hindman commented that he had been impressed by the work done by the Commission and said he thought they had made the proper recommendation.
B385-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. Bill defeated.
Chapter 11 of the City Code regarding smoking in public places.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this amendment had been prepared at the request of a Council person and explained that it would amend the ordinance to allow smoking in any area of a restaurant where musicians are performing after 9:00 p.m.
Ken Smith, 602 Jackson Street, spoke in opposition to smoking in public places. As a non-smoker, Mr. Smith said he felt the Council should look at the needs of non-smokers. He said there were no places he knew of where one could go publicly and not be around smoke. He said he likes to bowl, but that is almost prohibitive because of the smoke in the bowling alleys. Mr. Smith thought this amendment was probably for one particular location - Murry's, but said he was opposed to smoking in public places whether it be Murry's, bowling alleys, or other establishments.
Sue Dabney, 9642 South Route N, pointed out that restaurants in Columbia continue to serve as restaurants after 9:00 p.m. She said she sent the Council a copy of a quick phone survey she did regarding restaurants and how late they serve dinner. She noted that all 18 restaurants she surveyed served dinner after 9:00 p.m. -- Murry's until midnight, six nights per week. She said as a non-smoker, that meant she would not have the option of eating dinner after 9:00 p.m. in a smoke-free area. Her second concern was with the State's Clean Indoor Air ordinance. She said this ordinance requires a non-smoking area in any restaurant with 50 or more seats. She wondered how this amendment would not be in conflict with the State's ordinance.
Mr. Boeckmann explained that restaurants would still be subject to the requirements of the State Clean Air Act. He thought that 30% of the dining area was the maximum a restaurant could have for smoking customers. He pointed out that Murry's and every other restaurant in town has to comply with both the City ordinances as well as with the State Statute. He said this proposed ordinance amendment would create an exemption for any area of a restaurant where musicians are performing after 9:00 p.m and before 1:30 a.m. He said the restaurant would still have to comply with State regulations -- utilizing no more than 30% of the restaurant area designated for smoking. Mr. Boeckmann said each restaurant, depending upon their particular configuration, would still have to comply with the State Statute and designate no more than 30% of the dining area for smoking, and these designated smoking areas would presumably be where the musicians are playing.
Mr. Campbell asked if the State Statute required that a patron cannot be forced to go through a smoking area to get to a non-smoking area. Mr. Boeckmann said the City's ordinance has a provision like that, but he did not believe the State Statute did. Ms. Coble said that was what precipitated the proposed smoking amendment. Previously, the smoking ordinance required that a person could not walk through a smoking section to get to a non-smoking section. She said that was not enforced. When the law was strengthened, the ordinance was then enforced universally throughout the City. She said that was what the City was trying to deal with -- penalizing an establishment that is not just solely a restaurant, but also a bonafide place of entertainment. She said this type of entertainment is very often patronized by people who choose to use tobacco.
Elizabeth Henderson, 4605 Millbrook Drive, said she was a non-smoker along with 75% of the people in the United States and she was opposed to the proposed amendment. She said Columbia was very progressive relating to smoking and that passing this amendment would be a step backwards. She asked the Council to continue taking steps toward clean indoor air.
Alice Turner, 2194 E. Bearfield, said that her son had been taught in school that smoking was not a good thing and when he sees smoking in restaurants he gets a mixed message. Ms. Turner said she was speaking on behalf of a friend tonight, a jazz musician, who was not able to come to the meeting. She had been asked to remind the Council that people that work in these restaurants, the musicians and the restaurant staff, were affronted with a lot of smoke -- without much choice.
Laura Crisman, 15 Burnham Road, spoke in opposition to the ordinance because she is asthmatic. She was disturbed that people were more concerned with a person's choice to smoke than they were with her health or her right to breathe. She found it hard to imagine that the Council would consider changing the ordinance for one business.
Jim Davis, 9642 S. Route N, 46, said he had done quite a bit of survey research on the hazards of second hand tobacco smoke. He said he did some research asking people what they preferred in terms of a smoke-free environment. He said there was a very small percent (approximately 5%) that thought all areas should be open to smoking. Approximately 70% of those surveyed thought smoking areas should be provided, and the rest thought smoking should be banned entirely. Looking at the issue in mass, the vast majority of people think that smoking should be restricted at some level. He also did some research on how annoying smoking was, and to the non-smoker it was very annoying.
Lloyd Harmon, 1906 Iris Drive, also spoke in opposition. Being retired, Mr. Harmon said he travels quite a bit and that it was very nice to be able to go into a restaurant and not have someone blow smoke in his face. He said it was also nice to go to the Mall to walk and not have to worry about smoke.
Mr. Janku asked if the area where musicians perform becomes a smoking area at 9:00 p.m., whether the area previously designated for smoking would become the non-smoking area to balance things out. Mr. Boeckmann said that would be up to the business owner. He said it seemed awkward to be changing areas that are smoking and non-smoking, but guessed it would not be impossible.
Mr. Harline asked if Murry's wanted to stop serving food after 9:00 p.m., whether a claim could be made that they were no longer a restaurant. Mr. Boeckmann said that would not work under the State Statute. He said once an establishment is classified as a restaurant, it is always a restaurant. Mr. Boeckmann said it probably would not work under City ordinances either. Mr. Harline said he remembered when the Council discussed bowling alleys, there were sections of those establishments that were designated as a restaurant. Mr. Sanford said that had been a question asked early on. Previously, some restaurants that served alcoholic beverages tried to circumvent the ordinance by saying that because alcoholic beverages were served throughout the establishment, the entire establishment should be classified as a bar and, therefore, were exempt from the ordinance. He said the City did not interpret the ordinance to mean that. He said if Murry's stopped serving food and became a bar entirely, at that point they probably would be exempt from the ordinance.
Mr. Kruse asked about the provisions for bowling alleys. Mr. Sanford explained that the ordinance prohibits smoking in the lower concourse, where bowling is actually occurring, but it does allow smoking in other areas except when youth leagues are predominantly in attendance.
Mr. Kruse agreed with the comments about Columbia being progressive on this as well as other issues. He said he was proud to be a non-smoker and really appreciated having the opportunity to go to a restaurant and eat in a non-smoking area. On the other hand, Columbia was also known for its flexibility and the fact that the City tries to, carefully and thoughtfully, take all points of view into account. He said that was the genesis behind where he was coming from on this issue. He said the proposed change was requested by a particular restaurant, but theoretically any restaurant, depending on its physical configuration, could have similar issues with it. Mr. Kruse said he would like to think about the issue further. He suggested that the amendment be revised to read that an exception could be made for that section of a restaurant in close proximity to where musicians are performing after 9:00 p.m. and before 1:30 a.m., provided that reasonable non-smoking accommodations continue to be available, or that the Missouri Clean Indoor Air Act be complied with. In other words, there would still be some area that would be non-smoking. One of the concerns he heard was that if a restaurant continues to serve food after 9:00 p.m. and also has live music, the smoking ordinance would not have to apply if they chose for it not to. He said people who continue to eat would not have non-smoking accommodations. However, under State law restaurants would still be required to have non-smoking areas.
Mr. Janku said he thought the idea of changing an area from non-smoking to smoking while people are eating was non-workable. Ms. Coble said there was still the option of taking out the requirement that a person should not be forced to walk through a smoking section to get to non-smoking. Mr. Janku agreed. He said if that was the problem, this should be the issue addressed. Mr. Kruse said he thought the problem was more than just walking through a smoking area to get to a non-smoking area.
There was a discussion about tabling the issue. It was decided that they had heard from the public this evening and that the amendment was probably not workable.
B390-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE. VOTING NO: CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. Bill defeated.
Chapter 13 of the City Code regarding alarm system reporting requirements.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this would change the penalty provision of the ordinance where questions have been raised about who is ultimately responsible for reporting alarm systems.
Prior to the adoption of the existing ordinance, Mr. Sanford said there were two problems associated with false alarms. One was the well-publicized issue of the unnecessary time spent by Fire and Police personnel responding to these calls, and the dangers they and citizens were subjected to as a result. He said the other problem, that did not get as much attention, was that prior to the adoption of the ordinance there was no provisions for persons with alarms to provide information to the Joint Communications Center. If the information was provided and an alarm condition resulted, City forces would know who to call about the problem. Because staff did not know the frequency an alarm at a business or residence would go off, police or fire would respond and have to stay literally for several hours while trying to find someone who was in charge of the alarm system. Mr. Sanford said staff tried to address this problem with the ordinance the Council adopted, but unfortunately there was not a penalty associated for failing to report that information to Joint Communications. He said this would clarify that situation and would establish a penalty. He said it was not a major change in the intent of the law.
Mr. Harline asked about the potential fine. Mr. Boeckmann said he thought this would fall under the general ordinance violation which was a fine of up to $500.00, although that was substantially more than what would most likely be imposed.
Mr. Campbell said when the ordinance was passed, Council was to get a report back within a year. He asked when the year would end. Mr. Sanford replied that he thought that would be March or April.
Mayor Hindman asked if ultimately the violator would be the alarm owner. Mr. Sanford said that was correct. According to the amendment, the ultimate responsibility would be with the alarm owner; however, an alarm service company could do the reporting if they opted to do it.
Mr. Campbell asked if the systems were leased or purchased. Mr. Sanford said there were a variety of them. He said many are actually owned by the place of business and they pay a monthly service fee to an alarm monitoring agency. He said that was the most typical situation, but other times the alarm service agency would rent or lease the equipment as well. Mr. Campbell asked how people would know they have to do report alarm systems. He asked if there was some sort of list. Mr. Sanford said that was the problem. A list could not be developed because there was no registration -- no way for them to report. He said they noticed when warnings were sent, there had been some complaints that the business owners did not know about the registration. As a practical matter, Mr. Sanford was recommending that staff issue a courtesy notice of a violation before sending information to the Prosecutor. In discussing this with the City Counselor, Mr. Sanford said they decided it would probably be prudent not to include that in the ordinance because it would give another defense in the event they had to prosecute. He said staff would not object to a policy of giving a two week warning or something of that nature.
Mr. Janku suggested delaying the effective date in order to give staff time to get the information out. Mr. Sanford said he had no problem with that, but he did not know that everyone would get the word.
Mayor Hindman said he thought there would be a number of situations where people would find that they had innocently violated the ordinance. He thought the policy of the warning letter would be a good one.
Mrs. Crockett asked if there had been a reduction in the number of false alarms since they passed the ordinance. Mr. Sanford said they had the statistics, but he did not think the ordinance had been in effect long enough to measure it.
B391-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
Chapter 22 of the City Code to clarify refuse billing rates for apartments.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson said this report indicated that a citizen brought to their attention that there was an oversight in billing and some apartment units were being improperly charged. The City was charging the residential rate of $8.65 per month for those units requesting that bags be delivered. He said this was a practice that had been in our ordinances prior to changes several years ago. He said when the changes were made, the account billings simply were not updated. Other apartments in the City do not receive individual bags and are charged $7.90 per month for individual units. Those being billed on one account were apartment managers responsible for the entire bill. These customers were being billed at $7.65 per month. Mr. Patterson said what they were presenting tonight was for the City Council to make the practice that is currently underway legal. Options available include customers receiving bags at the regular residential rate, or the current ordinance would be properly enforced. He said that would mean going back and notifying the more than 900 customers that the City would be discontinuing delivery of bags and dropping their rate to $7.90. He said this was not an issue that has a significant impact either way on the solid waste utility, but since it was brought to their attention, Mr. Patterson felt it was important for them to address it. He pointed out that staff felt it would not be appropriate to try to reimburse customers if the change was not adopted because the City had been providing trash bags valued at an equivalent amount to what had been paid.
Mr. Harline pointed out that if everyone with dumpster services consistently paid $7.90 and someone still wanted City trash bags, they could still be purchased from grocery stores. Mr. Patterson said that was correct. Mr. Patterson said in the report, staff indicated that if Council chose not to pass the amendment, the apartment complex would still have the option of purchasing bags and providing them to their tenants. There were two things staff did not want to get involved in; reimbursement and allowing options within an apartment complex.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, explained that he was the person that raised the inquiry. He understood City policy to be either bags or a dumpster. In his case, Mr. Lane said he was getting both and he did not need two trash receptacles. He said the number of people being overcharged, like he was, was not really known because a study had not been done. Mr. Lane pointed out that there were 6,261 apartments units that are currently being billed at the correct rate -- at either $7.65 or $7.90. He said if the ordinance passes, these people will be subject to a rate increase of up to $8.65 at the discretion of their landlord. Mr. Lane said he had two basic problems with the amendment. The first being that the ordinance does not set out a procedure for landlords to be removed from the program. He said all it provides for is putting in an application to join the program. The landlord has little incentive to do anything because he is not financially involved. In the meantime, Mr. Lane said he would be paying for bags he does not need. His second concern was that a fee increase would be authorized by passage of the ordinance. He said the City Manager, in his budget message, stated that there would be no utility rate increases in fiscal year 1997. He said if this passed, there would be a rate increase and understood there was another fee increase to be discussed at the next meeting on another matter. He said he would like to see the City follow through on holding the line on fee increases as far as utilities are concerned for this fiscal year.
Mr. Beck said it had been implied that there would be two rate increases. He said he assumed Mr. Lane was referring to the Water and Light ballot issue where staff would be proposing a rate increase for the water utility. This was indicated in the budget message. He said if this particular issue was interpreted as a rate increase, he was sure the Public Work's Director had not intended for it to be. He said this was something a landlord would be charging their tenants.
Mr. Janku asked if a landlord could change his mind about receiving trash bags. Mr. Patterson said they can do that, but not for individual apartments. The entire complex has to be one way or the other. Mr. Janku asked if there was any difference in sanitation where people have the bags provided. He said some people who did not have the plastic bags could possibly elect to carry out their trash in paper bags. He said it was conceivable that there might be more debris. Mr. Patterson said if the dumpsters were overflowing, plastic bags were more weather resistant than cardboard cartons and paper bags. He corrected an earlier statement by the speaker regarding the number affected being uncertain. He said there were 1,098 as of today. Mr. Patterson said staff presented a report in November, but a month from now that number would change because Columbia is a transient community and the numbers change periodically. He said they were not talking about a magnitude of 10% or more that changes.
Mr. Campbell said he thought if people were getting a dumpster, they did not need plastic bags. As far as the health is concerned, he noted that there are many commercial accounts in Columbia that have dumpsters and the City does not require plastic bags. He thought the property owners should be told that if they have an apartment and are obtaining a dumpster, this is what will be charged.
Mr. Harline said there were probably some people that would be upset because they would no longer have City bags delivered to them. He said that option remains for anyone living in an apartment because they can go to any grocery store and buy City bags. He thought it was better to leave that option in the individual tenants hands. He said if the option was left to landlords, he thought there would be tenants who have an additional charge in bags and do not have an option of taking themselves off.
B392-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE. VOTING NO: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, JANKU, CROCKETT. Bill defeated.
funds for repairs to locomotive wheels.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this would appropriate $12,000 for repair of locomotive wheels on the COLT short line Railroad. He said from time to time it is inspected and he understood that the wheels had worn down to the point where they need to be upgraded. In the meantime, the City needs to lease a locomotive for about five days.
B396-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
a replat of Lot 12123 of The Highlands, Plat 12-A.
B387-96 Approving a replat of Lot 1234 of The Highlands, Plat 12-A.
B388-96 Approving the final plat of Alive In Christ.
B393-96 Confirming the contract for improvements to Richardson Street from Ripley Street to
B394-96 Accepting conveyances for various development projects.
B395-96 Accepting conveyances for water utility purposes.
B397-96 Appropriating funds for construction of a drainage ditch on the COLT right of way.
R1-97 Setting a public hearing regarding sidewalk construction on State Route 763 from Bear
Creek north 1,000 feet.
R2-97 Setting a public hearing regarding Westridge landscaping project.
R3-97 Setting a public hearing regarding differential payment for an 8-inch water main in Avalon,
R4-97 Setting a public hearing regarding installing lights at two soccer fields in Cosmo Park.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
R5-97 Approving the preliminary plat of Hanover Estates, Phase 2.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this approximate 10 acre tract of land would create eight R-3 lots. He said it had been unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Harline asked if the first six lots were essentially duplex lots. The response was yes. Mr. Harline asked if there had been a question about pedestrian access. Mayor Hindman responded that according to the minutes, staff suggested it but the developer said no. Mr. Harline asked if the developer had to provide it if the City asked for it. Ms. Coble said it was just a suggestion. Mayor Hindman said he would like to see a pedestrian pass through and added that if it were done right, it could go between two cul-de-sacs.
The vote on R5-97 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
The City's position on state and federal legislative issues.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that several weeks ago he sent a list to the Council on proposed legislative issues and it had been discussed at a work session. He said the changes made to the list were reflected in this report and resolution. He explained that it dealt primarily with state legislative issues, although there were a few federal legislative issues included on the list. With adoption of the resolution, Mr. Beck said his intent was to forward a copy of it to legislators and then work with our lobbyist and city staff throughout the session as each issue comes up.
Mayor Hindman asked if the City was taking the position that they were absolutely opposed to removing or increasing the limits on governmental liability. Being a lawyer, he said he would question that. Ms. Coble said that had come up last year. Mr. Beck said he thought there probably had been some misunderstanding as to what alternatives the City has with our insurance on liability. He said it had been evidenced most recently by the bus settlement.
The vote on R6-97 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
the City Manager to contract for remodeling and fire code compliance
the Daniel Boone Building.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said staff was getting closer to begin bidding some of the work. He said this would authorize the Purchasing Agent and himself to enter into a contractual arrangement with the best bidder to do some of the work, rather than doing it all with force account labor. He said this had been the plan all along and added that it would speed up the process.
The vote on R7-97 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. 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:
a variance for sidewalk construction on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Lamplight
B2-97 Vacating a waterline easement in Loveall Subdivision.
B3-97 Approving the final plat of Hanover Estates, Plat 2.
B4-97 Assessing a special tax to abate a weed and trash nuisance.
B5-97 Appropriating funds for the Sexual Trauma/Assault Response Team.
B6-97 Authorizing a right-of-use permit to allow Stephens College to install data conduit under
B7-97 Authorizing a right-of-use permit to allow the University to install chilled water pipes under
B8-97 Calling for bids on the Forum Boulevard from Stadium to Chapel Hill Road improvement
B9-97 Authorizing an agreement with the Highway and Transportation Commission in
connection with the Route B improvement project, and appropriating funds.
B10-96 Authorizing the purchasing agent to bid planting materials, authorizing agreements with
property owners, and appropriating funds for the Westridge landscaping project.
B11-97 Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code regarding motor vehicles and traffic.
B12-97 Amending Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding court costs.
B13-97 Proposing an amendment to the Home Rule Charter to make language gender neutral, and
calling a special election on the amendment.
B14-97 Calling the municipal election to be held April 1, 1997, to elect councilmen for Wards 2 and
B15-97 Authorizing use of city forces to install lights on two soccer fields in Cosmo Park.
B16-97 Accepting a conveyance for a padmounted transformer and authorizing payment for the
B17-97 Accepting conveyance of utility improvements.
B18-97 Authorizing differential payment for an 8-inch water main in Avalon, Plat 1, and
B19-97 Calling for an election for the Water & Light Revenue Bond Issue.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Report on Connecting Cable Channel 13 to Capital Cable.
Mr. Beck said staff's recommendation was to continue as is until such time that we deal with the extension of the optic cable system. He said that the City provides tapes to Capital Cable and the major difference was that they do not broadcast the meetings live. To move ahead prior to the loop being completed would cost about $7,200, if not more.
Being the individual that brought the issue up during budget sessions, Mr. Janku said he agreed with the recommendation to go with the tapes until the fiber optic cable is extended to that area. He was hopeful they could move quickly. He asked that the tapes be dated and timed as to the meeting being broadcast. He asked that the same thing be done with City cable programs that are taped and shown at a later date. Mayor Hindman pointed out that there is a periodic crawl across the screen that relays that message.
(B) Olive Drive
Area Sanitary Sewer District.
Mr. Beck noted that this report had been prepared by the Public Works Department. He said this area in northeast Columbia was developed prior to being annexed into the City and there is a common collector sewer that the City is having problems with. He said a large part of the cost would be tax billed to the property owners. He said the Public Works Department developed some alternatives for the residents and already met with them.
Mr. Patterson said staff initially looked at the entire area for the purpose of installing a sanitary sewer where there currently is not one, and replacing the private common collectors in the area. He said that would encompass a much larger geographic area with the estimated cost of the project set at $82,000. After developing preliminary information, he explained that staff met with the affected property owners. He said there was considerable concern by those people who are currently on private common collectors and who are not having problems. He said these residents already spent some money recently upgrading their common private collector and they asked for a consideration of other options. He said they prepared an option that deals only with the area that does not have a sanitary sewer of any type. He said there were probably two lots that would be affected with a private common collector. He said the cost estimate for that option was $48,500. He said the staff's inclination was that it would be best to proceed and put the entire district on a public sanitary sewer that was built to current specifications; however, it could be broken down into two projects and, at a later date when problems do occur, come back with another sanitary sewer district. Mr. Patterson said the cost would be higher per square foot than it would be if they could do the work all at this time. He said the group was sent a copy of the report so they are aware of the options and will have an opportunity to respond and provide input.
Mayor Hindman called for public comments. There were none.
Mr. Janku asked if the people currently on private collector sewers would receive any cost benefit because they may already have certain infrastructure in place. Mr. Patterson replied they would. He said if they include any area that is currently on a private common collector, the resident would be assessed only one-half of the cost of replacement in accordance with City policy.
Mrs. Crockett asked if she understood correctly that all persons involved had been contacted. Mr. Patterson said that was correct. Mrs. Crockett asked if they had seen the tax bill amounts. Mr. Patterson said everything the Council had tonight had been sent to homeowners two or three weeks ago. Mrs. Crockett commented that this was in her ward and noted that she had not heard one word from any of the people involved. She assumed they were satisfied.
Mr. Campbell asked which one of the two options the neighborhood thought Mr. Patterson was going to bring forward. Mr. Patterson said he thought the majority of them would prefer option two, which would eliminate residents from being tax billed at this time. He noted that would increase costs for some, but the long-term costs would be greater for the people on private common collectors. He said if residents were polled, he would guess that option two would be preferred.
Mr. Janku said under option two, the group that currently does not have sewers would be paying a lower cost. Mr. Patterson said that was correct. Regarding the recent upgrade on the private common collectors, Mr. Janku asked how long the upgrade would last. Mr. Patterson said it would not be on the City's top ten list of private common collectors under its current condition, so it would not be a high priority for them if it were not associated with extending a public sewer line out there.
Mr. Harline asked if there was any impending environmental risk with option two. Mr. Patterson said there was not. He said there was with the septic tanks they were trying to take care of with option two.
Mr. Campbell asked what the life was of the private collectors that had been upgraded. Mr. Patterson said probably ten years -- it would be unlikely to have major problems with those systems within that time period. Mr. Campbell asked if the homeowners that would not be charged expected option number one to be brought forward. Mr. Patterson said they all had knowledge of both options.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed with option number two. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Transfer of Funds Request.
(D) Bicycle Friendly
Mayor Hindman thought the Council should seriously consider doing this. He believed that if the City met the requirements, we would be adding to the quality of life in Columbia. Secondly, it would be just one more feather in our cap in letting everyone know what kind of City we are. He commented that we meet most of the requirements already.
Mrs. Crockett noted that the City would be required to commit, at a minimum, $75,000 per year to bicycling related activities. She asked if the reference to the maintenance of bicycle lanes or trails would include the trail around the greenbelt in addition to any other trails. Mayor Hindman said he would think so.
Mr. Janku said this recommendation had been brought to him by a member of the Bicycle Commission. He said when considering all of the bicycle activities already incurred by the City, we probably meet the challenge already. He said if we got to the point where we could not, the program could be given up. Mayor Hindman said if we did not spend the $75,000, the City simply becomes ineligible for the designation. Mrs. Crockett said she had no objection with any of the other activities that are currently established if they could add up to the $75,000. She said she would certainly have a problem coming up with $75,000 just for bicycle lanes.
Mr. Kruse said he thought a closer cost accounting should be initiated. He said if we did not meet the $75,000, he thought we should.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that the staff be directed to pursue the issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(E) Family Day
Mr. Beck reported this issue was brought up because the State is considering guidelines that would require the City to verify that an existing day care center has met all City standards before it could be licensed by the State. He said if this rule is adopted and it is found that there are day care centers not in compliance, the State would not license them until they met our standards. He said this change would increase the number of children allowed in a day care center from six to ten. Mr. Beck said it would also accommodate temporary hours for children over age two, and provisions when school is not in session because of an emergency situation. He said the next step would be, if the Council chose to proceed, to refer it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing so they could make a recommendation to the Council. After a recommendation has been received, the Council would have another public hearing.
Mayor Hindman pointed out that this would have no affect on licensing as the City does not require licensing. He said this is a requirement of the State for day care centers with more than four children. He questioned the privacy fence of six feet separating the outdoor play area from adjacent residential uses. Mr. Campbell said this was a requirement that he felt should be established unless the adjacent neighbors agreed not to have such a fence. He thought it was an important provision to include in the ordinance. He pointed out that this would not apply to any existing day care centers because they could not be grandfathered in. Mayor Hindman said in his neighborhood there were a few day care facilities with their play areas in the front yard. He did not think anyone wanted to see a six foot fence around a front yard.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(F) Removal of
Parking on Hitt Street.
Mr. Beck commented that this was requested by the University as they are constructing a very large parking facility along the west side of Hitt Street between Elm and University. He said the contractor requested that parking be eliminated on both sides of the street. Mr. Patterson and his staff discussed the issue with the University and, at the time the report was written, believed they would be able to only remove parking on one side of the street. Since the report was written, Mr. Beck said he understood they felt parking needed to be removed from both sides of the street. He noted that this would involve about 40 meters that yield approximately $1,800 to $2,000 per month. Over a two year period to build the facility, he said it could have a substantial impact on the parking utility as we begin to build our own facilities. He said the University agreed to reimburse the City regardless if parking is taken off of one or both sides. Mr. Beck said if the Council wished to proceed, an agreement would be developed with the University dealing with the loss of compensation.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that staff be directed to proceed with removing the parking on both sides of the street, and drawing up an agreement with the University.
Mr. Janku asked what would be done for pedestrian access through the area during the construction. He said the sidewalk on the east side is rather narrow and there are telephone poles and meters in the sidewalk itself. He said it certainly was not accessible for ADA and rather difficult for just one pedestrian to walk through. Mr. Beck agreed that the corridor should be available for pedestrian movement. Mr. Campbell said if they close off the west side of Hitt, the east side would not be adequate for pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Patterson said they would work with the University on that. He did not think plans indicated that there would be any major reconstruction in this area, but with the removal of parking meters he believed the pedestrian corridor could be expanded. Mr. Patterson said they may want to do some type of temporary fencing.
The motion made by Mr. Campbell was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(G) Status Report
of Additional Health Department Facilities.
Some time ago when this issue was discussed, Mr. Beck said the Council decided to set up a joint committee between the City and the county to look at alternative sites where health facilities could expand. Recently, he received a report from staff suggesting that there be an architectural firm hired to review the retirement center at the Boone Hospital site. The estimated cost to the City had been $10,000 to $15,000. Mr. Beck held onto the report for a while to see if additional information would come forward before a decision was made to study this specific facility. He and the Mayor discussed the issue several times and it was felt the Council should have an update as to the status. He said there had been some activity in the community as it relates to joining together some other operations in central facilities.
Mayor Hindman said he had been approached several times about the issue distinguishing the City/County Health Department from the Family Health Center. He said he relied on the report done by the Chamber of Commerce Health Committee. He thought it basically said that we should proceed with the operations and that the City/County Health Service provides a separate function from the Family Health Center. Yet, he was later told that the Committee had not actually looked into that aspect very carefully and the Chairman of the Committee agreed to this assertion. Before going forward, he thought the issue of any overlapping of services between the different groups should be looked into further. He had great confidence in our City/County Health Clinic and said he thought they did wonderful work under extremely trying conditions and provide a tremendous asset to the community. He thought we needed to be able to answer these questions and know we can answer them adequately. Mayor Hindman said he talked to President Brouder, the Chairman of the Committee, and Mr. Brouder said he would be willing to reconvene his group and make a study of the issue and bring back a report. He thought it would be in the time frame of 60 to 90 days. Mayor Hindman thought the Council should have them proceed with the evaluation.
Ms. Coble asked if it was presented as a part of the research. Mayor Hindman said it had been presented as a recommendation in the report. Ms. Coble understood that the report indicated there were actually two separate functions served. She thought it said that the Family Health Center was dealing with clientele that did not require core public health functions which are delivered through the City/County Health Department, and that there were two separate missions. She said after the survey work was completed, they found that there were two different populations being served. Mayor Hindman said that was the way he read the report also, but when he talked to the Committee, was told that it was basically accepted without really being looked into. He felt they needed to have it thoroughly reviewed.
Mr. Janku said he would be supportive of the review, except he would like to include what the City might do in the short-term. He said this issue had been around a long time and thought short-term fixes are put off because they think there is something around the corner. He said the corner keeps getting further away and he would like to see if there was something that could be done to address the big problems, like the space dilemma. Mayor Hindman said he was not sure the Council could ask that Committee to identify space for us. Mr. Janku suggested that our staff look for it separately.
Ms. Coble said the issue was very frustrating. While parts of the community speak critically of what the City was trying to do, there was another segment that finds it ironic that we would spend money, or at least donate a part of City-owned property, for a Health Adventure Center in a community that is founded on the health care industry. In addition, there is still insufficient resources for those who are most in need of health care.
Mr. Campbell voiced his frustration also and said the Council had been looking at this issue for six or seven years and thought they had come up with a number of joint solutions. He said at some point they had to make a decision and go with it. He said there would always be another option "just around the corner".
Mr. Harline agreed with Mr. Campbell and said six years ago the Council took a tour of the facilities and saw how inadequate they were. He said conditions had only worsened since then. He said if the people being served by the Clinic were better organized and more adept at bringing their case to the Council, the problem would probably be solved by now. He said he had problems with the retirement center location because of its proximity to a bus stop. He said it was not a particularly good site for parking and, for a variety of other reasons, it did not seem like a great site. However, he was more tempted to pursue it than to keep waiting for the perfect answer to turn up.
Mr. Kruse agreed with the frustrations, but asked about the information in the memo that said there is no indication that the facility which would be studied was even available. Mr. Janku said he thought the Health Committee would also be looking at that. Mayor Hindman said they would not be looking at that. Mr. Beck said he could find no decision saying that the facility was definitely available for a health facility. Mr. Beck pointed out that his original memos regarding this issue had said it looked like they were on a long track. He said staff did not know for sure at this time when the City/County Health Department Clinic might move out of that building. He noted that they would still have to build a building. Mr. Kruse said he thought they needed to spend the 60 to 90 days to address the other issue first, but at the same time try to figure out if and when the building would be available. Mr. Beck pointed out that the track they were on requires approval of two agencies. He said if we could come up with a site, hopefully there would be more joint participation in a clinic. Mr. Janku said it was true they had set aside about $375,000 in CDBG money for this purpose.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that the Chamber of Commerce be asked to reconvene their Committee to review the relationship between the City/County Health Department and the Family Health Center and bring back a report with recommendations to the Council as promptly as possible -- no more than 90 days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Mayor Hindman appointed the following individuals to the Microloan Committee for one year terms: Steve Savage, Davy Dansberry, Reggie Turner, Lynn Dickerson, Chip Cooper, Gary Banks, Jetuan Swift, Jill Cox, and Debin Benish.
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mr. Beck noted that the Council has had two public work sessions relating to a proposed water and electric revenue bond issue. He said this had been suggested in the last budget message to the Council because it was felt we definitely needed it. Following the last work session, Mr. Beck and staff finalized a list for the Council as to what projects would be included on a list if the issue were to be adopted by the voters of Columbia. He pointed out that the list would not go to the voters, but in the past as they explain ballot issues and the purpose of the amount of money, they tried to prepare a list and then very carefully follow it. He said it was very important to complete the list that is presented at the time of a ballot issue. The total for this bond issue is $39,250,000 for both the water and electric operations. Staff had been working with the Bond Counsel on the ordinance itself. Because of notification dates and the Monday holiday on January 20, a special meeting will be needed and has been set for Thursday, January 16, 1997, in the Council Chamber at 5:30 p.m. The bond issue would be for a five year capital improvement plan for the utility.
Mr. Malon said over a long period of time the Water and Light Advisory Board had recommended that the Council adopt a long-range financing strategy, and the Council had done so back in the early 80's. He said the strategy was to use a combination of debt inequity for the investment in the capital improvements required for the electric and water utility. He said that strategy stabilized the amount that had to be generated annually through rates for capital improvements. He said this proposed bond issue is a revenue bond issue for the Water and Light utility, which means that the bonds will be paid back by the utility fees and charges. Mr. Malon said it would have no impact on taxes. The funds would be used for capital improvements to the water and electric distribution system -- renewing, replacing, or extending power lines, water mains, water and electric services, substations and other facilities that provide service to customers. The bond issue would provide funds for a five year CIP plan from 1997 through 2001. Mr. Malon explained that out of the $39,250,000.00, $23,125,000 was for the electric utility and $16,125,000 was for the water utility. He said there was no rate increase anticipated for the electric utility and the current proposal was for a 2% increase per year for four years, beginning in October of 1997, for the water utility. He pointed out that October 1, 1997, would be the beginning of the next fiscal year. On the electric side of the bond issue, Mr. Malon displayed a list of the projects. He said most of the money would be used for distribution, annual additions, replacements, relocations and undergrounding. The water utility portion of the bond issue was longer and divided into several sub-categories; contractual obligations, distribution system improvements, reconstruction of old systems and close loops, system reinforcements and fire flows, and annual water system improvements. He noted that the lists were consistent with what the Council reached a consensus on at their last work session.
Mr. Janku asked what the 2% increase would mean per year. Mr. Malon said the average bill was somewhere in the range of $12 to $14 per month per residence so it would be in the range of 30 cents. Mr. Janku asked who pays for the mains in developing subdivisions. Mr. Malon explained that those are all paid for by the builder. Usually it is a subdivision and the developer extends the water mains to the development and then installs the mains within the development. The City does the design work and supplies the specifications to the builder. He said the water mains are dedicated to the City. If it is an individual industry or something of that nature, the same rule applies.
Mr. Beck pointed out that a change had been made since the work session on the amount shown for fire hydrants which included additions and replacements. He said the number had been reduced. Each year the City replaces quite a few hydrants and it was felt that it should continue to be the utility's cost; however, it was being suggested that some of the fire hydrant construction costs in new developments be shared in the future by the developer. This is similar to what they do right now in the county subdivisions. He said it did not include a full five years for fire hydrant cost in new developments.
Mayor Hindman pointed out that both the water and electric utilities were self-supporting. He said there was no tax revenue going into them.
Mr. Janku noted that the construction of the new middle school in north Columbia was proceeding quickly. He said it was expected to open next fall and asked that the staff look into how and if we would provide bus service to the school. He noted there was very good use of the bus service by Gentry students.
Mr. Janku commented that he received a call from the President of Forest Relief Missouri who suggested that the City of Columbia apply for a grant to obtain funds for tree planting. He indicated there were funds available that the City could request and it would be particularly appropriate to use volunteers for planting. Mr. Janku felt that tied in well with our volunteer program. He also remembered that Union Electric has a grant program available for planting trees on public property. He understood that Union Electric had a short deadline.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the staff be directed to contact the two entities to obtain information about these two grant possibilities. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Harline announced that he attended the planning session for the Neighborhood Convention. He said on February 21, a Friday, an open poster section is planned from 6:00-7:00 p.m. with a program following at 7:00 p.m. He pointed out that there were seven neighborhoods involved, and twelve people represented the planning group.
Mr. Kruse asked about the Tree Plan Task Force and whether or not a meeting had been scheduled. Mr. Watkins said two meetings had been scheduled at this point -- January 13th and February 10th.
Mayor Hindman said he received some irate complaints about the tree trimming going on by the Asplund Company. Mr. Malon said if trimming occurs on private property, the company should have received permission from the owners. Mayor Hindman said he was not sure that it was private property. He thought the line perhaps went down City property. Mayor Hindman said he would give the complainant's names to Mr. Malon. Mr. Malon said tree trimming was a problem and people do not appreciate it. If trees are not kept trimmed, however, the City could experience some of the same problems other cities have had recently with lines down everywhere. Mayor Hindman said Kansas City has a policy different than ours. He said they allow the trees to grow up over the lines. Mr. Malon said those were the ones that fell down. Mayor Hindman said he understood there was a cost/benefit ratio to it. He said he would like staff to look into how much more it would cost us to adopt a similar policy.
Ms. Coble said she requested a report on what the City of Eugene, Oregon does where they have established a no topping ordinance. Mr. Malon said he thought the Tree Plan Task Force would be working on this issue. He said he would get a report for the Council.
Mr. Janku said the City of Springfield, Missouri received recognition for the standards they adopted and utilized for tree trimming. Mr. Kruse said the City has a tree trimming policy, but his impression was that the swath taken out along the trail by the creek far exceeded our policy. He said it seemed unnecessarily destructive.
Mayor Hindman said he had been approached by another group called the Environmental Fund. He said it was similar to the United Way organization except it represented environmental groups. He said they sent material which he needed to send to the Law Department. He said this group wanted, and were legally entitled to have, a drive through the City. He suggested that staff take a look at the policy. He asked if we had any others besides United Way. Mr. Beck said there was the Credit Union. Mayor Hindman asked for a report on the issue so they could deal with the issue on a policy basis.
Mr. Campbell said that question had come up in the past. He asked if there was already a policy in place. Mr. Beck said they did an employee survey and a report was submitted to the Council. Mr. Kruse said that had been for Earth Share, a different federation. He said this was the Missouri Environmental Fund so it was more localized. Mr. Kruse said there was case law on it. Mayor Hindman said he read the case law, but was not sure it said what the organization claimed it did. He wanted the Law Department to look at the information so the City could come up with a policy to follow when approached.
Ms. Coble said she had been asked to find out which side of a wooden fence should face neighboring properties, the finished side or the side with the brace. Mr. Campbell said there was a Missouri fence law at the state level.
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
© 2016 City of Columbia