INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City
of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday,
March 17, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council Members CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, and JANKU 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 March 3, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion
made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Ms. Coble.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA
The agenda, as amended, including
the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made
by Ms. Coble and a second by Mr. Campbell.
SPECIAL ITEMS
A. Presentation by
consultant on solid waste resource recovery facility.
Mayor Hindman noted that
this would be the first of two scheduled presentations by the consultant. There
will be an opportunity for public input at a later date.
Mr. Beck noted that copies
of the report were available in the Public Works Department as well as a
report on file at the public library.
Mr. Patterson introduced
Tom Knox, a consultant with the firm of Black & Veatch; Dennie Pendergrass,
Chief Engineer of Operations for Columbia Public Works; and the prime presenter
Chris Brockway, also with the firm of Black and Veatch.
Mr. Brockway gave a brief
slide presentation and entertained questions from the Council. He spoke
about the feasibility of the material recovery facility, densification (the
actual production of fuel pellets from paper products that could be used
in lieu of coal), and sites considered for evaluation. Mr. Brockway
noted that there were three types of facilities that had been examined; a
source separated facility, a commingled recyclable facility, and a mixed
waste facility. A densified fuel facility could be added to either
a commingled recyclable facility or mixed waste facility. A chart was
displayed comparing dollars per household per month using the different facilities. He
showed the sites that had been looked at along with rankings of them. Mr.
Brockway pointed out that all of the sites would require some sort of zoning
modification. Mr. Brockway noted that two public meetings had been
held; one in August and one in October. At the August meeting, a survey
was distributed allowing citizens to provide input on the study.
Mr. Brockway stated there
is a considerable cost involved in construction of this type of facility
and it is likely that revenue or general obligation bonds would be required
for financing. He noted that there is some grant money available.
Mayor Hindman noted a positive
factor of a recovery facility would be the savings at the landfill. Mr.
Brockway said this aspect had been considered in the cost of the facility. Mayor
Hindman asked if this would be a cash savings. Mr. Brockway said it
was not a "cash in the pocket" type savings, but more of a future savings. Mayor
Hindman asked how it was that some items were included in the mixed waste
facility that could not be in the commingled facility. Mr. Patterson
said if it was a complete mixed waste system, all of the waste would be expected
to go through the facility. He said city residents would pay the processing
cost, around $26 per ton. It would not be appropriate to charge the
entire $2 million per year operating cost to the residential waste stream
if all of the waste stream was used through the facility. Mr. Patterson
said a dollar per ton cost to process the waste was figured, it was determined
how much of that was residential waste, and then that cost was divided by
the number of households. The rest of the cost was based per ton and
whether the waste was commercial or industrial.
Mr. Janku asked if there
was any sense as to what would happen to the commercial waste if the rates
were increased by $26 per ton. Mr. Patterson said it did not mean that
the rates would increase by $26 per ton. Mr. Janku asked how many truck
loads of waste were in a ton. Mr. Beck said that would depend on the
kind of trash. Mr. Brockway said if it was based on a mixed waste facility
at 385 tons per day, it would be approximately 30 to 40 trucks per day.
Mr. Kruse said the City had
a goal that 40% of the solid waste would be diverted from the landfill. He
asked how the three options compared in terms of meeting that goal. Mr.
Kruse noted according to the chart, the City has direct control of about
83,000 tons of waste per year. He said if the source separated option
was used, the 2,000 tons of waste received is roughly in the three to four
percent range of the total amount. The commingled option would be six
to seven percent, and the mixed waste option was around 25 percent of the
total waste. Even with the mixed waste facility, Mr. Kruse said the
City still would not reach the goal. Mr. Janku pointed out that there
had been earlier steps established, such as the diversion of grass clippings
from the landfill.
Mr. Harline asked if the
report anticipated any commercial recycling in the commingled option. Mr.
Brockway believed that all of the commingled waste was residential. In
the mixed waste, Mr. Harline said some of it was commercial. Mr. Brockway
said that was correct. Mr. Harline said the number could be improved
if some sort of commercial plan was established.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that staff be asked to prepare a summary and report back to the Council in
April or May. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously
by voice vote.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B59-97 Authorizing
City staff to repair and restore University Avenue from William Street to
College
Avenue.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
was one of several brick streets in Columbia that have been preserved over
the years. He said there had been some curb and gutter deterioration
similar to that on Bouchelle. Approximately $57,000 worth of rehabilitation
work with curbs and gutters as well as some brick work is being proposed. He
said some of the concrete patches would be removed. The cost would
be borne by Community Development Block Grant money because the area is in
a historic district, which allows for this type of funding. Mr. Beck
said if the Council decides to proceed with the project, City forces would
be used.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Bonnie Bourne, 1506 University
Avenue, spoke in support of the repair and restoration as both a resident
and representative of the East Campus Neighborhood Association. She
has lived in this area for 17 years and did not recall any previous work
on the curbs or gutters. The brick streets in this area were an integral
part of the history and character of the neighborhood.
David Bacon, 4735 Brandon
Wood, spoke on behalf of a street contractor in Columbia. He said they
were not opposed to the restoration of the street, but they had a problem
with the use of City forces versus putting the project out for bid. He
asked why it was not going out for competitive bid and what kind of accounting
system would be used.
Mrs. Crockett asked that
the staff respond to the speaker. Mr. Patterson said typically the
City tries to evaluate projects and decide whether it would be more beneficial
to use City staff, or if it would be most conducive for contracting. Essentially,
a project such as this is very labor intensive and staff have had experience
with the work and know what is required. Mr. Patterson said the project
would not require any additional equipment. He pointed out that the
City would simply remove the existing curb and replace it with curb and gutter
sections, there is some hand work of the brick, and patches would be replaced
and/or fixed. Mr. Patterson reported that workers were not rebuilding,
or tearing out and putting in new sand beds on the entire street. Staff
was comfortable with the cost of the project and had done four streets with
street department personnel.
Mr. Patterson noted that
labor is charged, equipment is accounted for, and there is a full accounting
system within the City. He said this is done on all projects so costs
are known. Mr. Patterson said one factor to consider is that when the
City opens a project for competitive bids, the prevailing wage is required,
which is not done when using City staff. Mr. Patterson said the City
did not try to get into jobs they felt contractors could do better, quicker,
and more efficiently than the staff. Competition between the two is
not intended. Mr. Patterson stated that the records show the City contracts
out substantially more work than is attempted in-house.
Mr. Harline pointed out that
staff primarily does repair work such as this. Mr. Beck said that was
correct. The City primarily does maintenance and repair work.
Mariel Stephenson, 2111 Rock
Quarry Road, spoke on behalf of the Scenic Road Committee. She said
it was wonderful to see the City taking a street like this and repairing
it back to its original character. Mrs. Stephenson said it would do
nothing but improve the whole aspect of the area.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
B59-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B69-97 Amending
Chapter 29 of the City Code to establish regulations pertaining to
scenic
roadways.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that in
March of 1996 the Council adopted a Scenic Road Policy and asked the Planning
and Zoning Commission to work up an ordinance that would address the guidelines
that had been laid out for an overlay zoning district. He said this
amendment had been reviewed by the Commission and they had unanimously recommended
approval. The overlay district meant that the City has permanent zoning
in place, unless an area is in the process of being rezoned. The scenic
roadway district would be an overlay over the existing zoning, and would
provide for an additional set of guidelines that would have to be followed
by anyone developing along a scenic road designated so by the Council. A
drawing was displayed on the overhead indicating what the guidelines would
require.
Mr. Janku pointed out an
error in the maximum building height. It should read that no building
should exceed 28 feet.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Jan Pritchard, 3505 Rock
Quarry Road, spoke on behalf of the Scenic Road Committee of the Grindstone/Rock
Quarry Neighborhood Association. She emphasized that this was an ordinance
for all of Columbia and said there were a limited number of roads in Columbia
at the present time that would apply for scenic road designation. For
the preservation of those roads, she recommended passage of the ordinance. Ms.
Pritchard added that there are a number of very beautiful scenic roads on
the outskirts of Columbia in areas that will probably be annexed within the
next 10 to 20 years. She said those roads would also benefit from having
a scenic road ordinance so that they may be designated and preserved as Columbia
continues to grow. Ms. Pritchard thanked the Council for all of their
work and consideration, and also the staff for working with their organization
and others who have been interested.
Mariel Stephenson, 2111 Rock
Quarry Road, spoke as vice-president of the Greenbelt Coalition of Mid-Missouri. She
said they had worked extensively with the City on the greenbelt. She
said they felt very strongly that the scenic road ordinance was a major part
of the City of Columbia and its future. Ms. Stephenson thanked everyone
for all of their work on the issue.
Bonnie Bourne, 1506 University
Avenue, said she was bringing support for the ordinance from the East Campus
Neighborhood Association. She said it was an excellent example of good
planning and it would fit in well with the historic work this Association
had been doing.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Referring to the definition
of a scenic roadway being a street designated as such by the City Council,
Mr. Kruse asked if the word "street" could include a state highway. Mr.
Hancock said the amendment would regulate the development of private property
along a road. He guessed that a road which was not state owned or under
some state control could be. Mr. Kruse said he saw nothing that would
preclude a state highway from being a scenic roadway. Mayor Hindman
thought that was reasonable.
Mr. Harline noted that the
Grindstone/Rock Quarry Neighborhood had made this one of their projects about
five years ago. He said this was a real testament to what a focused
neighborhood organization could do.
B69-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B71-97 Amending
the Major Thoroughfare Plan by adding the Ballenger Lane extension.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this extension
was being proposed for inclusion in the Thoroughfare Plan for the purpose
of creating an alignment that will be reviewed as an alternative during the
MIS (major investment study) that is being conducted by the Missouri Department
of Transportation. He said the MIS will examine the planned route 740
extension, the overall circulation and traffic problems in the I-70/US 63
area, and evaluate a series of alternative solutions. He noted that
the Ballenger extension is a "place holder roadway", which is meant to preserve
a future roadway corridor during the 12 to 24 month time period in which
the MIS will be completed. He said this plan had been adopted by the
Area Transportation Technical Coordinating Committee.
Mr. Campbell asked if it
would be cost prohibitive to put in an intersection (ramps) with the Interstate. Mr.
Beck did not think there were preliminary costs on doing that. Mr.
Campbell asked if that was a feasible part of the development. Mr.
Hancock said in their discussions with the Highway engineers that possibility
had not been dismissed. He said all the engineers had done at this
point was give the City a location where the extension might cross. Mr.
Hancock said they have not ruled out any kind of direct connection with it,
but they have not indicated it would meet their standard either.
Mr. Kruse said the report
to the Commission referred to this as an alternative for the future extension
of 740. He asked whether that meant it would be built if the 740 extension
was not done. He also asked if it would be an extension to 740 or in
addition to it. Mr. Beck said it could be either. He was not
sure it would remove the idea of taking a major roadway eastward.
Mr. Janku assumed since this
would be a City street, all costs would be borne by the City. Mr. Beck
said he would like to think there would be some sharing of costs, but was
not sure from whom. He said it would be an expensive project. Mr.
Janku asked if funds were set aside in the budget for it. Mr. Beck
said there were not, only for the study.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B71-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B73-97 Rezoning
from O-1 to C-2 property on the southwest corner of Elm Street and
Watson
Place.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
less than half acre tract had been used for a parking lot, primarily for
University purposes. He said there was a very large parking garage
being built adjacent to the area which makes it less feasible to continue
the use as a parking lot. He noted that the request had been recommended
for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on a 9-0 vote.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Jack Waters, property owner,
noted that the City's Land Use Plan calls for commercial zoning in this area. He
said all of the adjacent and surrounding property was already zoned C-2. He
pointed out that this was an 87.5 foot by 200 foot parcel of land and said
the 87.5 foot dimension would be tough to work with considering the O-1 setback
requirements. He said C-2 zoning would be a good solution.
Mr. Janku asked if there
was a planned purchase. Mr. Waters said he had an interested party,
but did not have a contract yet. He thought it was something that should
be resolved soon, but said it was too soon to say it was a done deal.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
B73-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B74-97 Rezoning
to C-P and O-P property at the southwest corner of Forum Boulevard
and Chapel
Hill
Road, and approving O-P/C-P development plan.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman noted that
an amendment sheet had been prepared that would change Exhibit A.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that B74-97 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Harline and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Hancock pointed out that
this was a proposal to rezone two seven acre tracts at the southwest corner
of Chapel Hill and Forum Boulevard. He noted that tract A was proposed
to be rezoned to planned commercial (C-P), and tract B to planned office
(O-P). One of the conditions placed on the plan were that all grading
plans for the entire site must be approved by the Public Works Department,
along with a final plat for any portion of the property. In addition,
any changes to the landscape screening that has been planned for the west
side of the site will require a public hearing before the Commission. There
would be no occupancy permits granted for any building on lots 1, 2, 3, or
4 along the back side of the property until the land screening is in place
and approved by the City Arborist. Dana Court must be built, along
with a connector, to channel traffic in a right in/right out fashion. This
road will have to be built, dedicated, and inspected prior to an occupancy
permit for any building on the site. There would also have to be an
agreement executed for off-site improvements along Forum Boulevard.
Mr. Hancock said the land
uses were the subject of considerable discussion between the staff, the proponent,
and the neighbors. He described the uses for tract A, which is the
commercial tract. He said the neighbors were all in agreement with
the uses. Tract B was to be used for office activities only, or those
allowed in O-1 zoning. Mr. Hancock reported some prohibited uses had
been identified such as gas stations, convenience stores, and other similar
businesses the neighborhood felt were not appropriate for that corner. Design
parameters were included as part of the ordinance. Mr. Hancock said
staff was recommending approval of the request as was the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Mr. Patterson reminded the
Council that the City originally intended to have four lanes on Forum at
the intersection of Chapel Hill, coming through the Chapel Hill intersection
approximately 300 feet, and then tapering back into a one lane going southbound. With
the proposed development, an entrance was requested onto Forum, which is
a limited access roadway. He said the City paid to restrict access
onto it. Prior to considering the break in the access, staff required
the developer to have a very thorough traffic study performed to determine
options and what would be appropriate for the development of the area.
Mr. Patterson said there
was an agreement reached with the developer that, if the Council approves,
the City would extend the second driving lane past the right in/right out
entrance. The developer would construct a right turn lane at Chapel
Hill Road, and the City would move the signal standard and do all the associated
work in order to get the improvements completed at one time. In return,
the developer would construct a third lane from Chapel Hill southward to
the right in/right out break in access. Mr. Patterson said the developer
would do all of the work required to construct the right in/right out access,
plus the merging back into the traffic lane south, and would construct a
right turn lane from Chapel Hill to Forum Boulevard.
Mr. Patterson said staff
felt these improvements were essential due to the potential increase in traffic
at that intersection. It was felt with any break in the access on Forum,
a third lane would be necessary in order to provide adequate time for merging
of traffic and to allow for recirculation of any traffic within the development
itself. The developer agreed to the terms and, in order to see that
it is completed, staff agreed to include it in the Forum contract and would
provide plans and specifications that would be designed by the developer
and put in the contract. Mr. Patterson said staff would administer
the contract to be reimbursed by the developer.
Mayor Hindman asked what
was meant by the City paying for limited access onto Forum. He asked
if the City would be getting that back in any way. Mr. Patterson said
staff felt that the off-site improvements would go toward reimbursing the
City. He said a break in access was not initially supported and staff
was not saying there should be breaks in the access. If there were
breaks in the access, these extractions were in the public interest and would
reimburse the public by the amount that has been paid for it. Mr. Campbell
said there had been considerable concern on the part of the neighborhood
that all of the traffic would be concentrated on Chapel Hill. This
was a way of distributing some of the traffic out of the neighborhoods.
Mr. Janku asked if there
would eventually be four lanes and how right-of-way would be acquired. Mr.
Patterson said the City is getting a full 100 foot right-of-way, 50 feet
on each side. He said a curb and gutter section is expected when going
to four lanes. This will also occur to the south, there will be a curb
section where shoulders presently exist. Mr. Janku asked about the
right in/right out and how people coming from the south would have to go
up into Chapel Hill and make a left at the light. He wondered how this
traffic might increase the delay at the light. Mr. Janku was specifically
referring to turning in left at the right in/right out. Mr. Patterson
said there would be a real problem adding a left turn at this location and
would be very hesitant to recommend approval of any turning movement across
the four lanes, other than a signalized intersection. Mr. Campbell
said that was the reason for the raised island, it would prevent turning
movements.
Mr. Janku asked who was responsible
for the long-term maintenance of the dam. Mr. Campbell said there was
a homeowners association. Mr. Hancock said it was a private lake and,
as far as he knew, maintenance of it was the responsibility of the homeowners.
Mayor Hindman asked about
the shaded area on the map. Mr. Campbell said it was residential and
a PUD. He said it was not part of this plan. Mayor Hindman asked
if it was owned by the same person. Mr. Campbell said it was. Mayor
Hindman said the City was interested in getting a pedestrian way down to
the MKT Trail. Mr. Campbell said the property was a PUD and was currently
for sale. He said since it was a PUD, the City would have oversight
of what happens in this area. Mayor Hindman asked whether there were
still plans for a temporary sidewalk and if the City could get the right-of-way
to do that. Mr. Campbell had asked the staff to look at the possibility
of taking it as a park, or what some other alternative uses might be. He
said the terrain was very rugged. Mr. Campbell said sidewalks could
be built as part of this project, but the PUD was not part of this discussion.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Craig VanMatre, an attorney
with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He
said the neighborhood association had an agreement with the applicant giving
them additional protection on top of what was seen in the plan. He
said Mr. Campbell had been kind enough to arbitrate over a period of several
months.
Mr. Janku asked if it would
be a problem to put in a gravel path or sidewalk on the R-1 property while
waiting for sale or development. Mr. VanMatre said he could not speak
for his client, but it seemed like a reasonable request. He would discuss
it with the developer tomorrow.
Tim Casick, 1805 Crystal
Point and President of Chapel Hill Lake Homeowners Association, said this
group provided an incredible amount of input into the development of this
plan over the past three years. He did not think there was anything
about the plan that the Association was not consulted about. Mr. Casick
said they also felt the private agreement was fair, equitable, and it would
serve both sides to their advantage. The Chapel Hill Lake Homeowners
Association were in support of the applicant's request.
Mr. Kruse congratulated the
neighborhood association on a job well done. He asked if there was
any discussion about the possible use of neon lighting on the buildings. Mr.
Casick believed there was a provision in the agreement regarding the direction
of the lighting and the brightness at the border of the development. Mr.
Kruse thought that was for the street lighting. Mr. Casick said that
was correct. Mr. Kruse said he did not see anything that would preclude
a store from wrapping itself in neon lights. Mr. Casick agreed. Mr.
Kruse said he would not like to see a lot of bright, neon lights on buildings. Mr.
Campbell reminded Mr. Kruse that the Council only had the City agreement
in front of them. Mr. Campbell remembered some discussion regarding
the brightness and the direction of lighting. Mr. Casick read from
their agreement the stipulations regarding signage within the development.
Dr. George Gibb, owner of
the office building to the north of the subject property, said he was pleased
with the plan. He said it was a good plan and something they could
be proud of.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Campbell noted that both
sides had been very willing to negotiate. He said this may not be ideal
from anyone's perspective, but it was something everybody could live with. He
complimented both sides.
Mrs. Crockett said she was
grateful that Mr. Campbell had volunteered to work with both sides as it
made the Council's job a lot easier.
B74-97 as amended was given
third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO
ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
(A) Construction
of sanitary sewers in Sewer District No. 136 (Olive Street area).
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
project was being proposed to be paid for with tax bills and monies from
the sewer utility. He asked Mr. Patterson to explain the project.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Patterson noted that
this tax bill district had been previously before the Council in the form
of a report. He said staff have had meetings with the property owners
in the development of the District, and reminded the Council that this district
was a compromise from the original proposed area.
Mr. Patterson reported Sewer
District 136 would serve 15 lots and the estimated cost was $48,500, with
a not to exceed tax bill rate established at 14.5 cents per square foot. He
said the proposed funding would be from the sewer utility and tax bills assessed
against properties. Mr. Patterson pointed out that the sewer district
was initiated by petition. He said questions had been raised at the
time of the formation of the district regarding relief for properties contained
in the district that appear to have rather large assessments proposed. He
said the benefits accrued to the properties would be determined at the time
of the tax bill hearing.
Mr. Patterson said benefits
of the District is that on-site treatments that are recognized as potential
health hazards would be eliminated, the cost of maintaining these on-site
systems would no longer be necessary, and the availability of a public sewer
line is an enhancement of property values. Of the 15 lots shown to
be served, Mr. Patterson pointed out that four of them were currently being
served by a private common collector and, in accordance with City policy,
the four properties would only be charged one half of the tax bill rate. In
this case, that would be 7.3 cents for the maximum rate and the sewer utility
would pay the rest of the balance. Mr. Patterson expected the work
to be completed this summer.
Roland Walker, an attorney
with offices at 1401 Locust Street, spoke on behalf of his client, O. C.
Nichols. Mr. Nichols is the owner of the lot at 2703 Brown Station
Road. Mr. Walker said he was not present to object to the formation
of the sewer district because, in order for Mr. Nichols to have a sellable
piece of property, he has to have a sewer. His purpose for attendance
had been set forth in a letter sent to the Council dated February 3, 1997. He
said the letter had been answered by Mr. Patterson's memo. Mr. Walker
said when the tax bills were set, he wanted to come back to the Council to
ask for relief for his client.
Beverly Matthews, 2612 E.
Olive, said the Health Department told her that the sewage system on this
property was not proper and should not be used any longer. She said
they planned on doing the corrective work themselves, but found out that
the cost would be prohibitive because their private sewer line was failing
also. Ms. Matthews would appreciate anything the City could do to help
her.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Beck pointed out that
this was a perfect example of where development occurred without subdivision
requirements. He said it had been developed many years ago prior to
coming into the City.
Mr. Campbell made a motion
that staff be directed to proceed with the final plans and specifications. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harline and approved unanimously by voice vote.
OLD BUSINESS
B56-97 Approving
Change Order No. 1 to the contract for the Downtown Fire Station Project.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
was approximately a $17,000 change order, a major part of it being for materials
that were found underground during the time of excavation for the footings
and foundation. There was a list of other changes that had been negotiated
with the contractor, Crawford Construction Company. He pointed out
that the project was basically on schedule and would hopefully be almost
complete by the end of April. Considering the size of the project,
Mr. Beck said the change order amount was not very large. Staff recommended
approval.
B56-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B57-97 Calling
for bids for storm drainage and sanitary sewer construction on William
Street and
Anthony
Street.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said they hoped
to open bids on this estimated $103,000 project on April 15.
B57-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B58-97 Authorizing
a contract with the Federal Transit Administration for FY 95-96 transit
operating
assistance.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that it
was an annual requirement to have the grant approved for operating buses. The
amount was approximately $613,000.
B58-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B61-97 Authorizing
a utility maintenance agreement with the Department of Transportation
for the
Route
B water main relocation.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
agreement is associated with the Route B widening project in northeast Columbia. Staff
hoped to see the project bid this spring. He said the City's initial
request had been to do quite a bit more work than what is shown in this agreement,
probably $300,000 more work. Mr. Beck reported with quite a bit of
negotiation, it was felt the right procedure had been laid out. The
cost to the water utility fund will be about $400,000.
B61-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B62-97 Authorizing
an amendment to the territorial agreement with the Boone County Fire
Protection
District.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck presented a brief
history as to how the overall discussions started. There had been opposition
to annexation by various special districts in and around the City of Columbia
during the 70's and 80's. The last major area of land annexed into
the City was in 1968-69, with the court ruling coming in the spring of 1970. The
Council asked staff several years ago to begin working with the special districts
and agencies around the City to try to develop agreements to ensure that
everyone could be treated as fairly as possible, regardless of being in or
outside of the City. The first agreement had been worked out in 1988
with Boone Electric where a territorial arrangement was agreed upon. There
had been an agreement with Water District No. 9 in 1992.
In 1994, Mr. Beck reported
staff had been directed to step-up negotiations. In November of that
year, the City adopted an agreement with the Boone County Fire Protection
District, which is the subject of discussion this evening. Staff proposed
amending the agreement adopted by the Council in 1994.
Mr. Beck explained that in
1996, the City completed a merger with Prathersville Water District No. 1,
after some period of time spent on negotiations. The City is continuing
to work toward an agreement with Water District No. 2, even though there
has been a law suit filed. Just this past week, Mr. Beck felt a very
good arrangement had been worked out with District No. 2. It was an
agreement similar to the merger with the Prathersville water district. The
City is also working on an agreement with Water District No. 4 and Consolidated
No. 1. Mr. Beck reported there is an agreement with Consolidated No.
1 at the airport, where the City has contributed about $600,000 toward bringing
a major water line from the overhead elevated tower to provide the necessary
fire flows and pressures needed to adequately protect the property. Mr.
Beck said the City was also working on a financing plan with the Boone County
Regional Sewer District. He said negotiations would have to be stepped-up
if something is to be brought to the voters in November of 1997.
Mr. Beck said staff has been
working toward some visions and goals toward the orderly expansion of the
City of Columbia. Related to fire service, the City is attempting to
minimize expense and duplication. This would provide better long-term
planning to avoid the City being circled with facilities from other agencies
that might be in close proximity to existing facilities. Mr. Beck said
in the last several years, there had been quite a bit of discussion about
annexation and utilities in and around the City of Columbia. He wanted
to see those issues resolved without having to ask legislators to step in.
The fire territorial agreement
of 1994 was a 15-year agreement and provided that a fire district furnishes
service in areas annexed after the date of the agreement, pending adoption
of Phase 2. The only annexations occurring since the early 70's have
been voluntary annexations where people have signed petitions to come into
the City, particularly for the use of City facilities (mainly sanitary sewer). The
existing agreement provides for payments for services and provides that code
enforcement will be based on City limits, not service area. The bottom
line is that the City would continue to provide code enforcement as it relates
to building plans and that sort of thing. The agreement also provides
that the District will not oppose annexation and the City will not oppose
a District tax levy by the proposals. It provides guidelines for the
Phase 2 amendment. Mr. Beck said that Mr. Hargrove had been working
with issues dealing with Phase 2, the amendment being discussed this evening.
Mr. Hargrove displayed a
map that is an integral part of the explanation of the amendment. It
authorizes that the City Fire Department would provide the primary service
in the City limit areas as have existed prior to November 22, 1994. It
also provides areas shown on the map, outside the City, to be in the City
service area. The City would be reimbursed by the Fire District for
protection in those areas. Mr. Hargrove explained that the City would
provide primary service to the Georgetown area only until County Station
14 is built. After that time, it would revert back to a County service
area.
The map defined the areas
that were annexed since November 22, 1994, that would remain in the City
service area. The predominant area was along Smiley Lane. It
also defined the areas annexed since November of 1994 that would be in a
County service area. In developing this phase of the agreement, an
additional issue examined was where future City fire stations should be and
potential County sites. A map was displayed of current fire stations
indicating what response times were to various areas of the City. The
areas with longer response times were noted.
Mr. Hargrove said the plan
developed was for construction of three future City fire stations; one in
the northwest area, another in the southeast area, and the third in the northeast
area. He pointed out the areas that would be defined as City service
areas, regardless of whether or not they had been annexed into the City at
that point. The City would be reimbursed by the Fire District for protection
in those areas. Other provisions in this phase of the agreement were
that the District would not construct any new stations within 3 miles of
the City limits, except for any of the stations shown on the exhibit, and
the agreement could be terminated should it become a legal impediment to
annexation.
As to the present status
regarding the economics of the agreement, Mr. Hargrove said the current Fire
District operating levee was $.69 per $100 of assessed valuation. This
is what the City pays for service areas that are served by the County Fire
Protection District, and the amount from the County that is paid to the City
for areas that are in the District that we serve. The current valuation
of the approximate 800 acres annexed since November of 1994 was basically
one and one quarter million dollars. He said $490,000 of this would
remain in the City service area. The basic agreement calls for payments
to begin after the $10,000 threshold is reached so current taxes on the assessed
valuation are a little over $5,000. Mr. Hargrove said it would be awhile
before the City would begin any payments to the District under this agreement.
Mr. Hargrove reported the
fire insurance rating in annexed areas are under the same ISO rating. Columbia
has a Class 3 rating, and all areas annexed into the City would also have
a similar rating. This means for those areas outside the City with
a Class 5 rating, when annexed into the City's Class 3 rating, it would be
a savings of approximately $50 per year on a $100,000 dwelling. He
said the ISO rating was based about 50% on the evaluation of the fire department,
40% on the water availability, and 10% on such things as street systems and
communications.
Mr. Beck pointed out that
if the amendment was enacted this evening by the Council, the Fire District
Board would take up the issue at their March 19 meeting. He reiterated
that no area within the City of Columbia would be affected by this agreement
unless it was annexed after November of 1994 He said property owners
requesting annexation are being informed that they will be in the Fire District
service area unless shown differently on the territorial map.
Mayor Hindman read a prepared
amendment sheet that would renumber paragraph 4 to paragraph 5 and adding
a new paragraph 4 which would read, "The City shall have the option of requiring
the Fire District to provide staffing at Fire District stations serving areas
within the City limits. The City shall compensate the Fire District
for all extra costs incurred by the Fire District as a result of City exercising
this option."
Regarding the map showing
three future City fire stations, Mr. Janku asked what the projected costs
would be in terms of construction and personnel. Mr. Hargrove said
the total cost currently estimated for buying a site, building and fully
equipping a fire station was about $1,200,000. For a company staffed
by three employees, it would cost between $500,000 and $600,000 per year
in operating costs per station.
Fire Chief Margraf agreed
with the City Manager that in order to continue the orderly growth of this
City, annexation is needed. He felt the agreement would facilitate
the annexation in a better and more cooperative manner. Chief Margraf
pointed out that the City had not built or staffed an additional fire station
in 14 years. He said even if there is never any further annexation,
there is still at least three areas in the City that need to have fire stations. In
addition to the three stations, the Chief felt two additional companies,
another squad and another ladder truck were needed. This would again
require more personnel. The Chief said those things were of much greater
concern to him than the areas that may or may not come into the City and
may or may not be populated. For that reason, he thought this agreement
amendment was the way to go so the City would have control over the areas
of growth for the fire service. He was not hearing a response from
anyone regarding the addition of three fire stations.
Mr. Beck pointed out, even
though the City has not added stations, substantial budget support had been
given to the Fire Department. He noted that in the 1995 budget $6.1
million was allocated for the Fire Department. In 1997 the amount was
increased to $6.9 million, without adding any new stations. He said
there was a need to keep our equipment current and also to keep the staff
well-trained. Mr. Beck said that was true with any department if a
change is made in the scope of operations.
District Fire Chief Steve
Paulsell said this was a monumental meeting as it was the culmination of
many years of work. He said that decades of effort have brought the
two entities to this milestone. Chief Paulsell said he had seen many
changes in the 27 years he has been with the District, but unfortunately
the issue of City growth and its affect on fire protection in the community
had not been one that he has seen resolved. The territorial agreement
signed in November of 1994, and the subsequent amendment before the Council
this evening, would serve as a benchmark in the evolution of fire protection
in the community and would significantly reduce the duplication and waste
created by constantly shifting service areas. The agreement would provide
an excellent planning platform for two very fine fire service organizations
to plan individually and collectively. Chief Paulsell said the District
continues to support the original agreement and intended to ratify the amendment
Wednesday evening. He thanked and commended the City staff for their
diligence in this effort and said the District firmly believed the City negotiated
in good faith for the betterment of the community. The work that had
been accomplished would serve as testimony to people doing the right thing
for the right reasons.
Mayor Hindman asked Chief
Paulsell to summarize a letter that had been sent to the Council from the
Fire Protection District. Chief Paulsell said the question had been
raised in discussions regarding the future plans of the Fire District in
terms related to career staffing issues. He said the District understood
for many years that work load demands would necessitate evolvement to that
level. The District feels very strongly in the volunteer system and
realize they have a group of excellent people that provide a great deal of
service to the community. But as areas develop, call volumes and expectations
increase, there will be a need to augment the volunteer system with career
positions. Mr. Paulsell said the letter was simply a confirmation on
their part that the District will ultimately work toward an augmentation
of their system with some career staffing in the urban stations around the
City limits of Columbia. He said that was not a new philosophy. Mayor
Hindman asked Mr. Paulsell if he had any objections to the prepared amendment
sheet that was read earlier. Mr. Paulsell said it had been read to
him this afternoon over the phone and he did not believe there was a problem
with it.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Paulsell
whether he had a time estimate as to when additional people would be put
on staff. Mr. Paulsell said it would be difficult to put an exact time
line on when additional people would be put on staff because this would be
determined by demands and funds. The District is concerned about providing
a level of service that is acceptable and will also meet the needs of the
future. He anticipated that to occur probably within five years.
Karen Miller, Associate Commissioner
for Boone County, read the following letter from the County Commission submitted
to Mr. Beck and Chief Paulsell on February 26th and asked that it be made
part of the record.
B63-97 Granting
a variance allowing First Christian Church to build a canopy in a public
alley
right-of-way,
and authorizing a right of use permit.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said the staff was
recommending approval of the request. David Rogers, an attorney
with offices at 813 E. Walnut, spoke on behalf of the First Christian Church. He
explained that the Church was in the midst of a large renovation project. They
plan to put one of the major entrances to the Church in the area of the right-of-way,
and the canopy would provide protection in inclement weather. Mr. Rogers
said they were not asking for a vacation of the alley, just permission to
cross the City's air space. If the City ever has a reason that the
canopy has to be moved or removed, the Church would do it at their expense.
Mr. Kruse asked how far it
would extend. Mr. Rogers said it would extend all the way across the
alley.
B63-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B64-97 Appropriating
funds for the Cosmo Park Playground and Shelter Project.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the
Cosmo Luncheon Club had provided funding for the new recreation area at the
park. He said a tremendous number of compliments had been received
about this park, and this additional funding will be used for even more work.
B64-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B72-97 Annexing
City-owned property south of the MKT Parkway and east of Scott Boulevard.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
was 101.5 acres in southwest Columbia, plus 2.1 acres of the existing MKT
Trail. He said it was property owned by the City.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
to amend B72-97 per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B72-97 as amended was given
third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO
ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were
given second reading and the resolution was read by the Clerk.
B60-97 Accepting
water utility conveyances.
B65-97 Approving
the final plat of Country Club Fairways, Plat 1-B, a replat of Lot 1, Country
Club
Fairways,
Plat 1.
B66-97 Approving
the final plat of Dwight Bingham Subdivision, a replat of Lot 56 of Mikel
Subdivision.
B67-97 Approving
the final plat of the Meadowlands, Plat 13.
B68-97 Approving
the final plat of the Meadowlands, Plat 14.
B70-97 Vacating
a sanitary sewer easement in the Meadowlands.
R33-97 Setting
a public hearing regarding 1996 CDBG and HOME Performance Report.
The bills were given third reading and the resolution read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R34-97 Approving
the Preliminary Plat of Thessalia, Phase 2.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
14.5 acre tract of land would have 32 lots on it.
Mr. Janku asked if this tract
was adjoining the property in which the owner indicated it would be dedicated
to the City. Mr. Hancock said that was correct. Mr. Janku asked
if there was access from this plat. Mr. Hancock said the final plat
was on for introduction, but it did not extend all the way to the proposed
tract of land to be dedicated and deeded to the City.
The vote on R34-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN,
COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted,
reading as follows:
R35-97 Authorizing
a petition for annexation of a portion of Nifong Park.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
land had been purchased by the City some time ago. He said this property
is now in a position to be annexed because it is contiguous to the City.
The vote on R35-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN,
COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted,
reading as follows:
R36-97 Authorizing
an amendment to contracts with home health care vendors.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
would change the reimbursement rate to these vendors from $10.36 to $10.86
per hour.
Ms. Coble asked if there
was a reason why home health services were being provided by the Northeast
Community Action Agency and not by the Mid-Missouri Agency, Central Missouri
HDC. Mr. Beck said he did not know, but would get an answer for her.
The vote on R36-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN,
COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted,
reading as follows:
R37-97 Urging
state officials to encourage Amtrak to allow transportation of unboxed
bicycles on
its
route between St. Louis and Kansas City.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the Council
requested this resolution.
Mr. Beck noted that he had
seen the enhancement application from the State Bicycle Coordinator, Mr.
Scott. He said they were applying for money to put bike racks in the
train.
Mayor Hindman said he was
very much in favor of this resolution and had written letters and talked
to Amtrak personally to try to get this taken care of. He was concerned
about the Council passing a resolution because he did not see where it was
directly related to Columbia. He asked Mr. Hancock if he saw a connection. Mr.
Hancock said it was a statewide route and because of the people that would
want to get off near Columbia and use the Trail, he felt it would be beneficial
to the City.
Jan Pritchard, 3505 Rock
Quarry Road, said she could see a very good reason for Columbia to endorse
this. She said the City has just spent an awful lot of money connecting
to the cross state trail. If people can get on the cross state trail
in Jefferson City, we want to encourage them to come to Columbia. She
said people should be able to put their bicycles on the train in St. Louis,
come to Jefferson City, ride up the trail, visit Columbia, get back on the
train and go wherever they want.
Mr. Janku said he felt there
was enough of a logical link to support it.
The vote on R37-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN,
COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted,
reading as follows:
R38-97 Authorizing
a contract of obligation with the Department of Natural Resources as
the
landfill
financial assurance instrument.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the
state raised the landfill financial assurance to $16,278,803. He noted
that $8 million is for post-closure and approximately $8 million is for closure. Mr.
Beck reported the idea was to assure that landfills across the state are
not abandoned and left as a problem.
Mr. Janku asked if money
was being set aside to fund this. Mr. Patterson said post-closure funds
were being set aside. He said the closure costs were in the operating
budget during the years of operation. The post-closure costs were for
the 30 years after the City has finished with the landfill.
Mrs. Crockett asked how long
the current landfill would be used. Mr. Patterson said the calculation
was on what the City has permitted now, which is about 20 years. He
said that did not include the southern part which gives an additional 40
to 50 years.
The vote on R38-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN,
COBLE, JANKU. 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:
B75-97 Approving
the final plat of Thessalia, Plat 1.
B76-97 Amending
Chapter 29 of the City Code relating to family day care homes. Introduced
by
Campbell.
B77-97 Authorizing
an agreement with the Highway and Transportation Commission for sidewalk
construction
on Route B from Route 63 to Business Loop 70.
B78-97 Authorizing
land acquisition for the Route PP improvement project.
B79-97 Calling
for bids for street construction on Silvey Street from West Broadway to Worley
Street.
B80-97 Confirming
the contract for storm drainage construction and improvements in the Jackson
Street
area, and appropriating funds.
B81-97 Confirming
the contract for construction of the 4th and Cherry Streets parking lot,
and
appropriating
funds.
B82-97 Confirming
the contract for construction of the 6th and Cherry Streets parking structure,
and
appropriating funds.
B83-97 Appropriating
funds to purchase phone equipment for the new fire station.
B84-97 Appropriating
funds to develop a City web site on the internet.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Revision to the
zoning ordinance regarding bed and breakfast regulations.
Mr. Janku felt the City needed
to recognize a distinction between a traditional bed and breakfast and that
of something larger, which is more in the nature of a hotel. He said
the neighborhood impact of an establishment that can host receptions for
large numbers of people and contained a number of rooms would be different
from a small, traditional bed and breakfast. Retaining the residency
requirement would be appropriate in some cases, but not in others.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that the report be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(B) Proposed neighborhood
commercial zoning district.
Mr. Campbell said he did
not care what the name of the zoning district was, so long as it permitted
a neighborhood commercial district.
Mr. Harline asked how this
would interact with the urban conservation district. He thought that
was where neighborhood commercial might be most appropriate. Mr. Campbell
said in areas like Chapel Hill and Scott Boulevard, the urban overlay was
not really appropriate. He said the City needed a classification with
a relatively tight zone where there is all new development.
Mr. Janku said the question
was raised about the new zoning, in effect, creating some non-conforming
uses. He asked if there was a way the Council could pass something
that did not do that for the existing buildings in C-1, in other words, amend
the existing C-1 zoning ordinance. Mr. Boeckmann said if the Council
changes the rules, people could continue doing what they are doing. That
is what is meant by legal non-conforming uses. Mr. Janku asked if that
could be waived. Mr. Boeckmann said that would be inconsistent with
zoning.
Mr. Campbell questioned if
a vacant piece of property is currently zoned C-1 and the Council makes the
zoning more restrictive, whether rights would be taken away from those people
who have that zoning. Mr. Boeckmann said it would be to the extent
that any zoning takes away rights. He said if a piece of land is vacant
and is not being used, then it would be governed by all of the new rules.
Mr. Kruse said he liked the
C-N concept and that he would rather have a separate district. He thought
there would be resistance from the development community if C-1 and C-3 zonings
are tightened any further.
Ms. Coble made the motion
that the Planning and Zoning Commission be asked to hold a public hearing
on the C-N draft. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved
unanimously by voice vote.
(C) Old House Day.
Mr. Beck explained that the
steering committee was requesting $600.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that the request be approved. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crockett
and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(D) Street closure
requests.
Ms. Coble made the motion
that the closures be approved as requested. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Harline and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(E) Community skateboard
park.
Ms. Coble said it was late
and there were several people who wanted to talk about this issue. She
asked that it be put on another agenda at an earlier point in the meeting. Mr.
Beck said the item could be put under Special Reports at the beginning of
the meeting. The Council agreed with this alternative.
(F) Small requests
category for arts funding.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that staff be directed to develop the appropriate legislation. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(G) Eugene, Oregon
tree trimming policy.
Mr. Harline said the current
tree trimming policy is not community acceptable and either the City needed
to convince people it was acceptable, or change what is being done.
Mr. Janku said the community
may not agree with the standard, but at least it could be said the City is
complying with the standard. He said whether or not the standard is
appropriate was a second issue.
(H) Beautification
project update.
Report accepted.
(I) Sales tax revenues
and budget forecasts.
Mr. Beck noted that City
sales tax revenues were down. He said the report indicated that this
would probably not create a major problem this budget year, although it could
possibly take the fund balance down below 16%. This would provide less
revenues to deal with the next budget year unless there is a turnaround of
the sales tax. Mr. Beck said it constitutes about 30% of the general
fund revenue and funds such divisions as Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation,
etc. Mr. Beck was not sure why this was happening. He talked
to the City of Springfield and they felt it might be because of shopping
areas that had opened toward Branson.
Mr. Campbell said there were
two or three things going on that might have affected revenue. The
City has had tremendous growth in commercial development for more than ten
years, but now smaller communities are getting super stores. He said
this was eliminating some of the revenues that normally would have come into
Columbia. He said there was also some evidence that discretionary income
was being affected by gambling. Mr. Campbell also mentioned that Columbia
is not growing as fast as it was.
Mr. Beck said he would have
some follow-up information for the Council Retreat.
(J) Proposed sponsorship
of Adventure Club.
Mr. Beck explained that the
University Extension would no longer sponsor this program and were accepting
proposals on it. He wanted the Council to be aware of it before submitting
an application.
Mr. Campbell said he was
getting very mixed signals from his constituents as to who is served by this
group. He said it was originally set up to serve low income, central
city children. It apparently is not serving that population as much
as it is serving the suburban, middle class students. Mr. Campbell
was not against the program, but wanted to know who would be served.
Mr. Janku received a call
about the program and concern was expressed that Adventure Club does not
serve Field, Benton, or Blue Ridge schools. He said if the City was
going to step in, he thought they should serve the entire community.
Mr. Beck said the report
eluded to that and suggested that the City may want to change the scope to
some degree if it was decided to become involved.
Mr. Ristow explained that
Adventure Club was organized by 4-H and started as a pilot program. Currently,
fourteen out of eighteen elementary schools are being served. He said
the four schools without a program were associated with the central Columbia
area. In talking with the Director, Mr. Ristow said there had been
some concern with the area and attempts had been made to bring in some programs. These
programs were met with mixed success. Mr. Ristow said if the City was
interested in the program, he thought the central Columbia area should be
looked at closely. One approach might be to work with different agencies
to attempt to provide some before and after school programs in the four schools
currently not represented.
Mr. Campbell was still hesitant
to move forward without more information because of the possibility that
this program could be a sizable budgetary item. He wanted a report
back.
Mr. Janku said he would like
to see the City proceed with the proposal. He asked about the time
deadline. Mr. Green said proposals were due the 26th of March and if
the City was going to submit a proposal, staff needed Council approval tonight. Mr.
Janku said the report indicated that the City would make it a self-sufficient
program.
Mr. Campbell asked how the
City could make a proposal without making an obligation. Mr. Green
said their intention is to make a proposal to the Extension and if they accept
it, a resolution would be brought to the Council accepting the program. He
said the proposal would indicate the intentions of the City if the proposal
was accepted.
Mr. Green reported some schools
were not being served because of financial reasons. He thought someone
needed to work very closely with the four schools and, through welfare funding
or some other mechanism, get them involved. Mr. Green said the the
lack of programs in these schools could not be attributed entirely to financial
concerns and there were other issues to consider. Transportation was
one of the problems.
Ms. Coble said someone needed
to shake loose some of the Caring Communities dollars and find somebody to
tell the City how to get the funds and explain the grant application guidelines. Mr.
Green said they were using Caring Communities, but it was limited at the
present time.
Mayor Hindman asked what
kind of financial obligation would be expected. Mr. Green said if the
program is operated as is, there would be no financial commitment from the
City. He said revenues for the program exceed expenses at the present
time. Over the last four years, a fund balance has been accumulated.
Mrs. Crockett asked why the
University wanted to cease sponsorship. Mr. Green said the University
Extension is a pilot program type of organization and they are down-sizing. They
want to turn their attention to something else. He said this has been
done in several counties throughout the state.
Mr. Campbell said there was
another reason why the University did not want to participate in the program. He
said the University was being criticized for not meeting their target groups
because the program was supposed to reach minority and other groups. He
said it had not been successful at doing that. He said if the City
takes it on as is, we would be criticized as well for not reaching the groups
intended.
Mr. Janku said he was not
suggesting that the City take it on as is. He suggested that the City
show our willingness to work with them. He said this was an opportunity
to work with the schools and share facilities.
Mr. Campbell thought if the
Council authorized a proposal, they would be making an obligation. Mr.
Janku said the City needed to make sure not to over-commit. Mr. Kruse
asked if the proposal could be authorized contingent upon further budget
review and approval by the Council.
Mayor Hindman asked if proposals
were being sought from other groups. Mr. Ristow said there were, but
the only other agency he had heard express an interest was the University
Y.
Mr. Harline said the worst
case scenario was that the City would win the contract and operate the program
for a year with a fund balance.
Mr. Beck suggested that the
City state its position in the proposal and have a condition included regarding
the Council concerns. He said the proposal could be submitted to meet
the deadline and then some of the other alternatives could be pursued. It
may be found the proposal will have to be withdrawn. Mr. Beck asked
when the proposals would be evaluated. Mr. Ristow said the University
indicated that would be done within two weeks after the deadline. He
said their funding was set to expire June 30, 1997.
Mayor Hindman could see both
sides of the argument, but pointed out that one of the criticisms the City
was getting was that we are not utilizing the schools for recreation programs. He
said the program would be set-up in all but four of the schools. He
said the question would be whether or not the City could get the program
set-up in these schools and make it work. He was inclined to go forward
with it, keeping in mind Mr. Campbell's concerns. Mayor Hindman wanted
to make it clear that the City was not looking at committing to a large budget
item.
Mr. Campbell pointed out
that getting the other four schools involved would be labor intensive. He
said it would take a lot of good resources and would be expensive.
Mayor Hindman asked Mr. Ristow
how he felt about Mr. Campbell's statement. Mr. Ristow said in working
with some of the other agencies, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, taking
advantage of some of the personal and financial resources offered through
the Caring Communities Program, it would be labor intensive to set-up, and
perhaps may require some more resources than the other schools might, but
it could be done. He said after school programs was an area that was
number two in the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Mr.
Ristow said it was an area that he thought was important enough for the City
to examine, but with eyes wide open.
Mr. Janku made a motion that
the staff be authorized to proceed, keeping in mind the concerns expressed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Upon receiving the majority
vote of the Council the following individuals were appointed to the following
commission:
Cultural Affairs Commission
Grimes, Paulette, 760 Southampton, Ward 5 -
term to expire 4/1/00
Morrison, K. C., 1312 Overhill, Ward 4 - term
to expire 4/1/00
Mustard, Cynthia S., 600 S. Greenwood, Ward
4 - term to expire 4/1/00
Schulz, Jolene M., 1021 Hulen, Ward 4 - term
to expire 4/1/00
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mr. Janku asked about turn
lanes on Bernadette Drive. Mr. Campbell said he had asked for a report
on that very issue a few months ago. He was hopeful it would be coming
back shortly. Mr. Janku said he would like to suggest that the City
look at adding Bernadette to the Sidewalk Master Plan since there is a school
there.
Mr. Janku noted that the
Parks and Recreation Commission would be holding a hearing on the issue of
a free run area for dogs. He suggested that the ordinance the Commission
recommends be written in such a way to give the Parks and Recreation Director
the authority to designate areas as such, and not have the Council debating
each and every suggested area.
Mr. Janku said earlier in
the evening a question was raised regarding the issue of how much construction
for street projects was done in-house versus how much was bid out. He
asked for a report on it. He pointed out that the crews doing the street
work in the summer were the same people doing the snow removal in the winter.
Mr. Kruse asked for a staff
report on the advantages, disadvantages, costs, and so forth of allowing
unboxed bicycles on buses, or having bike racks on buses for bicycles.
Paul Albert, 2703 Parker,
talked about Vandiver Park Village and Holly Park. He also spoke about
Council Retreats being unnecessary.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway,
spoke about the April 1, 1997 bond issue election. He said there was
no need for an increase in water rates at this time and there was no need
to issue the revenue bonds.
Jan Pritchard, 3505 Rock
Quarry Road, displayed an application for Rock Quarry Road to be designated
as a scenic roadway. She thanked Mr. Kruse and Mr. Harline for all
of the work and help they have given over the years.
The meeting adjourned at
1:00 a.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Penny
St. Romaine
City
Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia