FEBRUARY 2, 1998

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, February 2, 1998, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri.  The roll was taken with the following results:  Council Members HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, and COFFMAN  were present.  The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of January 20, 1998, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mrs. Crockett.

    Upon her request, Mr. Campbell made the motion that Mrs. Crockett be allowed to abstain from voting on B19-98.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    The agenda, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Kruse and a second by Mr. Janku.



B342-97A     Voluntary annexation of property located east of Rock Quarry and south of Nifong
                       Boulevard; establishing permanent PUD-8 zoning, rezoning property located on east
                       side of Rock Quarry, approval of PUD Development Plan for Cambridge Place.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that there had been a request received for tabling the bill to the second meeting in February.
    Mayor Hindman continued the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that B342-97A be continued to the February 16, 1998, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B346-97     Rezoning property owned by Godas Development, Inc. located on the east side of
                    Ballenger Lane, north of Clark Lane from R-1 to C-P.
     The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that a request had been received from the owner to table this item indefinitely.
    Mayor Hindman understood if this item is tabled indefinitely, it would have to be readvertised prior to the time of further public hearing.
    Ms. Coble made the motion that B346-98 be tabled indefinitely.  The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B356-97     Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code as it relates to plat submittal requirements and
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the primary issue of this ordinance concerns requirements for constructing sidewalks along unimproved streets; either at the time the subdivision is being developed or, in lieu thereof, putting up funds for a sidewalk to be constructed at a later date -- possibly by the City.  He said when this issue had been discussed at a work session, consideration had been given to providing some relief to through lots as the City does not encourage lots to front on collector and arterial streets.  In such cases, the developer would then have to install sidewalks on both sides of an applicable lot.  For that reason, Mr. Beck said the Council asked the staff to look into what relief was given when tax billing a street having two fronts.  The way this particular ordinance is written, it would give the same relief for sidewalks at a corner lot and a through lot.
    Under this proposal, Mr. Janku understood that sidewalks installed along unimproved streets would be similar as to what currently occurs along improved streets -- as a lot is developed a stretch of walk is constructed.  Mr. Janku thought conceivably, that could be on a lot by lot basis.  Mr. Hancock guessed that could be the case, but said the idea was if there are several lots platted with rear frontage along a street, the option would be available to either donate money or construct a walkway of some sort.  He said if this is enforced as transpires now, it would be on a lot by lot process.  Mr. Janku observed if a subdivision develops from the interior out to the unimproved street, a lot of time could elapse before a sidewalk is constructed.
    Mr. Beck clarified that an unimproved street is one that generally has ditches along both sides -- instead of curbs and gutters.  This is the differentiation between improved and unimproved streets.  He reported it is much easier to build a sidewalk along an improved street because the grade of the street is already established.  On an unimproved street, Mr. Beck explained that there might be a lot of grading required which makes it more difficult to build a sidewalk.  Referring to unimproved streets, Mr. Beck said it seemed to him it would be a little more difficult to enforce on a house by house basis.  He said if the topography of the subdivision is fairly flat or the grade well-established, there would be an opportunity for the developer to put in a sidewalk or pathway.  He asked Mr. Patterson if staff discussed how to handle a situation in which a street requires a lot of cut and fill.  Mr. Patterson said that had been the concern before when the Council suggested that the construction of sidewalks should be attempted at the time of platting.  If an applicant does not request a variance and does not offer to put a sidewalk in or pay for it at the time of platting, and staff tries to enforce it the way it is done currently, it would be very difficult to assure the collection of money or that a sidewalk would be built along an unimproved street.  Mr. Patterson thought that was one of the arguments made at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, whether to charge the costs of sidewalks as a development fee or at the time a building permit is obtained to assure that monies would be collected for sidewalks.  He said there is no mechanism in this ordinance to allow staff to do it any other way, unless it is simply a requirement and not a choice.
    Mr. Janku said the way the ordinance is written, he was not sure the Council would be accomplishing their goals.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku thought the goal had been to somehow expedite the construction of sidewalks along unimproved streets, and to get it done early in the process so those people moving in to new subdivisions have access.  Presently written, he did not think the ordinance accomplished that, and thought it needed more work.
    Mayor Hindman agreed.  He said safe pedestrian traffic should be provided for the entire subdivision, and maybe it made more sense to think of it as something that should be paid for by everyone in the development rather than doing it lot by lot.  He suggested another work session on the issue.
    Mr. Campbell agreed.  He said it also needed to be recognized that there will be a substantial additional cost in requiring preliminary sidewalks.  He felt these walks are needed, and did not suggest otherwise, but it should be realized that there is a substantial cost when dealing with difficult terrains.  Mr. Campbell said when the street is improved at a later date, he did not feel it fair to go back to the property owners and ask for another payment.  That meant someone would have to pick up the second time cost.
    Mr. Kruse pointed out that, in many circumstances, the temporary sidewalk may end up becoming permanent.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that B356-98 be tabled to the March 2, 1998, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B19-98     Rezoning property located at 127 South Fifth Street and 415 Locust Street from M-1 to C-2.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the applicant had indicated their intention to use this property for offices.  This request had been recommended by staff and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on a 7-2 vote.  He said there were some questions raised during the Planning and Zoning meeting about the possibility of alcohol being served within a certain distance of the church, located to the southwest of this property.  Mr. Beck explained that the ordinance limiting these sales had been removed from the books some years ago.
    Mr. Boeckmann noted that the state statute is still on the books, and he believed that if the establishment where liquor will be sold is located within 100 feet of a church or school, no license can be granted unless the board of directors of that church or school consents to it.  He said it is not a problem if there is an ordinance flatly prohibiting a liquor license to an establishment within so many feet from a church, the problem is giving up that authority to the church or school.
    Mr. Campbell noted that Columbia has a pyramiding system of zoning.  He said this property is currently zoned M-1 and, under that district, all uses under commercial could currently be used -- except housing.  He said liquor sales could have been established at this location in the past.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Bill Crockett, an engineer with offices at 1414 Rangeline, spoke on behalf of the owners.  He pointed out that the Land Use Plan of 1983 designated this area as commercial.  He said it was later designated for commercial as a downtown area by later adopted plans.  Mr. Crockett noted that several months ago, the Council authorized a very similar type zoning one block north of this property --  at the northwest corner of Fifth and Cherry.  He felt a precedent had been set when that request had been approved, and it is appropriate to continue it.  Mr. Crockett explained there are currently two residential structures on the site, one of which will be razed.  He said the house on the corner will be incorporated into the proposed structure and would be completely gutted and remodeled.
    Nancy Galloway, 501 S. Glenwood, spoke as co-owner of Callahan and Galloway, a property management company.  She said they were very excited about this project and the progression of the Flat Branch area as a vital part of downtown.  She said they plan to spend a substantial amount of money turning the neglected house into an attractive corner the neighboring property owners would be happy with.
    Joe Callahan, co-owner, distributed a sketch of the proposed building.
    Tim Brockmeier, 211 Heather Lane, explained that he and his wife operate an interior design business called Designs by Brockmeier.  He said they had been contemplating purchasing a site to move their business to for some time.  He said when the property on the corner of Fifth and Locust became available, they had known right away that it was just what they had been looking for.  This is a circa 1910 home with graceful and charming features.  He said a renovation and architecturally correct addition will make this long-neglected dwelling a real jewel in the revitalized Flat Branch area.  Along with their partners in this project, Callahan and Galloway, Mr. Brockmeier respectfully asked for approval of the rezoning request.
    Mr. Kruse asked if the addition to the house would be to the west.  Mr. Brockmeier said that was correct, and added that the smaller house would be removed.  Mr. Kruse thought the plan looked great.  He asked about trees on the lot and whether or not they would have to be removed.  Mr. Brockmeier said he was afraid they would, but stated quite a bit of landscaping is planned.
    Mr. Janku asked about parking.  No plan was shown.
    Tom Schneider, an attorney with offices at 11 N. Seventh Street, spoke on behalf of the Islamic Center.  He said the Center had no particular objection to this project, but the problem was with what might be established in an unregulated C-2 zone in five or ten years if this business relocates somewhere else and then rents out the facility.  He said types of uses the Islamic Center would greatly desire to avoid at the location include bars and taverns.  The Center has already experienced problems with area bars and taverns.  Other uses listed that are opposed by the Center include liquor stores, adult video stores, exotic dance clubs and night clubs.  These are considered to be incompatible uses for the area and, for that reason, Mr. Schneider said the Center requests that the applicant consider planned commercial which does regulate offensive uses.  Regarding the 100 feet statute, Mr. Schneider said the state has not enforced this law for some time because of constitutional problems.  He thought the statute was an unlawful delegation of government authority.  Although it is true that M-1 theoretically allows for the sale of liquor, Mr. Schneider said the reason the applicants are requesting the rezoning is the property cannot be used in an M-1 zoning district because of the off-street parking requirement.
    Mr. Campbell said C-2 is a more restrictive zone than industrial, and thought the Center would be gaining some in having a more restrictive statute.  Mr. Schneider said his point had been that the property was unlikely developable in M-1.  He said the applicant could not develop it with the off-street parking requirements, which are waived in C-2.
    Mr. Coffman asked Mr. Schneider if the Center had discussed any other type of protection or restrictive covenants.  Mr. Schneider said something like that would work.  He said not all of the representatives of the applicant were present this evening, so they were unable to resolve that issue this evening.  He said his clients would be willing to a 30 year restrictive covenant to exclude the various uses mentioned earlier.
    Aasim Inshirah, 407 Hickman, spoke as a member of the Islamic Center since 1979.  He distributed pictures showing how close the proposed site is to the Center.  He explained that the Center is not just a place of worship, but is also used for educational and social purposes.  He said members gather at the Center five times a day, from early morning until last prayer at sunset.  He said there is also a children's playground very close to the site, and the larger children use the basketball goal in the back parking lot.  He said there is no other place for members to worship in Columbia.  Mr. Inshirah said the Center's concern is not about the proposed office uses, but the potential future uses of the property that could disturb their peace and quiet.
    Ms. Coble asked if there had been any discussions amongst the leaders of the Center regarding restrictive covenants.  Mr. Inshirah said no one had discussed that specifically with him.  He said the President of the Center is present and may be able to answer the question.
    Mr. Campbell recalled the mosque had been looking for additional parking a few years ago.  He asked if they had considered buying the property.  Mr. Inshirah said the Center did not need additional parking and, in fact, have so much parking that some is actually leased to the University.  He said what they do need is additional property to build a school and expand the Center.
    Mohammad El Deib, President of the Islamic Center, said they had been interested in obtaining this piece of property, but that had not worked out.  He said the concern is not with this proposal, but with possible future uses.  Mr. El Deib reported the Center is willing to work with the applicants on some
restrictive covenants.
    If given more time, Ms. Coble asked Mr. El Deib whether he thought he could work with the property owners.  Mr. El Deib said he would like to work with the applicants.  Ms. Coble asked if it was his preference to have a C-P zoning as opposed to an agreement on restrictions.  Mr. El Deib said they are hoping for both.
    Regarding Mr. Schneider's statement about the site being useless as M-1, Mr. Crockett said he did not agree.  He said there are a number of uses that could be put on this particular tract of land where the parking requirements would not be substantial enough to make a difference.  He asked the Council to keep in mind that the structures currently in place could be utilized without a rezoning request.  The reason for this application is to achieve compliance with the Land Use Plan, and to use the site as a downtown development.  He explained that the house was built in the early 1900's, and neither Locust or Fifth streets were improved at that time.  With the improvement of those streets, Mr. Crockett said the right-of-way remained the same; however, the street widened and the house is now sitting within a few (10 to 12) feet from the edge of the street.  He pointed out that M-1 zoning has a 25 foot front yard setback requirement, and the applicants are trying to eliminate that with the C-2 zoning.  He also reminded the Council that the mosque was built when the entire area was zoned M-1. He said they had full knowledge of what situations could develop.  Mr. Crockett said any delays at this point would create a hardship for the applicants at this late stage.  He asked for favorable Council consideration.
    Mayor Hindman asked why it would create a hardship.  Mr. Crockett said time was of the utmost importance on this project due to the investment that has already been made, and due to the substantial amount of costs that are incurred daily.  Mayor Hindman asked if there was a reason the applicant had not requested C-P zoning.  Mr. Crockett said he had rejected the thought immediately because normally with a C-P zone there are a number of setback requirements.  He noted that the lot was 45 feet by 120 feet.  Mr. Crockett felt it was most appropriate for the entire area to follow the Land Use Plan.
    Mr. Schneider said the Planning Commission expressly suggested to the applicant at the last meeting that they look into restrictive covenants as a method of resolving this issue.  He said the Islamic Center's concerns did not come up at the last minute.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Ms. Coble said she had heard about the discussion and the request both at the Planning and Zoning meeting and subsequently about the desire of those from the Islamic Center to seek some type of agreement -- if not through zoning, then through some type of restrictive covenant for the property.  She understood what the Land Use Plan allows for and what the surrounding neighborhood has in terms of existing businesses, but she also thought it is important for a central place of worship in the community to be able to have a good relationship and assurances from those surrounding businesses.  Ms. Coble did not see that as a hardship, but something actually beneficial.  She was pleased with the plan and thought it was important that the property be preserved with the architectural details that had been shown.  She said the property would be saved and thought it would be a great use in the neighborhood.  Ms. Coble was hopeful the applicants could come to some type of agreement with others in their neighborhood.
    On the face of it, Mr. Campbell said this plan is exactly what many of the Council members have called for.  He said it was one of the few times the Council has seen some of the architecture being preserved.  He noted that the property would be used for a relatively low impact type of operation.  In many ways, Mr. Campbell said this is an ideal proposal.  The only question is the "what if" question.  He was not as concerned about the "what if" associated with a down zoning as compared to if it had been going the other way.  In most cases, a property is going from a more restrictive use to a less restrictive one.  Mr. Campbell said it would be nice if the applicants could work something out with the neighborhood, but he thought the Council should approve the request.
    Mr. Janku thought it looked like an excellent project and did not see where two weeks was of the essence.  He thought both sides should talk to each other, and added that the applicants should have gone to the mosque.
    Mr. Coffman said he would be uncomfortable voting on the issue until he knows there has been an opportunity to negotiate and try to resolve the problems.
    Mayor Hindman also thought both sides should have a chance to talk.  He recalled that when the mosque was constructed, the area was pretty much neglected and run down.  He thought the Center had been encouraged to move in with the hope that it would help turn the general neighborhood around.  He thought the process was pretty well underway.  The Mayor noted he would not necessarily vote against the proposal if an agreement is not reached.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that B20-98 be tabled to the February 16, 1998, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved by voice vote.

B20-98     Rezoning property located at 209 and 213 Third Avenue from R-2 and O-1 to C-P.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said when the request had gone to the Planning and Zoning Commission they had voted unanimously to deny it.  Since that denial, the applicants have requested that the application be changed to a planned office zone rather than planned commercial.  He said if the Council wished to proceed with this request, the ordinance would have to be amended and then held over to the next meeting.
    Mr. Kruse made the motion that the Council amend B20-98 per the amendment sheet and table it to the February 16, 1998, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman.
    Mr. Campbell said he had been a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission when this plan was drawn up.  He said the policy established at that time was that the commercial zoning along Providence would be one lot, and one lot only, deep.  He said it would not be two lots because of the perceived intrusion into the residential neighborhoods.  He said that was a very strong statement established at the time.  Even as amended, he said this proposal would intrude into a residential area.  Mr. Campbell said the property is located on a very difficult section of Providence Road in that there are no lights or traffic control devices present at this intersection.  He said this would simply add to the congestion.  Mr. Campbell's opinion was that approval of this request would encourage an absentee owner to allow a residential structure to deteriorate, and then ask for a change in zoning so the building could be replaced.  To reward this type of residential maintenance is a detriment to the City.  In addition, the City already has a limited number of low-income housing available.  Finally, Mr. Campbell said this is an unimproved residential street not capable of handling the type of traffic associated with this zoning.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    John Clark, spoke on behalf of the North Central Neighborhood Association.  He was supportive of Mr. Campbell's statement and of the Planning and Zoning Commission's rejection of the C-P approach.  Mr. Clark was concerned about the "afternoon of the hearing changes" being requested.  He said if the Council were to amend this bill and hold it over, that would serve the Association's needs and sense of good process.
    Mayor Hindman said from reading the minutes of the Commission meeting, he recalled the North Central Neighborhood Association had been very much in favor of a change to O-P zoning.  Mr. Clark said the Association was very much in favor of conforming with the Land Use Plan, which favored office use in this corridor as opposed to a more intense commercial use.  He hoped the Council would not just take that discussion as the entire guideline.  Mr. Clark suggested the Council either send this bill back to the Commission, or at the very least, hold it for two weeks.  He said probably what was most disturbing is that there might be a vote on this issue tonight when, in fact, the change was made this afternoon.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku asked how deep the lots were off of Providence.  Mr. Hancock said they were 36 1/2 feet by 135 feet.
    The motion to amend B20-98, and to table it to February 16, 1998, made by Mr. Kruse, seconded by Mayor Hindman, was passed by voice vote.
B22-98     Authorizing construction of an 8-inch water main on Chapel Hill Road.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this is a routine request in accordance with City policy.  He said staff recommends approval.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B22-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B23-98     Authorizing construction of a 12-inch water main on Fairview Road and Ash Street.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the estimated cost of this project was $48,549.  The new water main will be installed along the west side of Fairview Road (in an existing easement) extending to West Ash Street.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B23-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B25-98     Authorizing construction of improvements at Oakland Park.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Green explained that this project is contained in both the FY 97 and FY 98 budgets.  He said plans call for a new playground, the renovation of fitness stations along the trail, and renovation of at least two of the tennis courts.  The total project, including force account labor, would be $177,000.  Mr. Green noted that construction is expected to begin this season, and staff anticipates the work should be completed by this fall.
    Mrs. Crockett asked how staff would decide how many tennis courts would be renovated.  Mr. Green explained that there currently are five courts in the park.  He said the original budget called for three of the courts to be improved, but then $14,000 was taken from the project because the skateboard project had been moved from Oakland Park to Cosmo Park.  He said staff is determined to finish two courts, but would go as far as the $66,000 would allow.  Mr. Green said the work would be contracted out and the courts would be completely renovated from the ground up.
    Mr. Janku asked what was anticipated for the playground.  Mr. Green said it would be similar to what was done at Douglass Park.  He said it would be located by the two shelters and would have some landscape blocks and tires, but the majority would be purchased playground equipment.
    Mr. Kruse asked about the use of the exercise equipment.  He reported he seldom sees them being used on the MKT Trail or in the park behind his home.  Mr. Janku agreed, but he thought they were not used very much because of the deteriorated condition.  His observation was that there is very limited work that needs to be done to renovate the ones that cannot be used.  Mr. Green said part of the reason this equipment needs to be renovated is because they have been vandalized.  He did not think there was any signage either.  Mr. Green pointed out that the stations are 25 years old and do not meet all of the safety standards that the new station standards must meet.  He said the equipment could certainly be removed, but staff had heard from several people that they would like for the stations to be renovated.  It was Mr. Green's opinion that they either needed to be renovated or removed.  Mr. Kruse pointed out that the memo said the equipment would be replaced, not renovated.  Mr. Green said that was correct.
    Mr. Campbell asked how much the stations would cost.  Mr. Green said it would be less than $20,000.  Mr. Campbell said that was a substantial amount.
    Mr. Kruse said he was not proposing that staff not repair the stations, but he did not think they are used much.  He wondered if the staff and Parks Commission had thought about it in terms of the fact that there may not be the money available to renovate three tennis courts.
    Mr. Janku said that was an excellent point and from comments made earlier, he understood there were people who would be willing to defer, not eliminate, various improvements.  He said it may be a matter of priority and more input is needed.
    Mr. Coffman asked if there were any improvements to the disk golf course planned in the future.  Mr. Green said there were none in this budget.  He did say that staff has been talking to the disk golf players and knew they wanted to expand.  Mr. Coffman noted that the signs had deteriorated some.
    Mr. Campbell asked how priorities are determined.  Mr. Green said in this particular instance, safety was a factor that had been taken into consideration with the exercise stations.  Regarding the disk golf, he noted that there are already 18 holes.  Mr. Green said if that program is expanded, the trail might have to be crossed and then again it would be a safety matter.  He said priorities begin with safety, followed by requests from the citizens and staff expertise.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Diane Hughey, 1712 Sky Lane, spoke on behalf of Oakland Manor Neighborhood Association.  She expressed their appreciation to the Council for proceeding with the needed improvements.  She also acknowledged the remarkable contributions made by Dick Green, retiring Parks Director, through his leadership.  She said the Parks and Recreation Department was a real asset of the community.  Ms. Hughey also recognized the parks staff for their willingness to work in involving neighborhoods in the improvements and decisions to the area parks.  Regarding the equipment, she said they realized choices would have to be made.
    Paul Penn, 1811 Lovejoy Lane, President of the Tanglewood Neighborhood Association, also thanked everyone for their efforts toward the park improvements.  Mr. Penn said the exercise stations are being used, but are getting rough and unsafe.  His opinion was that the stations would get more use if they were in better shape.  He said residents understood there were constraints as far as budgeting, and that they could not have everything done all at once.  He said they were hopeful that the tennis courts that would not be taken care of this year would be put in next year's budget.  Mr. Penn said residents would like to be able to utilize all five tennis courts.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    There was a discussion about making modifications after passage of the ordinance.  Mayor Hindman asked if the plan would have to be followed exactly, or if staff would be able to make adjustments as they saw fit in their professional capacity.  Mr. Beck said this last year he had included $177,500 for this particular improvement plan.  His opinion was that if with passage of this ordinance the exercise stations would be replaced (among other things), that was what should be done.  Mr. Beck reported that was what he approved when the budget was brought in.  He said if the Council wanted to provide that flexibility he thought they could, but he did not think the staff should just go off and change what was presented to the Council.
    Mr. Janku said there was a lot of money involved for the improvements, and that it had been a significant decision to put the $60,000 in for the tennis courts.  He knew there were competing needs for those funds, and that it is hard to get that significant of an amount in each particular year.  His concern was that if the three courts are not renovated at this point, it would be hard to come up with that amount of money in a future budget.  Mr. Janku said there were many parks around Columbia that would benefit from $60,000, as well as a lot of neighborhoods that would like to have small parks established.  As the exercise stations would only cost $8,000, these could be replaced at the end of this year if any money is left over from some other project.  He pointed out that there has not been as much support by civic groups for this park as there has been for other parks.  It seemed to him that a civic group might be more interested in pitching in $8,000 for exercise stations, or $10,000 to help with the playground, than they would be to resurface a tennis court.  He would rather see the three tennis courts renovated now, and then budget next year for the exercise stations or finish the playground.
    Mr. Kruse said the Council knows there is a documented wish to have the tennis courts improved, and he did not see exercise stations being used in other parks.  Mr. Kruse said if there are unsafe stations they should be removed.
    Mr. Campbell felt that whatever is approved in detail needed to be followed.
    Mr. Green said staff met with the neighborhood several times, but where the discrepancy comes in is where some of the funding for this project went to the skateboard park.  He said before that happened, intentions had been to renovate three tennis courts, build the playground, and replace the exercise station equipment.  That would be the priority as far as development is concerned.  Mr. Green reported if the Council really wanted to renovate three of the tennis courts and establish the new playground, it was his opinion that was about all the $177,000 would do.  He said if the Council approved those two things (three tennis courts and the playground), staff could be instructed to use the remaining funding to repair some of the exercise stations as much as possible.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the plan be amended to reflect Mr. Green's suggestion.  The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    B25-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B26-98     Authorizing construction of Westwinds Neighborhood Park.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Green explained that this neighborhood park had been purchased about 13 years ago.  He noted that money had been included in the one-quarter cent sales tax approved by the voters.  In addition to the walking trail, Mr. Green said the park would include a playground, basketball park, and a picnic shelter.
    Mayor Hindman said he liked the plan very much and thought it would be good for the neighborhood to have the park developed in this way.  He suggested that the staff think of the possible interconnection of the trails as much as possible.  He said the north/south street would connect to a sizable neighborhood, although there are no sidewalks in the area.  Recently, he said the Council had authorized the purchase of the property one lot to the west of this project.  He said there would be a walk light installed, and it would provide access to residents crossing Stadium.  He said if there could be a way found to connect that access to this project it would be a very big improvement.  If the systems could be connected, it would involve all of the houses to the west and would also allow people using the park access across Stadium.  Mayor Hindman would like to see that addition, if at all possible.  He understood the reason for passage of this ordinance tonight was so the playground equipment could be ordered as part of a large package.  He would be inclined to vote favorably with the thought of asking the staff to see what could be done to provide the above described interconnection.  Mayor Hindman reported the plan could be amended at a later date.
    Mr. Campbell suggested that the staff meet with the neighborhood again to get their input on the development of the park.  Mr. Campbell noted that the playground would be located relatively close to Stadium Boulevard.  He asked if fencing costs, or the cost of other measures, had been included in the figures to keep children from running out onto Stadium.  Mr. Green said costs for fencing had not been included, however, it was felt the topography of the park would lend itself to preventing balls or other objects from rolling onto Stadium.  He said there was a rise from the park up to a berm before going over into Stadium.  Mr. Campbell said there was not much of a berm where the playground is being proposed, and thought it was relatively flat at that location.  Mr. Green said perhaps staff would build a berm in that case.  Mr. Campbell said it was imperative that staff check into the safety of the design.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B26-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B28-98     Approving the engineer's final report, levying and assessing special assessments for
                  improvements to Richardson Street from Ripley Street to William Street.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained that the subject street had recently been reconstructed to improved residential standards.  Prior to the improvements, the street had been an unimproved  residential street approximately 22-feet in width in an existing 40-foot right-of-way.  The total length of the project is about 480 feet.
    Mr. Patterson noted that a public hearing authorizing the project was held June 17, 1996.  The total project cost was $72,555, and consisted of constructing a 28-foot wide pavement with sidewalks along both sides.  As the street is within a Community Development Block Grant eligible area, Mr. Patterson explained that City policies provide for levying special assessments against abutting properties in an amount that is 50% of the normal assessment for a local pavement portion cost of the street.  The maximum tax bill assessment was set at $14.64 at the time of the public hearing.  If the assessments are levied as proposed, Mr. Patterson said this would generate about $12,853 of the $72,000, with the balance being paid through CDBG funds.  Also in accordance with policy, property owners who meet income and residency requirements are eligible for grants that would pay for the entire amount of the tax bill.
    Prior to making the assessments this evening, Mr. Patterson said the Council would need to determine that there are special benefits that have accrued to the properties as the result of reconstruction of the street.  He suggested the Council consider that some of the benefits might be that the curb and guttering, which has helped the overall storm water management in the area, has improved the appearance and maintainability of the properties; new driveway approaches have been built on all properties thus improving access; the improved street surface will reduce the wear and tear on the vehicles of the property owners, resulting in the reduction of maintenance costs; and the City will be able to provide better street maintenance in the form of street cleaning and snow removal. He also pointed out that once a street is improved, properties are no longer subject to tax bill maintenance of the street which could be as much as $2.00 per foot per year.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if the property owners have been informed of this assessment.  Mr. Patterson said notices had been sent to all property owners at the time of construction and at the time of tax billing.  He said the last notice sent contained information regarding this evening's public hearing.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B28-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B361-97A     Amending Article III of Chapter 11 of the City Code pertaining to beverage containers.
    The bill was given third reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this issue had originated as a result of a pre-annexation agreement negotiation.  He said staff had been working with the property owners attempting to get an agreement worked out.  He understood now that these individuals are willing to sign a pre-annexation agreement without this exemption.
    Mayor Hindman noted that no signatures had been acquired as of yet on the pre-annexation agreement.
    Urban Wussler, Bluff Boulevard, again gave the history of the deposit law and said if it was abolished a lot of problems would be solved.
    Mrs. Crockett said she could not support this exemption because if the Council passed it for the deposit law, the next time someone wants to annex into the City, these individuals might want a variance to something else.  She said there are retailers who have been in business for many, many years and have had to deal with the deposit law.  She did not think it was fair to allow someone to come into the City for five years, or even one year, and not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else has had to.  Mrs. Crockett said to allow this would only set a precedent.
    Mr. Campbell agreed with Mrs. Crockett.  He said the Council had passed an ordinance that gave firework stands located in the County some protection for a limited time.  He thought that exemption is very different from this one as a product will be sold year round to many more consumers, many of whom reside in Columbia.  He said fireworks are sold for a limited time for use outside the City.  Mr. Campbell indicated he cannot support this ordinance because it would make for unfair competition within the City.
    Mayor Hindman realized the elements of unfairness, but thought of it like grandfathering.  He said the five year exemption would begin at the time of the signing of the agreement, not at the time of actual annexation into the City.  He said the Council would be grandfathering a business' present product for what would probably be significantly less than five years.  There is also an amendment regarding that a business is required to have been in operation for one year prior to even signing an agreement.  Mayor Hindman thought this exemption is a reasonable balance, and perhaps it should be stipulated that the business will be required to have been in operation for a couple of years to ensure there is no subterfuge involved.
    Assuming the ordinance passes, Mr. Campbell reported there is a store located at a junction of I-70 and asked what if someone else came along and builds another convenience store next to the existing store.  He said the message would be sent that one business would have to follow the deposit ordinance, while the other store will be exempt from these regulations.  He said the old store would have a definite price advantage over the new one.  Mayor Hindman agreed this is an element that poses a problem.  Although as it is now, there are stores at the edge of town that do not have to comply with the deposit law.
    Mayor Hindman said one thing this exemption will encourage is annexation into the City and compliance with all of the ordinances and, at the same time, will establish a sunset on their business operations.  He said the other choice an individual could make would be to stay outside the City and then there would never be a sunset on operations.
    Mrs. Crockett asked about all of the stores that have had to comply with this ordinance since the beginning.  Mayor Hindman said this would not change the behavior of their competition, but would have the affect of eliminating it eventually.
    Mr. Janku thought the public is beginning to think the City is willing to do almost anything for annexation.  He was of the opinion the City has yet to adequately explain to the public why annexation is of benefit to the broader community.  Mr. Janku thought this tarnishes annexation and diminishes the importance of it to the community.
    Mrs. Crockett knows what these particular people have in mind for this area, and it would be a big benefit to the City.  She said when she explained how she felt about this issue, these individuals understood her concerns.  Mrs. Crockett thought they would agree to annexation without the exemption.
    Mr. Coffman agreed with the Mayor and although there may be times where there might seem to be some discrimination or unfair relationships, it would be for a reasonably short period of time.  He said it also seemed to eliminate some unfairness that occurs along the City boundaries.  He said the benefits derived from this exemption would be long-term, and any perceived unfairness would be for a short time.  Mr. Coffman felt it is a reasonable compromise.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion to amend B361-97A by changing the amount of time a business is required to have been in operation to qualify for exemption from one year to two years.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and passed by voice vote.
    B361-97A was read by the Clerk with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, KRUSE, COFFMAN.  VOTING NO:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  Bill defeated.

B17-98     Approving final plat of The Terebinths, Plat III, a major subdivision.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this plat would create four lots and it met all subdivision regulations.  The staff report noted that the flood plain area is adjacent to the proposed greenbelt for this area of the City, and staff had requested that the subdivider work with the City in providing a greenbelt easement for the area.  Mr. Beck reported this had not been included in the plat.
    Mayor Hindman asked about the situation regarding the greenbelt easement.  Mr. Hancock said the greenbelt resolution covers Hominy Branch, so staff had pointed out to the proponent that the City would like to see some form of easement on the property.  Mr. Hancock explained what easements had been obtained thus far in this area.  He said there was no one present in the audience to speak to this issue.  Mr. Hancock said staff had worked with this PUD several times in the past, and had indicated the desire for some sort of green space, greenbelt access, or non-access easement in this location to help fulfill the policy in the area.  He said the applicant has chosen not to dedicate an easement.
    Mr. Janku understood the Hominy Branch extends to the west and crosses under 63.  Mr. Hancock said that was correct.  In terms of a future trail possibility, Mr. Janku said it is an excellent transportation corridor that avoids the 63/I-70 interchange and the major traffic areas at Broadway and 63.  Mr. Hancock said staff is working on a plan for the Hominy Branch, but at this time he cannot tell the Council which side might be more suitable for a trail.  He said a plan for the Council to consider will be submitted within the next three to four months.  Mr. Hancock reported there will be barriers created by some of the roads, and this will have to be looked at some day if the area is ever developed into something more than just a greenbelt.   Mr. Janku said the Council recently considered a big PUD development and, in that discussion, it had been pointed out that is what PUD's are for -- allowing increased density or opportunities to align the property in particular ways on the plat that would not be normally permitted.  He said there are certain trade-off's, like greenspace, that are expected.  Mr. Janku said his personal preference was that this area be dedicated as part of the greenbelt, including some sort of trail easement.  This property is located along St. Charles Road, and it would be an excellent site to construct some sort of trail into Columbia.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that there be a greenspace trail easement.
    Mr. Campbell pointed out that this is the final plat, although he would be in favor of the motion.  He asked if the Council had the right to make those kinds of changes.  Mr. Boeckmann said the Council cannot amend the ordinance to dedicate an item -- the dedication has to be included on the plat.  He noted that the staff report indicated the plat meets all of the subdivision regulation requirements, and is in conformance with the approved PUD Development Plan.  Mr. Boeckmann reported the Council does not have solid legal grounds to reject the plat because the applicant chooses not to dedicate something that is not required.
    Mr. Janku withdrew his motion.
    Mr. Kruse said it would be a missed opportunity if an easement is not dedicated in this case.  He said perhaps the Council should table this issue to give it that chance.
    Mayor Hindman asked if there was space on the plan for the land to be dedicated outside of where the buildings are shown.  Mr. Hancock believed it to be outside of lot one.  He said it is a flood prone area and an area not necessarily developable.  Mr. Hancock said it contained a big drainage easement.
    Mr. Campbell asked if he understood the developers had been approached regarding this issue and chose not to dedicate the easement.  Mr. Hancock said that was correct.
    Mayor Hindman asked if the Council voted against the request, whether the developer would have to start over again.  Mr. Boeckmann suggested tabling the bill, and have the developer explain why he does not want to dedicate an easement.
    Mr. Kruse made the motion to table B17-98 to the February 16, 1998, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B27-98     Authorizing agreement with Markey and Associates for engineering and design services
                  for the renovation of the Oakland Park swimming pool.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that consultants had been interviewed by a team, and they are recommending a firm that does this type of work.  The estimated cost for the renovations is $49,900.
    B27-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B29-98     Accepting the bid of C.L. Richardson Construction Company for construction of Sanitary
                  Sewer District No. 138 and appropriating funds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck pointed out that this is a major sewer project that the Council held hearings on earlier.  He said several bids had been received with the low bid being $86,819.25.
    Mrs. Crockett asked about the location of the project.  Mr. Patterson explained that this is the project that goes to Extrusion Technologies.  He reminded the Council that one of the things that really helped on this project was, since the time of the resolution estimate, E.T.I. donated the pipe for the project and it is being used as a pilot project for their material.  He said E.T.I. had been working very closely with the City to try to keep the costs down.
    B29-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B30-98     Amending Chapter 22 of the Code or Ordinances to allow the assessment of the cost of
                  construction of local non-residential streets.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that a situation has come up as to what the City's policy would be relating to participation in the cost of a commercial-type street.  This particularly involves the extension of Conley Road.  He said when the City's policy was developed agreeing to pay for the extra width and thickness for collector-type streets, the intent was for the City to pay the cost for that which could be attributed to the community for using those streets, and then the property owners would yet pay for a portion of the streets because they would also be using them.
    In the Conley Road situation, used almost 100% by abutting property owners, Mr. Beck said there is a real question as to what the overall community use would be.  Working with the Public Works staff, he said they had come up with some language that would allow streets of this nature to be tax billed without the City having to pay a great percentage of the cost for the street.  Mr. Beck reported this amendment had been discussed with one of the owners who would like to see Conley Road paved, and they are willing to pay their part of it.  He said this ordinance would apply to any other similar street that might be affected in the future.
    B30-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B31-98     Amending Chapter 11 of the Code of Ordinances as it relates to storage of unlicensed
                  motor vehicles.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this ordinance had been prepared at the request of the Council.  He said it would remove the provision of a property owner being able to store a vehicle under a tarp or opaque covering.
    Robert Young, 4406 Mexico Gravel Road, owner of an auto service, said that this ordinance had concerned him for some time.  There is a group of auto body shop owners that, in some cases, do not have parking facilities to store all of the vehicles they work on.  These cars must, by necessity, be parked on City streets.  Mr. Young said some cars might not be picked up for long periods of time for various reasons, and businesses are forced to store these vehicles.  If the cars are not picked up by the owner, the business either has to call someone to haul them off as junk or have the City impound them.  He said if the car is repaired and the owner does not have the cash to pay for the work, then the vehicle has to be stored to protect the investment that has been made by the business.  Mr. Young did not have a problem with the ordinance as it relates to residential areas, but he did in commercial and industrial zoned areas where these types of shops are located.
    After much conversation, it was noted that this particular ordinance does not deal with lawful motor vehicle sales and junk yards, or service businesses.  It was pointed out that unlicensed cars are not allowed on public streets.
    Ms. Coble said there were areas in this community, and vast portions of the first ward, where it is atypical to have a dwelling with a carport or a garage.  She said there are many individuals in the community who do not have the financial resources to immediately have a vehicle repaired, and these persons need time before this can occur.  Ms. Coble felt it was over-reaching on the part of the Council, for the purposes of aesthetic values, to tell these individuals they have to completely get rid of the investment they have already made.  She said when the ordinance was originally passed and the Council added the exception to allow the tarp covering over vehicles, she received a lot of calls from people complaining about vehicles they had identified that did not have tarps on them.  She said as soon as the tarps went on, it has probably been a year plus since she had received a call about this issue.  She did not find the tarps offensive, and thought the current amendment is a punitive approach.  Ms. Coble noted that this may not seem to be a very big deal to some, but people's lives could be hurt very clearly as a result.  She thought the amendment to this ordinance is too severe and would vote against it.
    Mr. Janku said this had been a difficult decision two years ago and the Council had struggled with it.  He saw it as a balancing act.  In the paper today, he reported Mr. Sanford was quoted as having said that 153 citations had been written since this ordinance had gone into effect.  Mr. Janku said that confirmed his observation that the City has a serious situation developing where there are many abandoned vehicles throughout Columbia, not just in one particular area.  At some point, a person has to take responsibility for what their impact is on neighboring residents.  Mr. Janku stated the appearance of the surrounding property would affect his decision about whether or not to purchase a home in a neighborhood if he saw one or more junk vehicles in someone's yard.  He said the City has an extensive Home Ownership Assistance Program and other programs directed to try to help some of these neighborhoods.  He said the City encourages people to buy properties, fix them up, and be committed to their neighborhood.  Mr. Janku thought covered cars throughout the community could adversely affect how people feel about the neighborhood they live in.
    Mr. Janku explained that the current ordinance allows an unlicensed vehicle to remain on private property for 90 days, with an additional 30 days after a written notice has been sent by the Health Department.  He summarized that people would have a minimum of 120 days to arrange financing for car repairs, and he thought that is a reasonable amount of time.  Mr. Janku said he spoke to someone who works on cars and had been told that if a car sits for a long period of time, it gets more and more difficult to repair.  He said perhaps a motivation to get it fixed could be beneficial.  Mr. Janku thought about the expense of having junk cars hauled away, and had found a company in the phone book that hauls away junk cars for free.  Again, he said the purpose of the amendment to the current ordinance is to provide a balance, and he is trying to shift the balance toward the responsible homeowner.
    Ms. Coble asked what if the issue to some area residents is not property ownership -- a person who would never own property and currently lives in public housing.  This is the case of many people in the first ward.  She said these individuals do not own the property, and neighboring occupants do not own theirs either.  In these circumstances it is not an issue of the neighborhood property values going down.  Ms. Coble thought the proposed amendment had a class affect.
    Mr. Janku agreed it is a class affect. He said the rich people can live in neighborhoods where there are restrictive covenants against this type of conduct, whereas the poor people cannot afford to buy a nice home in a neighborhood with  restrictive covenants.  He said a person may have bought a house years ago and has tried to keep it up, or they may be looking at purchasing a home in a neighborhood where property values are a little lower and there are no restrictive covenants.  Mr. Janku explained that is what he is attempting to support.
    Mr. Kruse asked Mr. Janku if he had received more complaints from people and that motivated him to bring this issue up again.  Mr. Janku said he has received complaints and that he has personally observed this.  He said if the Council were to tour the City, they would be stunned to see the number of abandoned vehicles on some of these properties.  Mr. Kruse said he had seen a few recently, probably in the first ward, where there were no tires on the vehicles and the cars are sitting on the street with no tarp.  Ms. Coble said those are violations.  Mr. Kruse understood that, and said most people in his ward can afford to take care of their vehicles.  He noted on his street, however, there is a family with four unlicensed vehicles covered by tarps that are in terrible condition.  He said there is another family with two vehicles in a similar condition.  Mr. Kruse said he receives complaints regarding these situations from his neighbors.  He understood Ms. Coble's point, but is very much of two minds on the issue.
    Mr. Campbell said he did not think many abandoned cars would be covered with opaque fabric.  He said if people are keeping vehicles covered, he doubted that they are abandoned.
    Mr. Janku said this is a particularly appropriate time to bring up this ordinance as the design of license plates has changed, and it is easier to identify unlicensed cars.  Currently, when a complaint is received by the Health Department and a vehicle is found to be noncompliant, the owner is notified that either the car must be removed from the property or covered with a tarp.
    Mr. Coffman thought the real issue was the tarp.  He said there is a big difference between a car up on blocks in disrepair and one that has a covering on it.  He supposed there are tarps that are tattered and uglier than others, but said he was happy with the status quo.  Mr. Coffman thought a tarp is a reasonable compromise.
    Mayor Hindman said he was persuaded by the problem of the neighbor who keeps their property up.  He has had several upset people talk to him about not being able to control the quality of their neighborhood because of people taking advantage of the situation.  Many times cars are covered with tarps that become dirty, and the vehicles just stay on the property.  Regarding the class affect, Mayor Hindman said to a certain extent that may be true.  He thought it may tend to happen in the lower income neighborhoods, which are perhaps the neighborhoods that have the hardest time protecting themselves from the deterioration.  He also felt this amendment is a very reasonable compromise.  Mayor Hindman said it is not fair to neighboring residents when the situation never improves, and added that this individual has just as many problems as the person who is covering up the car.  He is sure there are legitimate hard luck stories, but he also felt that a lot of the cars are covered up for all kinds reasons that have nothing to do with limited financial resources.  Mayor Hindman said the City needed to help these citizens, and thought 120 days was plenty of time to deal with most situations.  If a true hardship situation exists, he expected the person could talk to his neighbor about it and probably no complaint would take place.
    Mr. Campbell said the Mayor's points were well-taken, but said he was going to vote against this amendment for other reasons.  He thought the original ordinance that had been passed was a reasonable compromise, and did protect some of the neighborhoods because unlicensed vehicles are required to be covered with opaque material.  Mr. Campbell asked the Council to consider two points; one is the problems associated with welfare reform.  Many low income individuals will be forced to find jobs, and these people need to have transportation.  He said many will not be able to afford good transportation, and the vehicles that will be used will probably be limited -- sometimes running and sometimes not.  He pointed out that many employers in Columbia are not convenient to public transportation.  Secondly, the Council has discussed the affect on neighborhoods.  Mr. Campbell said it is vitally important that neighborhoods be kept up, but at the same time, to most citizens the automobile is the American dream.  It gives people freedom when they own a vehicle.  Mr. Campbell reported the City would be sending a message that if people cannot afford to keep their cars licensed, the City would take their dream away.
    Mrs. Crockett said there were a lot of cars covered in her ward.  She questioned how far the City could go in telling people what they can and cannot do on their own property.  She knew there are people who would eventually get their vehicles running, but she had a problem telling someone who cannot afford to get the car fixed then they must get rid of it.  Mrs. Crockett reported before the ordinance was passed mandating that unlicensed vehicles must be covered, she had received a lot of complaints; but since then, she has only received a couple.
    B31-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  COBLE, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN.  Bill defeated.

B33-98     Authorizing appropriation of $25,000 for a Comprehensive Community Child Care System.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said the City's portion for this project would come from the 1997 child care funds, which had been obtained as a result of the City receiving more money from the state than had been anticipated.  He said the other $25,000 would come from United Way.
    Mr. Steinhaus explained that this project is the culmination of two year's work of the child care team of the Boone County Health Report Card Project.  He reported that the team proposes that a full-time child care coordinator be hired to work with the Community Child Care Commission, which is comprised of child care professionals and community business leaders, to develop a model for a comprehensive child care system in the community.
    Mr. Steinhaus listed the duties of the coordinator would include working on developing partnerships amongst employers and child care providers to improve accessibility, affordability, and quality of pre-school and school age care in the community; working to coordinate local, state and federal funding streams for child care in the community in order to support a more coordinated and comprehensive child care system; developing additional funding sources to create a comprehensive child care system in the community to serve as a catalyst to encourage linkages and coordination amongst existing child care programs and services for more effective and efficient care and access to resources; and working with the Community Child Care Commission to develop a model of this system for the community.  He said the team knew this is an important issue, and had seen proposals from both the President and the Governor for increased funding for child care in communities.  From recent brain research, Mr. Steinhaus said the importance of quality child care (especially for ages zero through five) had been determined.
    Ms. Coble asked if she understood correctly that the annual salary of the person hired for this position would be $34,000.  Mr. Steinhaus said that was correct.  She asked about the relationships of the different agencies.  She said there was the Office of Community Services, and also working out of that office is a full-time position from the Caring Communities project.  Mr. Steinhaus said that Caring Communities had moved into new office space.  Ms. Coble understood that Caring Communities is associated with the work done by the Office of Community Services.  Mr. Steinhaus said that was correct.  Ms. Coble asked if Caring Communities had been an aspect of the team that came up with this proposal, she understood it had been a crossover membership with Caring Communities, Community Partnership, Boone County Health Report Card, and Child Care Consortium.  Mr. Steinhaus said that was correct.  Ms. Coble asked how many of the groups had staff members.  Mr. Steinhaus did not believe any of them did.  Ms. Coble asked if the team is seeking to coordinate all of those identified different efforts through one single staff person.  Mr. Steinhaus replied that is not the case, and added that the group is seeking to coordinate the child care efforts in the community.  Ms. Coble said those efforts involve each of the other agencies.  Mr. Steinhaus said the Community Partnership would be associated with it, as would United Way and the City.
    Ms. Coble explained that her first impression of the project had been that a budget of $50,000 would be allocated to talk about child care.  She thought there had been a lot of progress being made toward cooperative efforts at community levels, especially in the realm of social services, but thought sometimes this community can get a little dazzled by the models and seek to develop yet more structures and more things that can be identified as catalysts to linkages.  As the specific job is described, Ms. Coble said she found it frustrating, given that a government report last week reported the median income for child care workers in this country is $13,000, that this person would "talk" about child care with those who are working in child care, and yet would still not be providing any services.  She said considering just the $25,000 the City would fund for this program, training could be provided for workers who now have to pay for it.  Given the little amount of income these individuals receive, they very often cannot afford training.  Ms. Coble said the City could furnish actual services and resources to those who are trying to provide infant care, but cannot do so because of the lack of equipment, with a lend/lease program.  She stated scholarships could be provided to support the work to ensure that all of the issues identified as a need in the community are fulfilled.  She said there is a need for more accredited day care.  Ms. Coble said new materials need to be developed in the community, and this is something the $25,000 could be spent on.  The City could also take advantage of the work that is already occurring to greater involve employers in this community in creating more access to child care.  She said this is already being done through REDI, a member of the consortium.  REDI is undertaking surveys, that had been developed by private providers, to determine what child care needs in the community can be served from area industries and businesses.
    Ms. Coble reported that there are private providers in this community who are already being funded, insufficiently through federal and other agencies, to provide child care resources and referrals.  She said these programs are significantly understaffed, but could be accomplished with even half the money that will fund this entire project.  Ms. Coble said these providers would actually be doing the work, not having meetings about the work.  Ms. Coble noted her belief in the commitment of all of the people that have been involved, and thought these individuals would continue to meet and work on coordination of services.  She did not believe the most efficient use of $50,000 in this community is to do anything other than to really provide child care and address the needs of those who furnish it.
    Mr. Steinhaus agreed those were all needs in this community.  He said a number of the team members struggled with whether or not to just apply directly for a number of those types of projects Ms. Coble mentioned.  He said the team discussed what it would take to move the community up to a higher level of child care, and everyone felt there needed to be a commitment to someone who could really follow through over the next year in bringing the business community on board as well.  Ms. Coble said that REDI was currently undertaking that effort.  Mr. Steinhaus replied it was the team's involvement that compelled REDI to do so.  Ms. Coble pointed out that this work had transpired without a staff person, and it had been a coordination of resources that an existing entity undertook.  Mr. Steinhaus responded by saying this grant is seed money, and the team realized there are a lot of direct services that could be provided with this money.  It was felt that this project would be an investment that would pay off in long-term benefits.
    Jill Graham, 3708 Dublin Avenue, spoke as the co-chair of the Boone County Health Report Card Child Care Committee.  She thanked the Council for their strong commitment to child care in the past.  She said the Committee's goal is to develop a comprehensive quality child care system.  Ms. Graham said this system would put the community in a position to respond to the initiatives recently defined by the President and Governor.  She said it is a capacity building opportunity.  She agreed that child care providers are not paid enough, and said that would be a very important part of this system -- to work toward improving the wages of the providers.  Regarding training coordination, Ms. Graham listed several organization that are offering training at no charge or very reduced cost.  She said even though these groups are offering training, there are still providers that feel their training needs are not being met.  She said the community needs to work together to build a system that will offer pre-service, in-service, and ongoing advanced training opportunities for child care providers.  Ms. Graham said that an effective child care system would improve the accessibility of all income levels to child care, and also improve the availability and quality of care.
    Mr. Coffman saw the issue as being how a child care coordinator would further the goals.  He asked why a coordinator would be better than the consortium itself in helping develop this comprehensive plan.  Ms. Graham said it was because all those who are involved in the committee have other jobs and could only volunteer so much time.  She said a paid coordinator could bring everyone together so gaps and any overlaps in services could be identified.
    Ms. Coble understood all of the different efforts involved, but knew from her own work that one person cannot make that significant of a change.  She also knew it was the ongoing collaborative work and dedication of people like Ms. Graham who will continue to meet to identify the issues, and work toward addressing them.  Ms. Coble thought it was the issue of service -- the service of training, the service of resources, and the service of child care provision itself.  Ms. Graham believed this system would improve the various services for many years to come.   Mr. Janku said this project seemed to be missing specific measures of performance.  Ms. Graham said the number one recommendation for the Governor's Commission on Early Child Care and Education is that systems be in place in the communities.  She felt with this system, the City would be in a much better position to take advantage of the initiatives and respond.  Mr. Steinhaus said one of their goals had been to identify at least ten businesses actively participating in the project.
    Gloria Farnam, Director of Head Start Program in Columbia, is a member of the Child Care Team and supports the proposal because of the additional funding for activities that will raise the collective consciousness of the Columbia community.  Her biggest concern is the rapidly growing need for quality child care.  She is also concerned about the growing number of low-income families who are looking for child care, and for those who are just above the poverty guidelines that make them eligible for Head Start.  She saw this entity as additional help to bring the businesses and the business community to the table.
    Sara Gable, 1212 Paquin Street, explained that she is employed by University Outreach and Extension and also is an assistant professor on campus in Human Development and Family Studies.  She is a new member of the Child Care Team, and is especially excited about the proposal because one of the areas of emphasis relates to standards.  She said service is extremely important, but service without standard does absolutely nothing for the children of the state.  She said one of the main goals of this position would be building bridges and links between organizations and agencies who are providing training to child care providers in the state.  One of the reasons child care providers are so poorly paid is because there is a total lack of consumer education on what it takes.  Ms. Gable reported twelve clock hours of training that costs $5 for two hours does not make a highly qualified professional person, who then can command a better pay for their job.  Ms. Gable said systems like this exist already all over the state, and Columbia is one of the few communities that does not have one.  Kansas City and St. Louis both have very well-funded creative systems that are supporting the delivery of quality child care in their communities.  She said these cities are working to meet the needs, not just service delivery.  Ms. Gable stated the cities have an accreditation facilitation program and a scholarship program for the providers in their care.  She said these programs were not put in place by the kind-hearted people who are working 40, 50, and 60 hours per week.  She said child care providers work significantly more than 40 hours per week with no benefits.  Ms. Gable said the kind of work that needs to be done to improve quality is not going to happen out of the goodness of our hearts.  She pointed out that "the goodness of our hearts" is supporting the system right now.  Ms. Gable reported a person who earns $5.53 per hour is the goodness of someone's heart, not someone who recognizes what they can command in a market.  She said the system would be a move that would put Columbia in a position to have greater alliances with communities across the state, to command greater funds for the City.
    Mr. Janku asked if the program mentioned in the other communities was the model.  Ms. Gable said it was not "the" model, but "a" model.  Mr. Janku asked if the programs are very different in different communities.  Ms. Gable said they were.  She said the Kansas City model has significantly more private funding from foundations, but Head Start money is blended also.  She said it is basically a community, state, and federal system of funding that comes together to support a wide variety of services for child care.
    Marty Baker, 509 S. Cedar Lake Drive, co-chair of the Child Care Committee, said the $25,000 in funding the Council provides could go to direct services for a year.  She said that would be significant.  However, what the committee had agreed on was that the $25,000 opportunity, to be matched by United Way, could go a long way toward opening doors for a lot more funding that will provide for children for a long time to come.  Ms. Baker reported $25,000 could be spent on feeding kids, providing more day care slots, providing some training, but when the funds are gone, so are the programs.  She said the Committee is hopeful that the incentive of the person who fills this position would be to continue to access more funding to continue the program.  She knew more state money would be available, but if the community is not in a position to step forward and show that progress has been made, the money would go elsewhere.  Ms. Baker saw this project as an investment in the future, and an investment in maximizing the potential of this community.
    Ms. Coble asked Ms. Baker if she understood that this money had already been allocated for child care.  Ms. Baker said she knew it had been allocated for child care slots.  She felt it is a much more visioning appropriation to go for something that would build for the future instead of taking care of the immediate.  Ms. Coble said part of the Governor's proposal, as well as the federal, is money to fund these positions -- coordinated efforts at the community level.  Ms. Baker said that was when the communities already have something in place.  She said the Committee is hopeful this person would be in the position to write the kind of grants and proposals that will allow for funding to come into this community.
    David Franta, Executive Director of the Columbia United Way, said it is unusual for the United Way to support this type of project.  He said normally funds go to support direct services.  The United Way had been attracted to this project because of its value and the pay off for the community.  Mr. Franta said the United Way saw this as the first step in accessing some of the government dollars that nobody in this community has the time to seek.  He said they believed this was critical for the business community to become involved in providing leadership for the development of this kind of comprehensive care system.  He said it takes time to meet with the business community, and it takes time to build trust to see that this is something that will pay off for the business community.  Mr. Franta said the United Way also felt this funding will help toward filling in the gaps in terms of infant, evening, weekend, and special care needs.  He said these needs take more time because they are more complicated.  Finally, the funding will assist in building government corporate capacity.  Mr. Franta said child care is just one of the building blocks to getting people off welfare, getting them employed and, at the same time, providing child care for these individuals.   Ms. Coble said she is frustrated by hearing how this person's job will be to raise more money.  She did not want to spend $50,000 in this community on a position whose job it is to raise money to address issues that already need to be addressed.  She said it is a focus and a highlight of current systems within the Department of Economic Development to redirect the usage of neighborhood assistance tax credit programs to private employers to use for on and off-site day care development.  Ms. Coble stated that work is going through business communities now, and the attention in education is going through state agencies who have funded programs and have staff people to do it.  She agreed someone needed to be hired to do the work, but did not necessarily think it needs to be a government employee.  Ms. Coble thought the City could contract with someone from within the community.
    Leslie Ethington, 1012 Pheasant Run, a retired early childhood educator, explained that she provides in-service training for day care providers in different areas of the state.  She had mixed feelings about this program.  Ms. Ethington had been very disturbed to read that the first priority of this person would be to raise funds to continue their job after a year.  Basically, she supported the project because she liked the idea of the community coming together to support children, but she was concerned a year would be spent trying to raise funds only to find that the children will not have been helped any.  She said some of the people that have already implemented some of these training, resource, and referral kinds of things will not have the input to someone who is just trying to raise money for their own salary.  Ms. Ethington would like the assurance, if the project is funded, that the City would be very careful in who is selected, and that it be carefully coordinated with the people who already know where the needs are.  She did not want to add another layer of bureaucracy.
    Katharine Bozarth, 2000 S. Deerborn, did not know how one person could in one year speak to all of the needs of this community, and then concoct a whole new system.  She said this could risk more fracturing of the system without solid planning.  Ms. Bozarth would be in favor of the program, but would want to know how it would be delivered.
    Mary Ann Pabst, 807 Spencer, a Child Care Connection employee, said any new funding dedicated to improving child care services in the community is sorely needed.  She thanked the Council for their continued support.  Ms. Pabst said the funding the team is requesting could accomplish many wonderful things.  She said the position could generate significant funding and community support for early care and education programs.  She said the additional funds could be used to address very specific unmet needs that have already been identified.  By increasing the available resources, Ms. Pabst said this project would be of tremendous benefit to the children, working parents, employers, the child care industry, and the community in general.  While she sees great potential, she also sees the possibility of duplication.  Ms. Pabst reported if some stake holders are excluded from the process, the coordinator may spend precious time and resources reinventing the wheel by developing materials, programs, and services that are already available.  Together, she said they must address unmet needs and not duplicate current activities.  Ms. Pabst said this is a temporary position and that was a concern.  She said the idea of having a year to write enough grants to generate your own income was certainly something that needed to be examined carefully.  Ms. Pabst stated the outcome should be increased resources and support for the child care community, and must not grow into a bureaucracy, but rather support the cost effective community based efforts currently underway.
    Tammy Byington, 3720 Southridge Drive, explained that she had been a home day care provider for six years.  She is the mother of two children still in a day care situation.  She said she is very much in favor of the program.  Ms. Byington said the City could buy every three year old in Columbia a book with the $25,000, or they could put someone in a position for a year that could do so much good for the children of Columbia.
    Mary Jo Herde, 602 Hardin, said this program will not create competition among providers, but rather support for the providers.  She said such a system is not already in place.  There are a number of good starting places and a number of programs that are very beneficial, but there is not a coordinated approach.  Ms. Herde reported this one person will not be the savior of child care, rather this person will help develop some of the structures to establish a more systemic approach to child care.
    Mr. Campbell noted that Kathy Thornburg, professor of early childhood education at the University, had called him with her strong endorsement to the proposal.  She had been serving on the Governor's Committee on Early Childhood Education at the state level.  She said this was the exact type of program that is being recommended for communities in the state.  Ms. Thornburg thought Columbia had a one to two year lead on many other communities if the City were to adopt this program, which would help in securing resources for early childhood education.  Mr. Campbell noted that this project had also been endorsed by the Community Partnership.
    Mr. Kruse asked Ms. Coble if she was in support of the goal as stated -- to develop a comprehensive child care system in the community, and establish the structures for its implementation.  Ms. Coble responded she was in support of the goals.  She is not, however, in favor of the program being structured through a government agency when there are private providers in the community.  If given an opportunity to have access through a grant process, these providers could do the work without having to go through the identified struggles that these professionals have already recognized.  She said a private provider could more likely dive right into service provision instead of having to work to continue their own salary.  Mr. Kruse asked if it was a difference in opinion in terms of how to accomplish the goal.  Ms. Coble said it was, and had seen other collaborative, cooperative measures in this community that involved government partners, administrators, and lots of people who go to meetings.  She explained that millions of state dollars have been spent in this community with very few things to show for it.  Ms. Coble reported it is time to get down to action and put the money where the people are actually doing the work.  Mr. Kruse asked Ms. Coble if she would support the appropriation of the money to house it in a non-governmental office.  Ms. Coble said she would.
    Mr. Janku asked if the Council is voting to create a position in a City office.  Ms. Coble said it would be a City employee.  Mr. Steinhaus said the team had looked at a number of options in the community, and the City had certainly not been the first choice in which to place the employee.  He said a great deal of discussion had taken place amongst the team as to where the program might be located, and two factors were taken into consideration.  The first factor is that the Office of Community Services had extra office space and could provide some in-kind office space, which would decrease some budget costs.  The second factor had been that the transfer of the City funds from the previous child care appropriation had been possible as well.  When the team discussed various options, this had been the option the team recommended.  Mr. Steinhaus reported he is certainly open to any other options.
    Mr. Campbell said he had listened to what people have said who are considered to be experts in the field.  He said this project has been explored for two years by a group of very knowledgeable people in the field.  He suggested that the Council look very carefully at this group's recommendation as they have contemplated this issue in great depth.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if the City's initial commitment for this program would be for one year.  Mayor Hindman said that was his understanding.  Mrs. Crockett said if was found at the end of the year the program is not working the way it is thought it should, the City would no longer be obligated to fund it.  Mayor Hindman said that is correct.  He understood it to be a one-time grant, and added that he did not think the United Way is willing to fund the project on an annual basis.  Mrs. Crockett said she has been on the Council for three years and had seen money spent on things that she thought could have been put to better use.  She said for $25,000, she can support the program at this time to see if it would work.
    Ms. Coble said this is an issue of women and children, and $25,000 in that realm is a whole lot.  She said when money is finally being appropriated to issues that clearly affect women and children, she did not think the funding should go to a bureaucratic structure; rather to the people that have been doing the work for a long time, and people who do not need to be "brought up to speed" on anything.  She said funding either needs to go to provide more services, to the people doing the work, or to some structure that has nothing to do with a government office being available.
    B33-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, COFFMAN.  VOTING NO:  COBLE, KRUSE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B34-98     Authorizing acceptance of a domestic violence enforcement grant and appropriating funds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this funding is supplied from the Department of Justice, sub-contracted through the Department of Public Safety, to investigate domestic violence in a 13 county area.  He said an additional position in the Police Department will be established.  This ordinance would authorize the City to accept a grant in the amount of $44,289.
    Chief Botsford explained that the Columbia Police Department is the sub-contractor and the Missouri Highway Patrol is the grantee.  He said it will institute a domestic violence enforcement unit.  He is hopeful it will be used as the guide for the entire state of Missouri.  He pointed out that the unit would consist of representatives from the Columbia Police Department, the Missouri Highway Patrol, the Boone County Sheriff's Office, the Boone County Prosecutor's Office, and the Shelter.  He said it would be housed, supervised, and managed by the Columbia Police Department.  Chief Botsford said the unit would investigate domestic violence primarily in Boone County, but with some additional responsibilities for surrounding counties also within the Missouri Highway Patrol's local jurisdiction.
    Ms. Coble said this program is a very big deal in the State of Missouri.  She said for 25 years those people involved in the battered women's movement have been working to make sure there are increased responses to domestic violence through law enforcement and court systems.  She said this unit will provide a better response to the women and children in this community, as well as being a model for the state to use.  Ms. Coble explained that the goal is to increase protection for victims, and increase sanctions and successful prosecutions of abusers.
    B34-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN.  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.

B18-98     Approving replat of portions of Mataora and Charity Baptist Church Subdivisions.
B21-98     Approving engineer's final report; authorizing payment of differential costs for an 8-inch
                  water main serving Avalon Subdivision.
B24-98     Accepting conveyances for water and utility purposes.
B32-98     Amending FY 98 Pay Plan.
R31-98     Setting a public hearing: street construction on Oakland Gravel Road.
R32-98     Setting a public hearing: reconstruction of the north cargo apron and lead-out to Taxiway
                  A at Columbia Regional Airport.
R33-98     Setting a public hearing: special assessments for the Fairview Avenue and Coats Street
R34-98     Setting a public hearing: construction of Hinkson Creek Trail Phase 1.
R35-98     Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property owned by Rangeline Properties,
                  L.L.C. located on the east side of State Route 763.
R36-98     Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property owned by estate of George
                  Spencer, et. al., located on the east side of State Route 763.
R37-98     Setting a public hearing: annexation of property owned by the City located on the east side
                  of State Route 763, north of Smiley Lane.
R38-98     Setting a public hearing: construction of water mains along Blue Ridge Road, Northland
                  Drive, and Route 763.

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

R39-98     Approving preliminary plat of Valley View South Subdivision, Plat 2, a major subdivision;
                  variance to subdivision regulations regarding street width.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the applicant submitted a letter earlier in the day requesting that this preliminary plat be tabled.  He said there was also a request to reconsider the R-1 zoning application that had been defeated at the previous Council Meeting.  Mr. Beck explained that to reconsider a defeated bill, a Council member would need to request the introduction of the R-1 zoning request at the next meeting.  He said the bill would then be readvertised and could be passed at the following Council meeting.  During that time, Mr. Beck said they would be looking at some opportunities to try to determine how the connecting road could be improved, and what could be done with the remaining part of this property and how it might be buffered.
    Mr. Janku made the motion to table R39-98 to the March 2, 1998, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Janku made the motion to reconsider B10-98, which was defeated at the January 20, 1998, meeting, with the request to be readvertised and reintroduced at the February 16, 1998, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.

R40-98     Authorizing an agreement with Columbia Farmers Market, Inc. to operate a market on the
                  Old Fairgrounds property.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the current agreement with the Farmers Market group will expire soon, and Mr. Hargrove had been working on a new agreement.  It is suggested that the City enter into a new agreement, at the rate of $300 per month during the months the group will be utilizing the property.  Mr. Beck reported if something should be worked out regarding construction of a new community center, it was felt this agreement would give enough lead time to provide notice and allow the details to be worked out.  A question has come up from time to time regarding the cost of hard surfacing the area.  He said the amount the Farmers Market has been paying had taken care of the hard surface in the area this group is using.  Mr. Beck said the area is also being used by the School District.
    The vote on R40-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN.  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:

B35-98     Authorizing right of use permit for subdivision entrance monument and sign on City
                  property for Chapel Hill Estates 3.
B36-98     Authorizing reconstruction of the north cargo apron and lead-out to Taxiway A at Columbia
                  Regional Airport and calling for bids.
B37-98     Authorizing amendment to the agreement with Burns & McDonnell, for engineering
                  services for construction of Wetland Treatment Unit No. 4 and flood relief structures.
B38-98     Authorizing Change Order No. 1; accepting and approving the work; approving engineer's
                  final report; and levying special assessments for the Fairview Avenue and Coats Street
B39-98     Authorizing Change Order No. 1; accepting and approving the work; approving engineer's
                  final report for the Jackson Street Drainage project.
B40-98     Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code relating to parking rates.
B41-98     Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code relating to speed limits on Old 63 South.
B42-98     Voluntary annexation of property owned by Raymond and Bertha Johnston located on the
                  southwest corner of Vawter School Road and Old Mill Creek Road.
B43-98     Voluntary annexation of property owned by SERR, L.L.C., located on the east side of
                  Thompson Road and adjacent to Garden City Subdivision.
B44-98     Voluntary annexation of property owned by Cavcey, et. al., located west of Bearfield Road
                  and south of Nifong Boulevard; establishing permanent R-2 zoning.
B45-98     Accepting conveyance for water utility purposes from Lee H. and Joyce J. Thompson.
B46-98     Authorizing construction of water mains along Blue Ridge Road, Northland Drive and
                  Route 763 and calling for bids.

(A)     Neighborhood Marketplace Zoning District.
    Mr. Beck explained that the Council had asked the staff to work on a neighborhood marketplace zoning district, a new district designation for the City.  He said the next step would be to refer the issue to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing.  He said the new district would provide for neighborhood oriented services and retail establishments that would be in close proximity to residences.  The development would be required to be compatible with the surrounding residential area.  He said the suggested acreage was not indicated in the report, and could be left up to the Commission for their recommendation.  Mr. Beck asked Mr. Hancock if any of the areas reviewed had any kind of general size.  Mr. Hancock said they appeared to be anywhere from four to ten acres.
    Mr. Campbell said the staff had suggested that the Council discuss the issue briefly before sending it to the Commission.  He thought the Council should do that at a work session.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that the issue be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and recommendation after the Council has discussed it at a work session.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and passed unanimously by voice vote.

(B)     Street Closure Requests.
    Mr. Beck explained the two requests; one from the Columbia Public Schools and the other from the Earth Day Coalition.
    Ms. Coble made the motion that the closures be approved as requested.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C)     Parking on Clarkson Road.
    Mr. Beck noted that Mr. Patterson's report indicated different feelings of the neighborhood based on a survey.
    Mr. Patterson pointed out that this report had been generated as the result of a single residence on the street.  In reviewing the situation, staff felt it is possible to remove a section of parking along the south side of Clarkson without causing a harmful affect in the neighborhood.  He said this suggestion is supported by residents of the area.  Out of thirteen residents, nine were in favor and four were opposed.  Mr. Patterson said staff did not think it would be wise to remove parking on a lot by lot basis.
    Mr. Kruse said he was pleased to see that so many residents had responded favorably to it.  He thought the City should move forward with staff's recommendation.
    Mr. Kruse made the motion that the proper legislation be prepared.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D)     Proposed Changes in Utility Billing Services.
    Mr. Coffman said he was pleased to see this coming about as he felt these were the kinds of services that make the Water and Light Department a first rate utility.  He has heard lots of comments about budget billing from seniors and others that have a need to budget closely month to month.  Mr. Coffman said pro-rating the base charge was not something that is well-known to a lot of people.  Mr. Coffman explained that it would require the minimum to be essentially a fraction of the month that one started their service.  He said this ensures that people who are moving to town or just across town would not be hit with a larger minimum than could be justified.  Mr. Coffman thought this service is a positive step and is anxious to see it initiated.


    Ms. Coble said it had been brought to her attention that the City may be well-served if the informational kiosks located in the downtown area were added to the Adopt a Spot program.  She said there is some work involved with keeping information current and removing old staples and flyers.  Also, the volunteer would need to make sure that one item does not cover another because there have been recurring conflicts.  She said it might be well to have a business or someone with an interest to adopt a kiosk.  She asked for a staff report on whether or not it would be a helpful or possible endeavor to undertake.
    Ms. Coble asked for tree trimming at the northwest corner of Douglass Park near the new playground.  She said the grounds looked great, but there are a couple of large evergreens that have mulberry trees and weeds growing up through them.
    Ms. Coble commented that it had been a consistent approach of this Council to want to have developers meet with neighborhood associations and nearby property owners when preparing a plan.  She wanted it known that was something the Council consistently likes to see so that applicants will not be frustrated by having their measures tabled until they undertake that kind of communication.
    Mr. Janku noted that at the next meeting the Council will be discussing the Oakland Road improvement project.  As this is something that should be moved forward quickly, he asked that the staff contact the County to see if they would be interested in working with the City to extend the road to include the gap between 63 and the City's portion.  He said there were a lot of kids living in that area that have to walk to school.  Mr. Janku wanted to look at the possibility of a joint project with the County to get sidewalks constructed.
    Mr. Janku said at the last meeting there was mention of the 9% interest rate charged by the City on tax bills.  Given the current interest rate, he suggested that it could be lowered to something more appropriate with today's rates.  He asked for a staff report.
    Mr. Janku asked for an update from the Tree Task Force.  He wanted to know what projects they are working on and said he wanted to put in a plug regarding the big interchanges on 63.  He said many of them that do not have Adopt a Spots, both north and south of 70.
    Regarding groups getting problems worked out before Council meetings, Mrs. Crockett said this could possibly eliminate some of the tabling that has recently occurred.
    Mr. Campbell thought the Fairview soccer field situation had been resolved.  Mr. Campbell, Mr. Patterson, and the public works staff have been meeting with the neighborhood association, and now a plan has been approved by the neighborhood for the first traffic calming devices to be installed in the City.  Plans include a speed hump, bulbs, some raised sidewalks and other things that would be innovative and, Mr. Campbell thought, effective.  He reported the neighborhood was desirous of having the project completed before the soccer season begins.  Mr. Janku said that was pretty quick.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff be directed to bring forth the needed legislation to move the project forward.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Campbell said many of the Council members had been receiving calls regarding the tree trimming being done on the MKT Trail.  He asked Mr. Green to summarize briefly what was going on.
    Mr. Green explained that about three years ago the City established a forestry department, and part of the responsibility for the City Forester was to inventory all of the trees in the City's parks as to which ones needed to be trimmed, removed, replanted and replaced.  A vegetative management committee had been appointed and this group met with the City Forester to determine what was felt needed to be removed along the MKT Trail.  The City had contracted with Asplund to remove the trees and vegetation.  Mr. Green said the majority of trees being removed along the trail are diseased or dead elm trees.  These need to be taken out so that a dead tree does not fall on a patron.  He noted that workers are also cutting a lot of vines on the trail because they have a tendency to shade out any vegetation below them.  Mr. Green said after Council began receiving calls regarding the work, staff met with the City Manager and the Mayor and the removal of the cuttings have been reduced to some degree.  However, there are still a lot of dead and diseased elm trees that are going to have to come out at a later date.  Mr. Green said the decision had been made that if the trees are not dead or too far gone now, these would remain for the time being.
    Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, said he was also happy to hear about the pro-ration of the minimum monthly charges mentioned by Mr. Coffman.  He said the minimum sewer charge also needs to be pro-rated.  He said it was part of the agreement in B34-97 that was passed in February of last year.  Mr. Lane said that would take care of the future, but he was also interested in the past.  He said people have been over billed in the past for the minimum monthly charges for these three items, except for one person.  He said it had taken three months for that one person to get his $7.80 back.  Mr. Lane said he had brought this up a year ago and asked the Council if they would go back and allow people to a refund of the overcharges.  He had offered to volunteer his services to accept applications and figure the amounts of the overcharges.  Mr. Lane asked the Council to reconsider the refunding issue.
    Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Lane if anyone had complained to him that they had been overcharged.  Mr. Lane said nobody knows about it, and most people probably would not understand what the pro-ration of the minimum monthly charge is all about.
    The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m.

                                                                                                 Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                 Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                                 City Clerk