M I N U T E S
 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI
 DECEMBER 21, 1998

INTRODUCTORY
    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, December 21, 1998, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri.  The roll was taken with the following results: Council members COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, and HINDMAN were present.  The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
    The minutes of the regular meeting of December 7, 1998, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Ms. Coble.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
    Mayor Hindman noted that R263-98 would be added under the Consent Agenda.   The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mrs. Crockett and a second by Mr. Campbell.

SPECIAL ITEMS
    None.

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
    None.

    Mayor Hindman welcomed Cub Scout Pack #2, Den 11, to the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
B364-98     Authorizing construction of road, parking and trail improvements at the Cosmopolitan
                    Recreation Area by city forces.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted the area on the overhead.  He pointed out that funding for the project had been included in the budget.
    Mr. Hood explained the project would include road, parking, and trail improvements.  The staff recommendation is for completion of two parking lots in the north end of the park.  Mr. Hood said the project also includes resurfacing the old farm road to make it part of the Bear Creek system.
    Mr. Janku asked about the parking next to the skateboard park.  He asked if the parking lot would preclude expanding the park.  Mr. Hood said it would not.  He explained that in planning and designing the skateboard park, staff allowed for the possible future expansion of the area to the east, and the parking lots are being proposed to the west.  He said some of the earth work done on the park actually laid the base for the parking lots.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B364-98 was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B370-98     Authorizing construction of an 8-inch water main serving Richland Heights, Phase 1 & 2;
                    payment of differential costs above those to install a 6-inch water main; appropriating
                    funds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this fairly routine project would be accomplished in accordance with City policy with Water and Light funds paying for those costs over and above what the developer is required to contribute.  In this case, the cost difference is $2,560.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B370-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B371-98     Authorizing construction of an 8-inch water main serving Indian Hills Subdivision.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this subdivision is located in northeast Columbia and was developed outside of the City many years ago.  He noted this had been a federally subsidized subdivision.
    Mr. Beck reported two and four inch water lines had been installed when the subdivison was developed, which is inadequate to provide good fire protection to the area.  He stated the City had budgeted Community Development Block Grant funds to replace the main line serving the subdivision, and this is estimated at $42,500.  He pointed out that this subdivision is in Water District No. 2, and that is one of the reasons the issue has not been addressed.
    Mr. Janku noted that there had been a fire in the subdivision a few years back and the flows were not adequate to fight it.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mrs. Crockett said she was glad to see this project move forward because the residents of the area have waited a long time for the improvement.
    B371-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B372-98     Authorizing construction of a 6-inch water main serving Indian Hills Subdivision.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    In addition to the previous project just addressed, Mr. Beck explained that other water lines in the subdivision would also be replaced -- two to four inch lines, with six inch lines.  He said the estimated $25,000 cost for the project will come from the Retained Earnings Account in the Water and Light Department budget.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B372-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B373-98     Authorizing construction of a 12-inch water main under Clark Lane along the east side of
                    Creekwood Parkway, calling for bids.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Malon explained that this project would be tie a major loop together just east of Home Depot.  He said the largest part of the project would be boring underneath Clark Lane.  He said it would be 140 feet deep and a 24-inch pipe and 3 to12-inch carrier pipes will be installed in order to meet the Highway Department's specifications.  Mr. Malon stated once that is complete, the City would be installing about 335 feet of 12-inch main to tie the two ends together.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if the pipe would be bored under the new section of pavement.  Mr. Malon said the boring for the pipe will go from shoulder to shoulder underneath the highway, so the pavement will not be touched.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B373-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B377-98     Rezoning property located on the southeast corner of I-70 Drive Southeast and
                    Woodridge Drive from R-2 and C-1 to C-P.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this is approximately a six acre tract in northeast Columbia.
    Mr. Hancock stated there is also a request to leave a 100-foot "no build" buffer between the proposed C-P and the single family development in the Woodridge neighborhood.  He noted that the proposed commercial uses are included in the ordinance, which are basically C-1 uses.  He said any building height on the property was requested to be limited to two stories.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Tom Schneider, an attorney with offices at 11 N. Seventh, spoke on behalf of the applicants, George Ousley, Jr. and Wayne Sells.  He explained that the front two and one-half acres is now zoned open C-1, and the back three and one-half acres is zoned R-2, but is platted into lots.  He noted the property is currently exempt from the landscaping ordinances.
    Mr. Schneider explained the proposal to rezone the back portion had been before the Council six months ago, but had been withdrawn.  At this time, he said the applicants felt they have a better plan and they also have a prospective purchaser.  He reported that purchaser to be Staybridge Suites, the Holiday Inn version of the Residence Inn.  He circulated photos of a typical Staybridge Inn as well as a typical floor plan .
    Mr. Schneider explained two significant advantages to the plan before the Council.  He said it would bring the open C-1 located on the front portion of the property under planned commercial, so the Council can monitor all of the development amenities such as the location, size, height, circulation of traffic, landscaping, lighting, etc.  Secondly, the applicants are proposing to devote the rear 100 feet as natural, vegetative buffer and, in fact, would be willing to deed it to the neighborhood association.  In terms of any conditions that might be considered this evening, Mr. Schneider asked that a height limitation not be superimposed at this time.  He said the property would be reviewed at a later date when a C-P plan is presented for approval.  At that time, he suggested that some of the development amenities, such as a height limitations, be addressed.  Mr. Schneider reported the state-of-the-art Staybridge Suites now are typically three stories.
    Mr. Campbell asked if the applicant was willing to commit that this development would be a Staybridge Suites.  Mr. Schneider suggested that Mr. Ousley could address that question.  As part of the process, Mr.  Campbell suggested that several issues be addressed; all buildings be finished on the back in a manner that would be compatible with the neighborhood, that all storage be fully screened from the neighborhood, that there be no light pollution spilling out to the neighborhood, sound control, and a solid wooden fence to prevent lights from the traffic (parking) spilling into the neighborhood.   Mr. Schneider suspected the applicant would expect every one of those issues to be addressed by the Council when they come back with a C-P plan.
    Mrs. Crockett asked how the applicant would feel about a 150 foot buffer strip, with the additional 50-feet being the right-of-way on Sugar Tree Lane that will not be built.   Mr. Schneider said he did not know if the numbers would work.  He explained that the Staybridge consultants would be looking at the site to determine the amount of square footage they would need to use.  He noted the 100-foot "no build" zone would not be used for any accessory purpose, only natural vegetation.
    Mayor Hindman asked if the Staybridge information had been presented to the neighbors.  Mr. Schneider said it had not, they had met with them several times in the spring and again just before the Planning and Zoning hearing.  He said at that time, the negotiations with Staybridge had not firmed up.  Mr. Schneider had just received the diagrams a few days ago and he was sure the neighbors had not seen them at this point.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if a Staybridge Suite is constructed, whether there would be an entrance and exit off of Woodridge.  Mr. Schneider replied that would primarily be up to the Council.
    Mrs. Crockett wondered if the Council could approve a C-P conditional upon the applicants building a Staybridge Inn substantially similar to the materials provided this evening.  Mr. Boeckmann explained that the Council could limit the use to a type of motel.  He said it would be risky splitting up the C-P plan approval from the zoning.
    Tom Butcher, a local contractor, 2504 Hillshire Drive, said they believed there is a need for an extended stay property in the City of Columbia.  He said they have looked at Residence Inn, Courtyard, and all of the others.  He said they own and operate Holiday Inn properties in other parts of the country and are very pleased with them.  Mr. Butcher reported the facilities basically cater to the traveling clientele.  He explained that business travelers enjoy being in a residential atmosphere rather than a commercial atmosphere.  Regarding the lighting situation, Mr. Butcher noted that there would be no parking in the rear of the building.  He said all parking takes place in the front.  The back of the building would have a sport courtyard, which would consist of a basketball net and a separate building that would house an indoor pool, exercise room, and other such amenities.  He said they are willing to go along with this project as long as financing is acceptable.  Mr. Butcher noted the projections are to begin construction in early spring, with an opening scheduled no later than next October.
    Mr. Kruse asked if the open "U", where the sport courtyard is to be located, will face toward the neighborhood.  Mr. Butcher replied that it would.  He explained that the front of the building would face north with a small entryway to it, and the rest of the units come back in a "U" shape on the east and west end of the property.
    Regarding a service road going to the west, Mr. Butcher said they did not want their entrance there, they want their entrance coming off of I-70 for more of a residential look.  He said they do not like traffic taking short cuts through their parking lot.  He said the only thing that could change that would be if the Fire Department needed to get through.  He said that could be easily handled by having a break away gate system.  Mr. Kruse said he understood there would be no light pollution in the summer because of the trees, but in the winter that would not necessarily be true.  Mr. Butcher agreed.  Mr. Kruse said he would like to see an assurance that any exterior lighting be full cut offs where the light is directed down toward the ground surface, as opposed to out.   Mr. Butcher said there would be some light flooding out of the guest room windows, but as far as the courtyard and indoor pool, that would all be low lighting, nothing that would shine up high.  He said there would be some lighting that would illuminate the parking lot to the east and west.  Mr. Kruse said that was understood.
    Mr. Janku asked if there would be a restaurant as part of this facility.  Mr. Butcher said they were just looking at the property for a motel and anything else that comes in, they would want restrictions on as far as the elevations of the properties set in front.  He said there is no restaurant facility with their proposal.
    Mrs. Crockett asked how much property they would be purchasing.  Mr. Butcher believed it to be 2.33 acres, 200 feet deep running north to south, 500 feet running east to west.
    Mayor Hindman asked if they were willing to have some kind of buildings put in between their facility and the highway.  Mr. Butcher said they were as long as they have height restrictions.
    George Ousley, property owner, explained that it would hamper negotiations with Staybridge if the Council were to say that was the only thing that could in on the property.  He would prefer this type of development, but he has nothing in writing at this time.  Regarding the question about the 150 foot buffer, Mr. Ousley stated the neighborhood had agreed to his generous offer of 100 feet.   He said 150 feet would not work because it would take 50 feet off the land in the front and there would be nothing he could do with the remaining land.
    Mr. Campbell said it was one thing to have an attractive motel, but quite another thing to consider an open C-P zone.
    Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Ousley if he would be in favor of tabling the issue until a contract has been worked out, She liked the idea of the Staybridge Suites, but not open C-P zoning.   She felt the neighborhood would approve.  Mr. Ousley said it was fine with him if the Council chooses to table this issue.
    Mayor Hindman noted there is also the possibility of neighborhood concern, as well as Council concern, about the pads between this property and the roadway.  He said the Staybridge looked like a great neighborhood addition, but he did not think a couple of fast food places in front of it would amount to such a great neighborhood addition.
    Ms. Coble said she would not favor the two story limitation given the project plan.  She said the way it has been constructed in other places, it looks like a really nice development.
    Mr. Kruse asked about the large billboard on the west end of the property.  Mr. Ousley said he had requested that it be removed by the middle of January.   Mr. Kruse asked if he planned to put any more similar billboards up on the other piece of property.  If so, Mr. Kruse said he would offer a condition that Mr. Ousley not be allowed to do that.  Mr. Ousley said he had not been contacted by any sign companies.  Mr. Kruse asked if he would be opposed to a condition limiting such a thing.  Mr. Ousley said he did not know if he would be or not.  He asked if it would do him any good.   He reported he would like to think about it.
    Ben Battson, 100 Arbor, President of the Woodridge Neighborhood Association, said their position has been to oppose any rezoning, except O-P, because of the type of businesses it would allow adjacent to the neighborhood.   He said residents are much more comfortable with the R-2 zone, and they purchased their homes knowing it was in place.  Mr. Battson reported they are not opposed to looking at a specific proposal and would welcome the opportunity to look at this plan.
    George Dodge, 3637 Evergreen Lane, said he had been asked to speak for several people who could not make it to the meeting due to illness and bad weather.   He said some time ago, these same people had said they did not want a trailer court in the back of their property.  He said the Council felt, since the land was properly zoned, a trailer court could be placed on this property.  Not having seen the hotel plan, he said residents would like to see this issue tabled so they can look at the new plan.  Mr. Dodge stated they do not want to stop progress, they just want to limit the type of progress that will be adjacent to them.
    There was a discussion as to how long the issue should be tabled.  It was decided four weeks would supply enough time.
    Roy Fullerton, 3012 Evergreen, said it was hard to know which stand to take without knowing what is being proposed.  He is in favor of tabling the issue.
    Mrs. Crockett made the motion to table B377-98 to the January 19, 1999, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble.
    Mr. Janku said before the Council meets on the issue again, he would like to know what type of improvements could be required as part of the C-P, particularly the road and pedestrian access to and from the subdivision.  In the past, Mr. Hancock said off-site improvements have been limited to streets, sidewalks, and things like that.  Mr. Janku said he thought this should be on-site.  He was wondering what could be required, given the narrowness of the roadway, in the way of pedestrian access.  He said normally, a sidewalk would not be required because the road is not improved.  Mr. Janku asked that the staff keep that in mind.  Mr. Hancock said he would make a note of it.
    Mr. Kruse said it would also be helpful, before the next discussion on the issue, if the staff could figure out the footage involved to determine whether another billboard to the east of the existing one would be permissible -- given the 2,000 foot spacing requirement on I-70.  If not, he said there would not be any need for a condition.  If the spacing would allow another one, Mr. Kruse would offer another condition when the issue is brought up again.
    The motion made by Mrs. Crockett to table, seconded by Ms. Coble, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mayor Hindman continued the public hearing to January 19, 1999.

B378-98     Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code to allow certain office uses as conditional uses in
                    District R-3.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that there had been interest shown by a local hospital to lease some property on the Stephens College campus, on an arterial collector street intersection.  He said the issue had been referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a recommendation that came back on a 5-2 vote to allow it under certain conditions.  He said the recommendation is to allow office uses in R-3 areas in an institutional setting, such as a college or hospital campus, provided the structure is located on a collector, arterial, or local non-residential street.  A conditional use permit, good for up to two years, would have to be authorized by the Board of Adjustment.  To go for a period of longer than two years, the applicant would have to go back to the Board of Adjustment.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B378-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B379-98     Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code to modify provisions relating to sidewalk
                    requirements in industrial zoned districts and along expressways and marginal access
                    roads.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the Council had suggested that the staff look at repealing the section of the ordinance where a sidewalk is not required.  He said the staff looked into it and has made one additional recommendation regarding where sidewalks should be constructed, which is along expressways and along industrially zoned districts.  Mr. Beck reported that only the Council could waive the sidewalk construction requirement.
    Mr. Janku said he brought this up when he heard about the replatting of the K-Mart Subdivision, and it had been mentioned there would not necessarily be a sidewalk required on Stadium because it is an expressway.  He said the Council has talked about constructing sidewalks on portions of Stadium for a long time, particularly near the University.  He had no idea why the Council would not want something like that along Biscayne Mall also, between the roadway and the parking lot, or even in some other areas where there tends to be some pedestrian traffic.  Mr. Janku was not sure this ordinance would accomplish that because Mr. Hancock had indicated that Stadium is considered an expressway, and under the language proposed tonight, this would still not be achieved.  He asked Mr. Hancock if that was correct.  Mr. Hancock said it was not.
    Mr. Hancock explained that the Commission chose to recommend maintaining the exemption for freeways.  They did not think it would be a good idea to have sidewalks along I-70 or 63, but the Commission chose to leave it in for frontage roads and expressways.  He said there would be sidewalks on one or both sides of the road when deemed appropriate by the Commission.  He said the language, "when deemed appropriate by the Commission", is left over language from something that has been in the ordinance for a long time relative to sidewalks along those kinds of streets in industrial areas.  Mr. Hancock reported that option was left in -- to require sidewalks along expressway and, furthermore, to require them along what is referred to as frontage roads (a road that is between a development and an expressway or a freeway).
    Mr. Janku suggested that the ordinance be amended to require sidewalks except when a variance is requested.  Mayor Hindman said he would prefer that as well.  Mr. Hancock thought that would be automatic.  Mayor Hindman said the language, "where deemed appropriate by the Commission", seemed to be questionable.  He thought it should be a requirement.
    Mr. Boeckmann suggested that the ordinance be tabled to the next meeting in order to have time to work out the language.
    Mr. Beck questioned whether the City would really want a sidewalk on both sides of a frontage road like I-70 Drive, next to the fencing.  In that case, Mayor Hindman said there should be waiver.  Although, he thought the applicant should have to explain why a variance is requested.
    Mr. Patterson said it was staff's interpretation that this ordinance would apply as part of the platting in new development, since it is an amendment to the subdivision, and it would not be retroactive to old ones unless the City chooses to go back and tax bill.
    Mr. Beck said the City would still not have policy guidance for reconstruction of an outer roadway, which is a different part of the ordinance.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that B379-98 be tabled to the January 4, 1999, meeting for the purpose of preparation of an amendment.  The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mayor Hindman continued the public hearing to January 4, 1999.

(A)     Construction of the C-6 Trunk Sewer line to Bearfield area.
    Item A was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained that this is a proposed joint project between the City and the Boone County Regional Sewer District for purposes of eliminating the lagoon that serves the Bearfield Subdivision.  He noted that this is one of the projects identified in the November, 1997 ballot issue.   The City's responsibility, with regard to the project, is the construction of the sewer line up to the 80-acre point.  Beyond that point, the Sewer District will pay for all costs of line and the elimination of the lagoon.  The estimated project cost is $212,000, of which $99,200 would be that portion bringing the sewer line up to the 80-acre point.  Mr. Patterson said staff will be bringing an interconnection agreement back to the Council for the project.  Generally, the agreements are in companion with the public hearing or prior to it; however, he explained the time line on this is being dictated by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources since the Sewer District is planning to use State Revolving Loan funds for their portion of the project.  The agreement which will address customer service, the rates, and the annexation requirements will come back to the Council in a timely manner to allow consideration prior to actual construction.  Mr. Patterson reported the City will be acquiring the easements needed in building the line, and the Sewer District will be paying the City for their portion of it.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Norling, 1909 E. Gans Road, explained that part of this system would go across their property and would cut it in half.   Mrs. Norling said she had spoken with a representative of the Sewer District and was unaware this had been put in the hands of the City.  She asked if the City and Sewer District would be working together to correct a problem.  Mr. Patterson said that was correct, and he added that the project had been initiated by the District.  He further explained the City Council approved a policy resolution which dictates conditions of service for providing sanitary sewer.  Generally speaking, Mr. Patterson said each case is determined by the City Council, but usually in a case like this if the resident desires to connect to the City sewer, an annexation agreement or a pre-annexation agreement, whichever is appropriate,  would have to be entered into with the City.  He said the only way that could be waived would be by City Council action.  He said if the resident is not able to annex now, a pre-annexation agreement would state that when the property is contiguous to the City, then annexation would occur.  Mr. Patterson said that is not a condition for the sewer line going across the property, but a condition for connection to the sewer line.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku asked where the flow from the Bearfield lagoon goes currently.  Mr. Patterson explained that it follows the drainage area to Clear Creek.  He said the drainage goes across the Norling property.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(B)     Street improvements on Scott Boulevard from Bellview Drive to Brookview Terrace.
     Item B was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this is a joint project between the City and the County.  He noted that the City allocated part of their ballot issue toward joint projects with the County.
    Mr. Patterson explained that the project initially began as a safety hazard litigation project, but due to the reconstruction of the Hinkson Bridge and the definite need for trying to correct some other problems on the road, it was expanded to an 1,800 foot project with an estimated cost of $1,200,000.   About 38 percent of the project is in the City and the remainder is in the County.  He noted that the County has committed $900,000 to the project, and the remaining $300,000 will come from City sales tax monies.
    Mr. Patterson reported that currently, Scott Boulevard is designated as an arterial street on the Major Thoroughfare Plan, but it is only an existing 20 foot asphaltic concrete road with open ditches and no sidewalks.  He said the existing road transitions from a flood plain elevation very sharply upward to Hillcrest where there have been many accidents and near-accidents occurring.  He pointed out that the intention is to construct a 38-foot wide collector width street, and although it is designated as an arterial road, it will have Class II bike lanes on both sides (although currently Scott Boulevard is not designated as a Class II).  It is felt with all of the development and other activities going on in the area, it would be a benefit to provide the bicycle lanes.  He said a five foot wide sidewalk is also intended along the entire east side of the project.  He said that would accommodate pedestrian traffic at least on one side at this point.
    Mr. Patterson noted a couple of design constraints which limited the flexibility with what could and could not be done.  One was a 36-inch concrete water line that comes from the City Water Treatment Plant back up to the City along the west side of the road.  Any movement of the line would be extremely expensive so the project was designed to stay away from it as much as possible to avoid relocation.  Secondly, the grade itself becomes a challenge and there will be areas with an approximate 10 percent grade on the street.  Lastly, Mr. Patterson reported there is a slight curvature in the  horizontal alignment.  He said they are having to tie together elevation, horizontal alignment, and balance it with the water line.  He said this resulted in a design that initially starts on the south end toward the east side of the road, and it comes back up to being more centered on the north end.  He also pointed out that staff proposes to go ahead and acquire right-of-way for an arterial street for future widening.  At this time, there is 100 feet of right-of-way which will allow that any further development along this street will be properly set back to allow for future expansion without having further damages at a later time.  He noted there had been one neighborhood meeting, and the staff has been meeting with residents in response to various questions.
    Mr. Patterson explained because this project is on an arterial street, it is subject to the City's tax bill policy -- the Council deems that benefits have accrued to abutting properties and may make assessments in the amount of the cost of curb and guttering or its equivalent.  That amount has been estimated to be not more than $12 per foot on this project.  He said the City does not have the authority to tax bill outside of the City, so only a portion of the properties would be tax billed.  He said that would have to be addressed at the time the Council levies special assessments.  At that time, Mr. Patterson reported the Council may wish to consider there have been improvements in the form of curb and guttering (which improves the appearance and maintainability of the property), there have been storm drainage improvements, there has been enhanced pedestrian and bicycle safety as a result of improvements, and the fact that the new street will typically improve the maintenance along the street.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if the County has any manner of collecting tax bills against properties being benefitted by improvements.  Mr. Patterson said he was not aware of them having any such authority.  Mr. Beck said the County can only establish neighborhood improvement districts when petitions are received from the residents within a neighborhood.  Mrs. Crockett said that did not seem fair to make all of the improvements and then have these properties be annexed into the City.
    Mr. Kruse asked about the steep grade and whether or not a retaining wall would be constructed.  Mr. Patterson said there are some locations where there would have to be some walls.  Mr. Kruse was concerned about how they would look.  Mr. Patterson said that would have to be addressed when the final plans are examined.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Bill Lucas, 3407 Scott, explained that his home sits at the very top of the hill on TT.  His concern is with the second phase, when Scott would turn into four lanes.  He said the right-of-way cuts right across the middle of his front yard.  He asked what kind of recourse he would have.  Mr. Beck said the City would have to compensate him for the damages.  He said it would be appraised and the appraiser would talk to him about it.  Mr. Lucas wanted to state, for the record, that directly across from his property there is raw land (part of Katy Lake Subdivision).  He asked if it would make more sense for the City to look at acquiring land on the east side.  Mr. Patterson explained that the City is acquiring land on both sides, and at that particular location, the proposed centerline is slightly to the east of the right-of-way.  He said if four traffic lanes are established in the area, they would certainly be looking at trying to straighten out the curvature with the design.  Mr. Patterson stated at this point, he could not say in which direction the road will be widened.  He said every place they could stay to the east they have done so.  Mr. Lucas said he could see what they were doing right now in Phase I would make the road safer, but he is concerned about the future phase.  Mr. Patterson said part of the City's procedure, within financial constraints, is protection given in the form of right-of-way compensations.  Mr. Lucas asked if there is a person he could talk to.  Mr. Patterson gave Mr. Lucas the name of the City's Right-of-Way Agent.  Mr. Lucas asked if the property on the west side of TT would be annexed and when.  Mr. Patterson said he had no idea.
    David Cook, 4327 Country Hill Drive, explained that the east side of his property is on Scott Boulevard, where the construction is planned.  He asked about the relocation of the utilities, in particular the power lines.  Mr. Patterson said it appeared there were quite a few that would have to be relocated.  Mr. Cook asked how that would be done.  Mr. Patterson explained that is typically done by the utility company, and he is not certain at this point if those lines belong to the City or Boone Electric.  On reconstruction projects like this, the lines are normally put back the way they previously existed -- being overhead or underground.  Mr. Cook said with the proposed 50 foot right-of-way, that would put them almost on his roof top.  Mr. Patterson said he would have someone on the staff contact Mr. Cook when they get into the relocation plans.  He said Mr. Cook would be able to look at the plans and then discuss with the utility company what can and cannot be done.
    Mr. Cook also suggested that the staff look into the signage on the road.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Campbell said this is one of the more dangerous roads in the City of Columbia.  He has had numerous concerns expressed over the years and was very glad to see this project move forward.  He also received some calls from people who support the project but could not be here tonight because of the weather.
    Based on previous experience, Ms. Coble said she was pretty certain the staff would be negotiating for the right-of-way with as little damage to existing property owners as possible.  Mr. Patterson assured the Council they would.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C)     Proposed development plan for the MKT Trailhead Park.
    Item C was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said a report will be presented by the Mayor's Trailhead Committee.  This group has been working for a period of time with an architect hired by the City.   After hearing the recommendation, the Council could table the issue or make a motion to proceed with the project.  He said if there is a motion to proceed, the next step would be to have an extension of the architect's agreement.  Mr. Beck reported one of the deadlines was set in order to utilize state grant money in 1999.  In many cases, he explained that a staff report is given to the Council following a committee report.  If the Council wishes a staff report, they will need to table the issue and request a report.  The alternative would be to motion to go ahead with the project.  Regarding funding, Mr. Beck said following the ballot issue pertaining to the buffer ground, some funds were set aside for the Trailhead Park itself.  In addition to that, the City has obtained some Community Development Block Grant money in the area where the parking lot and trailhead is being proposed.  He said there is also another grant and quite a bit of private funding being worked on.
    Mr. Hood noted that the architect's, Pon and Kimi Chinn, were present to address any questions about the project.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    John Ott, Chairman of the MKT Trailhead Committee, 15 Lucerne Court, said they had looked at this area some time ago and had a Design Day with a number of committee members and individuals from the community meeting to determine what might be the best use for this particular site.  He said they took into consideration, not only this little parcel, but the area around it.  One of the decisions was that this space needed to be kept open and developed into a greenspace.  The plans show two structures, a gazebo on the west side next to the Creek and a restroom and information facility on the northeast corner.  Mr. Ott said the information center will have a somewhat unique design as it was taken from a design some of the committee members saw in San Francisco.  One issue was how to take a rural park and combine it with an urban parcel.  To mesh the two together, they thought a good idea would be to take native stone and line certain parts of the Flat Branch Creek, and the gazebo area would have more of a cut stone presentation.  A big goal is to reclaim the creek because the committee felt it to be an important part of Columbia's history, where the initial settlement began.  He noted a number of benches will be placed along the entire length of the creek within the park.  The Committee thought it would be a good idea to tie into the railroad history so the design of the benches would be designed with heavy metal or cast iron.  Mr. Ott noted the lighting standards would also be tied into the railroad theme.  In addition, the committee felt historical markers placed in the park would commemorate the commercial history of the area.  Bike racks would be important to the area as the Committee envisions a number of people using the park as a destination to either begin or end bike rides.
    Mr. Kruse commented about the width of the creek and asked if it was enhanced somehow.  Mr. Ott explained that there is an existing natural spring, and the goal is to allow the water to collect.  He said the drawing was an estimation of how much the water might collect at any given time.  Mr. Ott reported there are two sewer lines that run through the creek, and the goal is to build the lines up just slightly so there is an opportunity for the water to pool and flow over the rock to have some natural water ambient sound in the park.
    Kimi Chinn, 2011 Hazelwood, explained that Chinn and Associates Architects have worked closely with the MKT Trailhead Committee since February to develop the conceptual design.  She offered to answer any questions.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

OLD BUSINESS
B376-98     Voluntary annexation of property located on the southeast side of Old Plank Road, south
                    of Glasgow Drive.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this tract of land contains approximately 16 acres and that a public hearing had been previously held on the issue.
    B376-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B380-98     Granting a variance from the subdivision ordinance requirement for sidewalks;
                    authorizing the removal of the sidewalk at 3101 Woodkirk Lane.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck pointed out that this request had been recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
    Mr. Hancock noted that the street is classified as an estate lane.  The rule for that classification is that a sidewalk must be constructed on at least one side of the street, and the side on which the sidewalk is to be installed is to be designated by the Commission.
    Tom Schneider, an attorney with offices at 11 N. Seventh Street, spoke on behalf of the property owners, Dr. and Mrs. Robert Gaines.  He explained that they are in the process of remodeling their home and, for aesthetic reasons, they felt it would be preferable to eliminate the existing sidewalk as part of their overall landscaping in connection with the project.  Mr. Schneider suggested it is a sidewalk that literally leads to no where.  He said there is a cul-de-sac lot immediately north of the Gaines property and there is no sidewalk along that lot, nor is there a sidewalk on the east side of Woodkirk Lane.  Mr. Schneider pointed out that the variance provision, Section 25-20, allows the Council to place conditions on variances.  He thought it might be appropriate to consider that at such point in time, if a sidewalk is installed or required to be installed on the cul-de-sac and/or on the property across Woodkirk Lane, that perhaps the variance would expire.
    Mr. Kruse argued that the sidewalk does lead somewhere.  Mr. Schneider said he meant going north, into the cul-de-sac.
    Mrs. Crockett asked then if only one house would have a sidewalk.  Mr. Schneider said he believed that was correct, that being south of the Gaines property.
    Mr. Campbell commented that it has been their policy to try to get sidewalks extended, not retracted.  Mayor Hindman agreed and said when the present owners move away there might be young children and it would be a safe route for kids to go to school.  He saw no reason to allow the variance.
    B380-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE.  VOTING NO:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  Bill defeated.

CONSENT AGENDA
    The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.

B374-98     Approving the engineer's final report and authorizing payment of differential costs for
                    construction of water mains serving Richland Heights, Phase 1 & 2.
B375-98     Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B381-98     Approving the final plat of Bedford Walk, Plat 8.
B382-98     Authorizing the acquisition of easements necessary for the construction of Brown Station
                    Road from Route B to Starke Lane.
B383-98     Levying and assessing a special tax for weed nuisance on property located at the south
                    end of Andy Drive, near Anderson Drive.
R252-98     Setting a public hearing: construction of a 12-inch water main serving Rocky Creek
                    Subdivision; payment of differential costs above those to install a 6-inch water main.
R253-98     Approving Supplement No. 7 to FAA Automated Flight Service Station Contract for
                    improvements to the automated flight service station.
R254-98     Authorizing an amendment to the agreement with the Missouri Department of Health for
                    immunization services.
R255-98     Authorizing an agreement with Ameren UE for relocation of gas lines and the
                    subordination of private easement rights due to the reconstruction of Oakland Gravel
                    Road.
R256-98     Authorizing an amendment to the agreement with the Division of Family Services to
                    extend the contract for the FY97 emergency shelter grant program.
R257-98     Adopting a restated plan document for the United States Conference of Mayors deferred
                    compensation plan for the City of Columbia.
R263-98     Amending the City's Public Employees Deferred Compensation Plan.

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

NEW BUSINESS
R258-98     Authorizing a grant application to the Missouri Arts Council for funding for the City's
                    public art program.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this request would be for a grant of $5,250 and would not require any matching funds.  He said the money would be used primarily for programming and promotion.
    The vote on R258-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R259-98     Adopting the Convention and Visitors Bureau Master Plan.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Lorah Steiner explained that in 1996, and through the early part of 1997, there was a committee comprised of members from just about every aspect of the community.  The draft was finalized in 1997, and she said they felt comfortable that it is still valid and contains programs they would like to see implemented.  The primary focus of the plan is cultural tourism, heritage tourism development, continuation of the program that is ongoing to promote the central corridor of the Katy Trail, exposition marketing, and sports marketing.  She said the Bureau would continue to promote all current programs.  The purpose of putting the Master Plan together was to look at what the Bureau's programs should be over the next five years, what their market focus should be.  Once they had that information, she said it was up to the CVB staff, the Tourism Council, the Lodging Association, and the Hotel Marketing Committee to determine what specific programs should support the goals of the Master Plan.
    Mr. Campbell said he thought this plan was a significant move forward.  However, he prepared a draft motion that would amend the Master Plan by shifting some of the emphasis and resources within it to provide more flexibility within it.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that the Council amend the Convention and Visitors Bureau Master Plan by shifting significant emphasis and resources from the part of the plan placing a tourist information center along I-70 to the part of the plan developing cultural and heritage tourism, particularly focused in downtown.  The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman.
    Mr. Janku understood the motion would not exclusively eliminate the idea of the tourist center, but it was directing potential resources downtown.  Mr. Campbell said that was correct.  Mr. Campbell thought as the plan moves forward, they would see the development more specific on both items.  He said that would enable the Bureau to make a better decision as to the allocation of resources at that time.  He understood Ms. Steiner to say the Bureau would be bringing forward a more specific proposal in the spring for the implementation of the plan.
    Mr. Kruse asked if other communities have developed tourist information centers along interstates in Missouri.  He was aware of some highway facilities.  Ms. Coble replied that Rolla has one.
    Ms. Steiner explained that the Missouri Division of Tourism has information centers at ports of entry throughout the state.  She said they have been pretty adamant about not developing new information centers that are not at ports of entry.  She said the only exception they have made to date is in Springfield.  She assumed that has a lot to do with the amount of traffic coming through Branson.  Ms. Steiner explained one of the things the committee has been concerned with is the lack of information centers along the I-70 corridor.  She said there is a huge gap between Kansas City and St. Louis.  That meant literally millions of "people visits" every day, that are coming through and not getting exposed to anything in Columbia, except what they see on the highway.  She explained that the Callaway County Tourism Board has proposed, and is in the process of developing, a tourism information center at I-70 and Highway 54.  Ms. Steiner said the Bureau is in the process of discussing with them a possible lease arrangement for that facility.  She said the Lodging Association Advisory Board would still like to have a presence in the Columbia area on I-70.  She said that would also be contingent upon finding a partner because the City does not have the funds to construct something.  She thought what Councilman Campbell is referring to is the allocation that was in the original budget for the Master Plan would be reduced substantially if Columbia was to enter into a lease arrangement with the Callaway County Tourism Board.  Her only concern with that is there is still a desire on the part of the Lodging Association, the hotel community, and the Advisory Board to have something within the Columbia area on the I-70 corridor.  How much of that allocation that would take they do not know yet.
    Mr. Kruse asked if the information centers are sometimes located in a private business, or if it is usually a stand alone facility.  Ms. Steiner said they are done both ways.
    Mr. Campbell commented that it was not the intent of his motion to eliminate this facility, but simply to say that as the Bureau moves forward with the whole process, there probably will be some development occurring, hopefully on both sides, that will allow the City to reallocate some funds from one side to the other.
    Mr. Janku saw the motion as placing increased emphasis on the culture and heritage in downtown than what currently exists in the plan.  He asked why the motion could not just say that and not necessarily say from one particular source.  He said then the committee could come up with how to make the increased allocation.   In adopting this resolution, Mr. Campbell said the Council would be adopting a financial plan and it seemed to him it would be appropriate -- if they are going to adopt the plan, to give some indication of the priorities.  He said that was what he is attempting to do with his motion.  Mr. Campbell reported in the original distribution, there was a financial plan with so many dollars allocated to each one of the particular activities.
    Ms. Coble said if there was nothing to draw tourists in, people would not know that downtown has a wonderfully new developed cultural tourism destination if they are not familiar with the area.  She said her hesitation in supporting the motion is that if they are equally important, but one is dependent upon pulling in the tourists who are passing through town, it seemed the priority should be focused on some kind of visitor tourist information spot along the I-70 corridor.  Mr. Campbell said it becomes a "chicken and egg" kind of thing.  He said both are needed, something to pull them into as well as something to pull them in.  Ms. Coble wondered if that could be accomplished through budgetary review when the plan comes back for an amendment.  Her recommendation is to adopt the plan as is, given the fact that it will come back to the Council with some changes.  By that time, if there has been any negotiation with the Callaway County Tourism Board, they would know about it and that would be the determining factor -- whether or not Columbia has some kind of presence on Highway 70.   Mr. Campbell understood the Council would be adopting the budget now.  Ms. Coble noted it will be amended at a later date.
    The motion to amend R259-98 made by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Mayor Hindman, was approved by voice vote.
    The vote on R259-98, as amended, was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R260-98     Approving the Preliminary Plat of Wellington Manor.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck commented that this is a major subdivision consisting of about 30.7 acres which would create three R-1 lots and one A-1 lot.  He said approval was recommended unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
    Mayor Hindman asked if houses were currently on the property.  Mr. Hancock believed the survey to show an older existing house on the southeast corner.  He said the platting is in preparation for a development.  Mr. Hancock explained that an earlier proposal had come in for some apartments and some single family homes.  He said it was never approved so the applicant was rethinking the whole development idea.
    Mr. Janku asked if the sight distance situation had been resolved.  Mr. Hancock said it had been.  In terms of access to lot one, Mr. Janku said if it was eventually going to be subdivided, how they could be certain there would be access other than on to St. Charles Road.  Mr. Hancock said when the plan was originally proposed, he thought the Council had been opposed to the number of driveways and their location.  Mr. Janku said that was correct.  Mr. Hancock said if they were R-3, he did not know they would have much except engineering criteria for driveway locations on St. Charles  Road.  He said if the property is ultimately platted as single family lots, then the City would have the ability to prevent the developer from establishing driveway access on St. Charles.  However, Mr. Hancock suspected this would be a PUD.  He said the Council would have to address the access issue at that time.
    Mr. Janku noted there is no stubbing, where normally on a piece of property this size, there would be a proposed street.  Mr. Hancock replied currently on lot one, he guessed they could put one house and that would somehow take care of it.   He said the plan right now is to put some homes on lots two, three, and four and then reserve lot one for a PUD in the future, and eventually annex and develop lot five.  Mr. Janku asked if there was something they could do to the plan if they wanted the access to be on to this road rather than St. Charles Road.  Mr. Hancock said he did not know of anything at this time other than wait for the PUD.  He did say that the current owner is fully aware of the access concerns of the Council.
    Upon her request, Ms. Coble made the motion that Mrs. Crockett be allowed to abstain from voting on R260-98.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    The vote on R260-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  ABSTAINING:  CROCKETT.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R261-98     Authorizing FY 99 social service agency contracts.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    During the budgeting process, Mr. Beck explained that the Council budgeted $723,675 for social service programs in Columbia.  He said that amounted to providing 41 programs in the community by 28 different agencies.  He said the Council is being asked to authorize the signing of the agreements.
    The vote on R261-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R262-98     Authorizing FY 99 Human rights enhancement contracts and approving funding
                    extensions.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that these recommendations had been forwarded by the Human Rights Commission.  The total amount requested for approval this evening is $1,161.  He said these particular recommendations were not brought up during the budget process, but funding had been allocated to the Commission
    In the packet of information, Ms. Coble said both vendors mentioned specifically in the ordinance have asked for time extensions on their current grants.  Mr. Steinhaus said those requests were from two programs funded last fiscal year.  He said these agencies are requesting additional time because they did not feel they could complete their activities by the end of this year.  The current contract stipulates the programs must be completed by the end of December.  Ms. Coble asked if the agencies would be awarded 1999 funds.  Mr. Steinhaus said they would not, this would only amend their existing contracts.
    Mark Epstein, Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, 1201 Paquin, offered to answer any questions.
    The vote on R262-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.   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:

B384-98     Authorizing construction of a 12-inch water main serving Rocky Creek Subdivision;
                    payment of differential costs above those to install a 6-inch water main.
B385-98     Approving the engineer's final report; authorizing payment of differential costs for water
                    main serving Stoneridge Estates, Phase 1 & 2 (Part 1); accepting a conveyance.
B386-98     Approving the engineer's final report; authorizing payment of differential costs for water
                    main serving Arcadia, Plat 4 (Part 2); accepting a conveyance.
B387-98     Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B388-98     Establishing R-1 permanent zoning on property located on the north side of New Haven
                    Avenue, east of Lemone Industrial Boulevard.
B389-98     Establishing R-1 permanent zoning on property located on the east side of Strawn Road,
                    south of I-70 Drive S.W.
B390-98     Granting a variance to the subdivision regulations so that sidewalks will not be required
                    along Walcox Drive and Sinclair Street for certain lots in Grand Oaks Subdivision, Plat 1.
B391-98     Rezoning property located at the northwest corner of Nifong Boulevard and Forum
                    Boulevard from R-1 and R-3 to PUD-5 and C-P.
B392-98     Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code to prohibit parking on both sides of Clark Lane
                    from the U.S. 63 connector to Crump Lane.
B393-98     Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code to authorize the sale of parking permits on the
                    former GTE parking lot located at the southwest corner of Cherry and Fifth Streets.
B394-98     Authorizing the City Manager to execute a supplemental urban agreement with the MO
                    Department of Transportation for installation of sidewalks along Route B at US 63
                    overpass.
B395-98     Approving the engineer's final report for the 1998 sidewalk project.
B396-98     Acquiring easements and land in fee simple for the construction of the North Parklawn
                    Court storm water drainage project.
B397-98     Confirming the contract for the construction of the MC-7 Trunk Sewer serving Thornbrook
                    Subdivision.
B398-98     Confirming the contract for the construction of the Glen Eagle Drive storm drainage
                    improvement project; appropriating funds.
B399-98     Confirming the contract for the construction of the H-4 Trunk Sewer serving the
                    Baurichter property.
B400-98     Confirming the contract for the improvements to Conley Road from I-70 Drive to the
                    northern terminus.
B401-98     Appropriating funds to return local use tax money to the Missouri Department of Revenue.

REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A)     The Hamlet Subdivision Storm Drainage Project.
    Mayor Hindman noted that this report had been tabled from the December 7, 1998, meeting.
    Mr. Beck reported that a fax was received today that had been forwarded to the Council.  He said it was from the attorney representing the developer of the area.  He raised some questions regarding the funding of the project, particularly the interest rate that would be charged.  Mr. Beck pointed out that Mr. Campbell had been meeting with Mr. Patterson and the neighborhood group.  He asked Mr. Patterson to explain the proposal.
    Mr. Patterson said the action needed by Council was a direction for staff to proceed with preparation of two contracts; one with the Hamlet Home Association and one with Mr. Tosini, the developer.  The difference in the report, based on the letter received today, is that the agreement with Mr. Tosini would increase his contribution by $18,500.  Therefore, the City would be paying much less for this project.  The agreement with the Home Association would be secured by their power to levy assessments on their members, and the developer would secure payment by a secondary lien on about five acres of property he owns that is not platted as part of Hamlet Subdivision, but is adjacent to it and is part of the original tract.  Mr. Patterson pointed out that the President of the Home Association was present to answer any questions.
    Mr. Campbell said this three way negotiation has been negotiated and renegotiated over time.  He thought the present agreement was fair to everybody concerned.  Mr. Campbell reported it had been approved by the Home Association and by the developer, and now they needed the City to move it forward.
    Dick Purcell, 4405 Sussex, expressed his gratitude to Mr. Patterson and his staff for the excellent job they have done providing a plan that meets the homeowners requirements.  They are hopeful it would provide them a good drainage system to replace the disaster they have lived with for the past several years.  He also thanked Mr. Campbell for bringing the groups together and helping them through their difficulties in trying to reach a consensus.
    Mr. Campbell made a motion that the staff be directed to proceed.  The   motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Patterson asked about direction on the request regarding the interest rate.
    Mayor Hindman noted that the City's present rate is nine percent and there was a request that it be the same as treasury bills.  Mr. Janku said he had felt for some time that the tax bill rates are too high.  He thought the City should look into having an interest rate that reflects current rates.  He noted the IRS lowered the interest rate on overdue obligations.
    Mr. Beck said he had discussed this with the Finance Director and he did not think there was any problem with reducing the rate some.  He stated the philosophical question is whether or not the Council wants to have a rate a little higher than the going rate to encourage payoff so tax bills are not carried for ten years.  Mr. Beck understood that part of the increased cost was associated with the kind of construction being done.  He said this project is more of a decorative type of construction than what was originally planned.  He explained that what is being proposed is that the storm water utility pick up a substantial portion of the cost, which might typically be looked at by some as a property benefit.  Mr. Beck noted what is being planned is very generous on the part of the City.
    Regarding a floating interest rate, Mr. Beck said when promoting a project and the question comes up about the interest rate, there is no way to tell what it will be until the time the Council ties the project down.  He said the unknown is a disadvantage.  If the Council chooses to go with a floating rate, his recommendation is that it be slightly above the amount suggested in the letters.  He said if they go with a set rate, perhaps it could be lowered one to one and one-half percent from what it is now.
    Ms. Coble asked if this needed to be discussed tonight for the purposes of the Hamlet project.  Mr. Patterson said staff only needed direction whether to proceed with negotiations on that basis.  He said they could bring back a recommendation on the exact interest rate based on internal discussions.  He said that could be shared with the property owners during the negotiations.  He said the question is whether or not the City is willing to consider something other than nine percent.
    Mrs. Crockett said if residents do not want to finance something for nine percent, they could go to their local bank and get the money at a lesser rate.  She felt the interest rate should be left as is.
    Mr. Campbell said he was not too excited about changing the rate on this, but on projects for low-income or something similar, he could see the need for the City to be more generous.  He said it used to be the common rate was one percent over the prime rate.  Mr. Campbell stated the City did not want to be in the business of encouraging the financing, so interest on tax bills should be above the common rate.
    Mr. Beck suggested that they proceed with the project with the understanding that the rate would be reviewed and a recommendation would come back to the Council for approval.

(B)     Legislative Priorities - 1999 Session.
    Mr. Beck noted that many items listed were taken from the suggestions of the Missouri Municipal League, with a few being specific to Columbia.  If the list is adopted by the Council, it would be made available to the City's legislators.
    Mayor Hindman said he would like to have more time to review the list.   He suggested a work session.  Mr. Coffman and Mr. Campbell agreed.  Mr. Kruse noted that bills are being filed now.  He suggested providing direction to the staff and the City's lobbyist, and then study it as well.  Mayor Hindman said he might be opposed to some of the things outlined in the report.
    Ms. Coble said that the City is paying someone to represent our interests in Jefferson City, and they are reconvening on January 6.  She noted the lobbyist would have no agenda and no direction.
    Mr. Janku suggested that the Council schedule a work session January 4, before the next Council meeting.  Mr. Beck said if the Council could review the list, and if more explanation was needed, he would get it for them.  Mr. Janku suggested that the lobbyist be forwarded a copy of the list so it could be monitored.
    Mr. Kruse said he would like to add one item to the list.  He asked that the City oppose any legislation to rollback local control of billboards.
    It was decided the list would be discussed at the pre-Council dinner January 4, 1999.  Anyone having questions regarding the list was asked to call the City Manager's Office.

(C)     Transfer of Funds.
    Report accepted.

(D)     Sanitary Sewer District Petition - Maupin Road Area.
    Mr. Beck noted that this is a 23-lot petition to work on a sewer in the area on a 50/50 basis.  The next step would be for the Council to direct the staff to proceed with surveying and engineering work.
    Ms. Coble made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed.  The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(E)     West Broadway Sidewalk - McBaine Avenue.
    Mr. Beck said the Council had asked the staff to look into this area.  He said they were all aware the sidewalks are not in the best of condition along this section.  The policy is 50/50 and the City would need to program their portion of the cost .  If the Council wishes to proceed, he said the staff would need to do survey work and put it on the CIP Plan.
    Mr. Janku thought they should move forward on it.  He felt it was something where the public should bear the entire cost of funding.  He said the Master Plan deals primarily with new construction, not reconstruction.  He thought the Council would have to address how they pay for reconstruction throughout the community.   He did not think it should be done on a 50/50 funding basis.
    Mr. Campbell said the south side of Broadway was only marginally better than the north side.  He said if they proceed Mr. Janku's way, they would have to set the other project back, and he felt both of them should be constructed.  He said the need is there on both sides.
    In terms of how they determine their priorities for reconstruction, Mr. Janku said this should be on the Master Plan.
    Ms. Coble suggested that the staff be directed to add it into the program and initiate the survey of the abutting property owners.  She said that would be the action, and the other seems to be the policy examination and revision -- does the City do renovations or reconstruction as part of the Master Plan.  In addition, Ms. Coble stated the Council would have to review how that pertains to tax billing abutting property owners versus the City taking on full cost of projects along arterials.  Mayor Hindman asked Mr. Janku if that was what he meant.  Mr. Janku said it was.
    Mr. Campbell said he would be in favor of the property owners paying for the reconstruction, but not for the additional width.   He did not think that was part of the reconstruction.  He said that could be decided later.
    Ms. Coble made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed with programming the project and initiating a survey of abutting property owners on Broadway.   The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
    Mayor Hindman asked if he understood that the Council is not voting on how it was to be paid for tonight.  Mr. Beck said that should probably be a part of the property owners survey.  Mr. Janku said residents could be surveyed to see if they are interested in paying.
    Mr. Beck asked whether the City has been paying 50/50 on some maintenance work.  Mr. Patterson said we have, and noted that there is a provision in the policy resolution for 60/40 on priority sidewalks.  He reported staff thought this was a 60/40 project until they found out there was nothing on the Master Plan for reconstruction.  He said the intent of the policy resolution was to be 60/40 percent on sidewalks on the Master Plan.  He said their intent was to survey the property owners based on trying to determine what their perception of the need was, and explain the current policy resolution, if it were to be followed, and solicit their comments on the project and report back to the Council.  He said they were not going to tell them at this point that the project would proceed.  Mr. Patterson stated staff could explain the current policy and indicate the Council is discussing an evaluation of it.
    Mr. Janku said if it was determined the abutting property owners do not want the reconstruction, the Council would decide if it was needed in the public interest or not.
    The motion made by Ms. Coble, seconded by Mr. Kruse was approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Ms. Coble pointed out that new sidewalks have been constructed where the City has paid all of the cost.  Mayor Hindman said he thought they agreed, but what was bothering him was that they might be pushing the cart a little before the horse.
    It was decided the entire maintenance subject would be coming back from time to time.

(F)     Proposed Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Resubmittals of Petitions for Zoning
          Map Amendments.
    Mr. Beck said the suggested policy read that no petition to amend the zoning map would be accepted if it is the same or substantially the same as a petition submitted within the previous 12 months, which was denied by the City Council or withdrawn after the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing by the applicant.   He said the protection for the applicant, which he felt was very important, was it still provides that someone could appeal to the Council on an individual basis if they felt a staff member did not accept an application that should be processed because it was substantially different.
    The question came up as to how one would appeal to the Council.  Mr. Beck said the applicant could write a letter to the Council stating why they feel their application for rezoning should be reconsidered in less than the 12 month period.
    Ms. Coble asked if the details are what the staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission work out, hold hearings on, and then come back to the Council with a report.  Mr. Beck said that was correct.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if applicants would still be able to have things reconsidered without having to go back through the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Mr. Boeckmann said that was not just on rezonings, but any defeated ordinance.  He said  that would still apply.
    Ms. Coble made the motion that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the purpose of holding a public hearing with recommendations to come back to the Council.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(G)    Ozark Air Lines Negotiations.
    Mr. Beck said if the council agrees with the five items listed, the staff would like to have a motion directing them to proceed.  He said leases would still have to come back to the Council for approval.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed as described.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
    Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council, the following individuals were appointed to the following boards and commissions:

BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
Skinner, Terry R., 3716 Lansing, Ward 3 - term to expire 07/31/01
Wise, Rick J., 208 Orleans Ct., Ward 2 - term to expire 07/31/02

COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION
Cosgrove, David B., 3705 Forum Blvd., #224 - term to expire 12/31/01
Miller, Dianne H., 34-A Broadway Village, Ward 6 - term to expire 12/31/01

FIREFIGHTER RETIREMENT BOARD
Danley, Daniel A., 107 E. Ridgeley, Ward 5 - term to expire 12/31/00

POLICE RETIREMENT BOARD
Harper, Milt, 1004 LaGrange Ct., Ward 5 - term to expire 12/31/00

RISK MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Pistel, Fred, 2105 Cobblestone Ct., Ward 4 - term to expire 1/1/02

SPECIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Danuser, K. Blake, 6000 Arrowhead Lake Dr., County - term to expire 1/1/02
Puckett, K. Dale, 2103 S. Country Club, Ward 3 - term to expire 1/1/02
Waters, Jack, 712 Westridge Drive, Ward 4 - term to expire 1/1/02

SUBSTANCE ABUSE ADVISORY COMMISSION
Bennett, Katy V., 804 W. Green Meadows, Ward 5 - term to expire 10/31/99
 

COMMENTS OF THE COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
    During the last several years, Mr. Campbell reported some residents are raking their leaves into the street gutters and leaving them there.  This has resulted in an overload for the street sweeper.  He asked that staff prepare a report on the feasibility of the City picking up leaves directly from the street, in addition to or instead of, in bags only.   He said it is done in other cities and he thought it is time for us to look at it closely.
    Regarding traffic signals at Broadway and Fairview, Mr. Campbell said the left turn from Broadway to Fairview has both a green arrow and a yield on green signal.  He said the high speed traffic on Broadway makes the green yield dangerous.  He asked the staff to work with the State Transportation Department to eliminate the left turn green yield signal.
    Regarding traffic signals at Stadium and Ashland Road, Mr. Campbell said he has received requests for a traffic signal at the intersection.  He thought it had been addressed in the past; but he requested that any study be reviewed and updated.  If a traffic signal is warranted because of increased traffic volumes or accidents, Mr. Campbell asked that a signal be installed.
    Mr. Campbell explained that currently the applicant requesting a rezoning only pays for the cost of advertising and nothing else.  He said the City has a policy regarding sharing the cost of building inspections during construction and related requests.  He thought it would be reasonable for a similar policy to be established for zoning requests.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff be directed to review the topic with the Planning and Zoning Commission and return their recommendation to the Council.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Regarding boarded up and vacant buildings, Mr. Campbell stated this is often a signal that an area is in decline.  He said these structures contribute to further decline by creating a negative image.  He pointed out that many cities have policies that require such buildings to be removed within a reasonable length of time.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff be directed to review the topic, with Planning and Zoning if appropriate, and return their recommendation to the Council.
    Mayor Hindman asked if he would object to staff examining other options besides tearing the structures down.  Mr. Campbell said he would not.  Ms. Coble said she would not be in favor of something that would contribute to tearing down the City's housing stock.  Mr. Campbell said he was not in favor of that either.  He was referring to when it gets beyond the point of doing anything else.  Mr. Coffman said he was frustrated by historic homes that remain vacant.  Mr.  Campbell said he would not want to tear down a home if it could possibly be salvaged.  He would prefer a policy that would encourage either rehabilitation or, in desperate cases, tearing it down rather than leaving it.  Mr. Janku said there is a process on the books for condemnation.  Mr. Campbell said they had encountered difficulty on the corner of Clinkscales and Worley and in some other areas where it took years to get structures removed.  Mr. Janku believed that involved the problem of out-of-state property owners.  He thought that might be the key.
    Mr. Campbell said if the Council felt there was not a problem, he would withdraw his motion.  Mayor Hindman thought there was a problem, but did not think it was altogether the abandoned houses.  He said there are some occupied houses where there are big problems for neighborhoods.  He would like to see it expanded to include options regarding deteriorating or nuisance buildings in any neighborhood.  He reported Rochester, Minnesota enacted an ordinance that has worked very well and has eliminated a lot of drug traffic in the neighborhoods.  Ms. Coble thought as broad a scope of information that could be brought to the Council would be helpful.
    Mr. Campbell asked that a report be brought back.  It was decided it would not go to the Planning and Zoning Commission, only to the staff.
    Mr. Coffman said that the East Campus Neighborhood Speeding Committee has urged him to bring their concerns about the east/west streets that run south of Broadway, down to Bouchelle and to the University, to the Council's attention.  Along that stretch, William Street has a 20 mph speed limit, and residents want to know why the east/west streets could not be made the same.  He said there is concern about a great deal of families with children moving in the area.  He asked for a report on this area, if not a city-wide report.  Mr. Coffman is interested in any mechanism that could help with speeding.
    Mr. Coffman brought up the ordinance pertaining to marijuana possession and the associated paraphernalia.  He noted there had been a precipitous drop in the number of those cases that have been processed through City Court.  He said there has been a question about whether that is a policy in the Police Department or the Prosecutor's Office.  Since that time, he explained the hours the municipal judge works had been increased to three-quarter time.
    Mr. Coffman had a copy of a letter written to the President of the Boone County Bar Association about this matter from the former Deputy Chief of Police, Dennis Veach.  He stated the letter refers to an operating procedure that all arrests, regardless of severity, are assigned to state court now.  Mr. Coffman asked what the policy is and what the reason is for it.  He asked for a report.
    Mr. Kruse asked if Columbia's ordinance is for first offense only, or any offense under a certain amount of marijuana possession.  Mr. Coffman said it would typically be a misdemeanor amount, but did not recall a first offense component to it.  Mr. Boeckmann did not recall the amount, but said it is based on amount.  Mr. Coffman asked if the City had recently added paraphernalia to it.  Mr. Boeckmann said it had been added a few years ago.  Mr. Coffman said he would be interested in knowing the reason for the drop in cases referred to City Court since summer.  Mr. Kruse said he would be interested in knowing as well.  He said it reflects the value of the community, so he is curious as to what has changed.  Ms. Coble reported the Council debated the need to increase the Municipal Judge's time to three-quarters and, having done that, it is ironic that now there seems to be a policy of sending cases that previously went through the Municipal Court to the state court level.
    Mr. Coffman understood the letter to say that all narcotic arrests are transported to the already overcrowded jail to post bond.
    Mr. Coffman asked for a report regarding Broadway and 63 traffic.  Because of the continued growth of the shopping areas, he said the traffic has increased and people are finding it more and more difficult to make a left turn into Broadway Village.  He noted there is a great deal of traffic congestion at the Trimble Road intersection as well, and the area is becoming increasingly dangerous all of the time.  Mr. Coffman reported the residents would like a turn lane and perhaps a traffic signal in the general location.  Ms. Coble commented that she drives through this area twice a day and it is a mess.  She said the traffic backs up to William.
    Mr. Beck said he had been in meetings with the Highway Department encouraging that something be done about the situation.  He said the State realized there is a problem, but no progress is being made.  He said staff would keep working on this issue.
    Referring to a report received from Tony Davis, a Rock Quarry Road resident, Mr. Coffman said he had been concerned about a couple of culverts (the first two after going down the hill).  He said the report had indicated that the cost of replacing the culverts would be rather expensive -- approximately $40,000 and $80,000.  Mr. Coffman commented if the City is to believe the engineers, the Cambridge Place development would actually reduce the storm water.  He said that remains to be seen, and he can understand maybe waiting to deal with the storm water problems; however, he thought there is a more immediate problem with the first culvert at the turn.  He said there is not room for two cars to pass.  Mr. Coffman reported not only is the road very narrow with the guardrail on the inside of the curve, but it has started to erode into the roadbed.  He wondered if there were any temporary measures that could be taken, short of replacing the culvert, to make it more safe.
    Mr. Kruse commented that he continues to receive complaints about the Growing with Columbia tourist information signs.  He recently made a point of looking at them, and probably 85% of the signs are not plumb.  Mr. Kruse stated the signs are not being maintained and are leaning in various directions.  He said they are also of inconsistent height.  He explained that he contacted the president of Growing with Columbia and asked him about it.  He said the response was defensive.
    Mr. Kruse made the motion that the City Manager be directed to write the Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Growing with Columbia to express concern about maintenance of the Growing with Columbia signs installed on City and State rights-of-way.  He asked that the letter include a statement of the Council's desire that the signs be of consistent height and be made plumb.  The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Janku noted that next year Cosmo Park would celebrate its 50th anniversary.  He asked if there could be some kind of community recreation recognition of the long-standing support the Cosmo's have given to Columbia's parks, and particularly that park.
    Mr. Janku asked for information on what could be done to ensure an accurate census.  He said there are things that could be done in advance of it, both as a staff and maybe as a Council, to facilitate an accurate count.  He asked for a staff report.
    Mr. Janku noted a new federal law dealing with work force development.  He was interested in knowing if any type of monies might be available to help fund the City's C.A.R.E. Program.  He reported the budget for this program currently is coming out of the general fund.
    Regarding Stadium and I-70, Mr. Janku said in the past the Council has received reports from the State and also from Public Works.  He understood the State has put it on its list of potential improvements -- the turning problems.  He wanted to know if funding had been found for it, in terms of their priorities.
    Mayor Hindman asked Mr. Beck if he had been meeting with the census people.  Mr. Beck said he met with them once, but Mr. Hancock's staff has been meeting with them more regularly.
    The meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m.

                                                                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                             Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                             City Clerk