M I N U T E S
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI
MARCH 4, 2002
 

INTRODUCTORY
    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, March 4, 2002, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, and JANKU were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.
 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
    The minutes of the regular meeting of February 18, 2002, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Hutton.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
    Mr. Janku asked that R57-02 be taken off the Consent Agenda and moved under New Business. Mr. John requested removal of R56-02 from the Consent Agenda with placement under New Business.
    The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. Coffman.
 

SPECIAL ITEMS
    Mayor Hindman welcomed Boy Scouts from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Scouts were present with their Scout Master, Noble Lindley and Donna Simpson, Merit Badge Coordinators for Communications.
 

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
    None.
 

PUBLIC HEARINGS
B49-02     Approving the engineer's final report; levying special assessments for improvements made to Sanitary
                 Sewer District No. 152; appropriating funds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained that this project consisted of the installation of approximately 250 feet of 8-inch sanitary sewer pipe, 175 feet of 4-inch sewer pipe, three manholes and other miscellaneous work. Three properties along Spring Valley Road formerly serviced by a private common collector were included in this small sewer district. Mr. Patterson reported that because the properties were served by a private common collector, only one-half of the estimated cost of the improvements are to be tax billed to the property owners. The final project cost was $28,645.35, with $14,322.67 being tax billed and the remaining $14,322.68 being paid out of the Sanitary Sewer Utility.
    Mr. Patterson outlined the benefits accrued to the property owners by this project include that they no longer have the financial responsibility for maintaining the private sewer, in addition to the elimination of potential environmental and financial problems that are associated with such. He noted that stoppages had occurred with the private common collector.
    Mr. Patterson explained the amendment sheet which would provide for the deferral of an initial tax bill that is over $5,000. He noted that one of the three assessments exceeds that amount and the additional amount would be deferred until the property is redeveloped, replatted or further developed.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that B49-02 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Hutton inquired as to why the sale of the property would trigger the higher tax bill. He asked if it could not be transferred with the property. Mr. Patterson said the deferral would provide relief to the present residents.
    B49-02, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

B50-02     Approving the engineer's final report; levying special assessments for property benefitted by the 2000
                 street maintenance project.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained that this work was performed in 2001 with authorization by City Council at a public hearing on August 21, 2000. This annual program provides for maintenance and repair to unimproved City streets beyond normal pot hole repair and patching. Work was performed on eleven different street sections with the work typically consisting of cleaning out ditches, straightening and cleaning out driveway pipes and street drainage pipes, removing any soft areas in the road bed, leveling the asphalt, and finishing with a seal coat surface. Mr. Patterson noted that there are a total of 105 property parcels that were impacted by the work which represents approximately 15,582 feet of abutting property. The total cost for last year's work is $85,984.56, and in accordance with current street policies, he said the abutting properties can only be assessed a maximum of $2.00 per abutting foot. This totals $31,183.74 with the remaining $54,800.82 being paid from the general fund out of the Street Operating Budget.
    Mr. Patterson reported that property owners and residents were notified of this hearing by letter and staff received several phone calls, but for the most part they have been able to satisfy the questions with an explanation of the work and the reason for the cost. In order to assess the tax bills, he pointed out the Council would have to determine that special benefits have accrued to the property equal to the amount being proposed. In making that determination, Mr. Patterson suggested consideration of the following: there is generally better drainage as a result of the ditch and pipe work, the leveling and surfacing will reduce wear and tear on private vehicles, and the smoother street also enhances snow removal in the winter.
    Mayor Hindman asked about the policy on corner lots. Mr. Patterson explained that there is still an associated benefit to having a corner lot with two street accesses, even if just the side street was subject to the improvement. He said if the project's actual cost is less than $2.00, only the actual cost is charged. On this year's work, the cost ranged from $2.30 to $4.50 per abutting foot.
    Mr. John wondered how someone would know if they were buying a home on an improved or unimproved street. When buying within the City limits, he believed residents would expect all streets to be of an improved standard. He thought that would raise questions in later issues regarding annexation.
    For the limited amount of revenue received from this type of street maintenance, Mr. Janku did not think it was worth tax billing the property owners. In the past, he said the focus had been that it tended to be a penalty for the older areas of town. He speculated maybe it was time to do something about it for a variety of reasons.
    Mr. John said it also keeps some of the streets from being improved because not all residents in a neighborhood can afford to pay for the improvement unless it happens to be in a CDBG eligible area.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Nile Kimball, 3000 E. Henley, President of the neighborhood association, remarked that he has received several calls from residents who are concerned about the quality of work that was done. He said they were not opposed to paying for the upgrades, but wanted to make sure it was done properly. Mr. Kimball spoke about the amount of gravel in the ditches.
    Bill Easley, 705 Cook, discussed street repair and City taxes.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Beck explained how the two alternatives, bringing streets up to improved standards or unimproved streets being maintained every five to ten years, came about.
    Mr. Janku asked that staff look at the Henley Drive situation. Mr. Patterson acknowledged the request.
    B50-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

B57-02     Authorizing construction of water mains along El Dorado Drive and Riviera Drive from El Dorado Drive
                 northwardly then eastwardly to Langham Drive.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained the proposal to construct 2,000 feet of eight and six-inch water main to replace an existing four-inch line. The estimated cost of the project is $94,000 which will be paid for from Water and Light funds. Mr. Beck noted the larger mains will improve fire protection and domestic service in the area.
    Mr. John asked if some of the property on Riviera Drive was outside the City limits. Mr. Malon explained that this particular project is in the former Water District 2 area, and comprises some of the upgrades promised on the system.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comment, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B57-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

B58-02     Authorizing construction of water main along Third Avenue from Garth Avenue to Providence Road.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Malon explained this project will replace an old four-inch cast iron water main in advance of street reconstruction on Third Avenue at an estimated cost of $66,000.
    Mayor Hindman asked about the possibility of burying power lines as part of the project. Mr. Malon replied that power lines are never placed in the same ditch as water mains because of the danger to water crews working on repairs.
    Mr. Janku noted the issue of undergrounding had been brought up years earlier in reference to the North Central area. At one point, the Council requested a report each time there was a street project, but because there had been no mechanism to underground the lines due to cost and lack of interest from some homeowners, they asked to stop getting the report. Mayor Hindman responded that more background information is needed in order to establish a mechanism.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Bill Easley, 705 Cook, voiced his opinion about undergrounding.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B58-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

B59-02     Authorizing construction of a water main along Broadway east of Fairview Road and along Heather
                 Lane from Broadway to Ash Street; appropriating funds.
     The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Malon explained that this proposed project would involve installing 12-inch PVC water line along Broadway from Fairview over to Heather Lane and then north on Heather Lane. The estimated cost of the project is approximately $95,550. He pointed out that there is currently a 12-inch water main in the general area which is an old well-feeder line. The line is in bad shape and has been out of service for some time. The proposal is to replace the old main with a 12-inch PVC line to improve fire flows in this area.
    Mr. Loveless asked if he understood that the project would replace an old line that is turned off. Mr. Malon said that was correct. He explained with all of the development going on in the area, the new main would provide a much better backbone for fire flow purposes.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B59-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

B60-02     Authorizing construction of water main serving Vanderveen Crossing, Plat 7.
     The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained the location of the new 1,600 foot water main to be in the northern portion of the City. The City will pay the estimated differential cost of $10,739.25 for the larger pipe being required in the area.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B60-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

B64-02     Rezoning property located east of the northern terminus of Hanover Boulevard from A-1 to R-1.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this approximate five acre tract is located in northeast Columbia. Both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval.
    Mr. Janku asked if this tract is being split off from the other A-1 tract. He wondered about street right-of-way issues on Hanover. Mr. Dudark noted that this hearing only relates to the zoning -- right-of-way acquisition would take place when a plan is submitted.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B64-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

B65-02     Rezoning property located between Rock Quarry Road and Old 63, approximately 1,300 feet north of
                 the New State Route AC extension from R-2 and R-3 to R-1.
     The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Dudark explained that the application affects almost 29 acres of land on Rock Quarry Road. He said this came about as a part of some interest in the neighborhood for long-range planning in the area. The Commission recommended approval.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Coffman supported this downzoning request based on the issues discussed at the last meeting. He noted it had been an initial staff suggestion when they were looking at some of the development planned along this road. Mr. Coffman thought it could lessen the impact to this sensitive strip.
    B65-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

B66-02     Rezoning property located on the north side of Vandiver Drive, approximately 1,500 feet west of
                 Parker Street from RMH and C-1 to C-P.
     The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Dudark explained the location of this 5 acre tract and pointed out the mobile home park to the east and tree nursery to the west. Across the street there are automobile sales businesses and a bakery distributorship. Mr. Dudark reported the south portion of the tract is currently zoned C-1, and the north portion is zoned RMH.
    Mr. Dudark summarized the concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission pertaining to the requested uses. The Commission was concerned about the affects the proposed commercial uses (automobile sales and service, auto repair, general contractor, and storage yard) would have on the adjacent mobile home park.
    Mr. Dudark summarized the letter sent by the applicant relating to the proposed uses. He said some of them may be acceptable, particularly bicycle shop, bicycle repair shop, electrical sales shop, electrical repair shop, and some rental services. He noted these would all be contained within an enclosed building. Mr. Dudark believed the pertinent issues to be with the motor vehicle repair facilities, motor vehicles sales and service, and the general contractor uses because of the garage overhead doors that may be open during business hours. He said there was concern about noise from engines and loading materials, equipment, and tools which could be alleviated if everything was inside the building and there was no use of overhead doors.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 601 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the applicant and the property owner. Mr. Simon indicated his client is not asking for plan approval, but simply a change to the zoning. He reported the applicant is requesting a minor expansion of the C-1 uses recommended by staff and the Commission. Those uses would generally be permitted in zoning districts C-3 or C-P. Mr. Simon pointed out the uses are itemized in the letter from Mr. Jones dated February 27th. He subsequently referred to a second letter, dated February 28th, wherein the applicant agreed to abide by certain design parameters. Mr. Simon asked that these parameters be incorporated into the ordinance. He indicated the draft C-P plan attached to the letter would be followed.
    With respect to the primary uses that are of major concern, Mr. Simon reported that Mr. Jones has a small building contracting company that primarily specializes in smaller residences. He stated that Mr. Jones desires to place, on the rear part of the property, a facility for his construction company. It would be very similar to what Mr. Herigon has in Vanderveen. It would have his offices in front, a garage-type facility at the rear and there would be no exterior storage. In addition, there might be one or two similar facilities for other users. Mr. Simon explained the applicant proposes a self-storage facility (of the type that would be permitted within a C-3 zoning district) to be located on the far north part of the property. He thought this use would be beneficial to the mobile home dwellers in the area as well as to other residents. Mr. Simon stated the letters describe the particular uses and have specifically provided there will be no exterior storage and that all activities will be conducted solely indoors. Regarding automobile repair facilities, he said it is possible the applicant might have a facility much like the Custom Muffler facility on Providence Road.
    Although the entire tract would be zoned C-P, Mr. John understood there would be a line of demarcation where the motor vehicle and rental services would be on the existing C-1 portion to the south. Mr. Simon agreed. On the north side, which is now RMH, Mr. John understood the proposed uses to be more limited. Mr. Simon again agreed and added that legal descriptions were provided for the two separate parcels.
    Mr. Hutton asked for clarification of the uses. Mr. Simon explained it would be all C-1 uses, excluding alcohol sales other than in connection with a restaurant, plus the additional uses shown for the two parcels in the February 27th letter.
    Dave Harr, property owner of 1313 Vandiver containing a garden center, indicated he was not opposed to any of the uses as long as dog kennels or alcoholic sales are excluded. His only issue related to the lack of access to the back of the property. When he purchased his property years ago, he was told there was an easement on the west side of the applicant's property, and he may be asked for a road easement on his side. Since then, the road easement has been vacated. Mr. Harr just wanted to ensure he would not be expected to grant an easement for a road on his property.
    Mr. Dudark explained that the easement was vacated by the Council a few years ago. He said Mr. Harr's property is L-shaped and has frontage on Vandiver. Mr. Harr wanted clarification that he would not be expected to grant an easement for a full road at some future point in time. Mayor Hindman responded the Council could not guarantee anything, but thought that would be very unlikely.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku asked if there were any other regulations that govern self-storage facilities in terms of access. Both Mr. Dudark and Mr. Boeckmann were unaware of anything other than what is stipulated in the zoning ordinance.
    Mr. Janku asked about the particular use for offices and whether it is considered a C-P or C-3 use, particularly the contracting offices. Mr. Boeckmann explained in C-P zoning, the Code provides that the Council, at the time of rezoning, shall designate the use or uses allowed for the applicant's property from a list of uses. The first two uses are one or more or all of the permitted uses in district C-1 and the second was one or more or all of the permitted uses in district C-3. He said there is then a list of a number of other things that can be designated just in the C-P zone. He said sometimes applicants come up with things that do not fit the category and variations on the language are used.
    In reference to the north tract on the property in question, Mr. Boeckmann reported the applicant wanted the Council to allow a general contractor business which may include administrative offices, show rooms, and storage within an enclosed building with no exterior storage of equipment, tools, building materials, supplies or vehicles. He noted this use is not included in the code, so that was not what was envisioned in a C-P zone. He thought in this particular case the draftman's thinking was this use would be similar to other uses and ought to be a C-P use. Mr. Boeckmann believed Protective Inspection had taken the position that general contractor businesses are allowed in the industrial districts, not in commercial districts. In any case, he said there is no language similar to that allowed in C-P, C-1, C-2 or C-3 zoning districts.
    Along the same lines, Mr. Boeckmann related the applicant added some restrictions that are not in the Code. As an example, there are no stipulations in the code that a bicycle shop must contain all repair, storage or display within an enclosed building. Mr. Boeckmann reported that this language is getting away from the general concept of the C-P district where an applicant is supposed to pick from a list of uses rather than establishing different uses or employing it as a tool for further restriction. Mr. Janku understood the bottom line to be that a general contractor business did not fit within the zoning being requested. Mr. Boeckmann said that was true. Mr. Janku stated whether or not it should be is a different issue; however, he did not think it was a bad use for this particular piece of property.
    Mr. John asked if motor vehicle repair facilities would be allowed, without any modifiers, in C-2. Mr. Boeckmann read that it is an allowed use provided that all repairs shall take place within an enclosed building. Mr. John questioned whether bicycle repair shops are allowed in C-2. Mr. Boeckmann replied these shops are allowed in C-2 without those restrictions. Mr. John inquired if rental services are allowed in C-3. Again, Mr. Boeckmann responded affirmatively. Mr. John noted that what the applicant is requesting are uses allowed in those zones with modifiers that further restrict such. Mr. Boeckmann pointed out that the ordinance was not structured as a mechanism for the Council to make up the uses in a C-P district. He said allowing extra restrictions is not as bad as allowing M-1 uses in a C-P zone.
    Mayor Hindman asked how the submission from the applicant differs from a letter of intent. Mr. Boeckmann replied that letters of intent are only required with planned unit developments.
    Mr. John asked Mr. Simon to explain how he arrived at the conclusion that a general contractor use is in a C-3 zone. Mr. Simon thought it was a C-P use. As described in the code, he reported that plumbing, heating, air-conditioning and electrical businesses which include customary activities such as contracting, retail and wholesale sales and distribution provided it is all within an interior building, are allowed in a C-P zone. In this community, Mr. Simon noted there are a number of general contractors located in C-1, C-2 and C-3 districts. He named several. Mr. Simon indicated the use he described in the letter is essentially identical to, totally indistinguishable from, the permitted C-P use of plumbing, heating, air-conditioning and electrical businesses. That was how he arrived at his conclusion.
    Mr. Janku reiterated that he had no problem with that type of office, but was trying to fit it in legally. He thought it would be a decent use for this particular piece of property. He also spoke about the benefit the self-storage units would be to the neighborhood, but was concerned about the location of such because of access and security issues. In addition, Mr. Janku did not want a motor vehicle repair store located so close to Vandiver Drive. Unfortunately, he said the precedent has been that vehicles are stored in locations that have become very rundown. Mr. Janku preferred that this use be excluded from the north tract (Vandiver side). He suggesting tabling this issue to the next meeting so a clearer definition could be given to the office use.
    Regarding the motor vehicle repair facility, Mayor Hindman asked about the stipulation that all repairs must take place within an enclosed building and that there be no exterior storage. He wondered if it meant there would be no storage of customer cars. Mr. Simon confirmed that statement.
    Mr. Janku did not think that would be practical. He could not conceive that the building would be large enough to enclose all of the cars waiting to be serviced. Mr. Simon responded that he does not see any exterior storage of automobiles on Providence Road (Custom Muffler), but he does see customers pull in and park. When their vehicles are fixed, they leave. He did not think that was considered storage -- it was parking. Mr. Janku spoke about the difficulty in enforcing violations with this type of business.
    Mr. Loveless did not perceive much of a practical difference between a general contractor who has an office and inside storage for tools and materials versus a plumbing supplier/contractor or a flooring supplier/contractor doing the same thing. He noted the ordinances are not all-inclusive because every instance cannot be thought of as the ordinance is being written. Regarding the location of the self-storage buildings, that seemed to be a business decision to him. Mr. Loveless said part of the "planning" designation in the zoning ordinances is to allow flexibility and more control by the Council. He believed what is gained is probably worth the trade-off by permitting some uses within this zone that were not thought of when it was initially passed.
    There was an ensuing discussion about amending the bill.
    Mr. Boeckmann suggested that the Council leave the bill and the language as it is and substitute a new Exhibit A and add Exhibits B and C. He explained that Exhibits B and C would contain the legal descriptions for the two tracts. In reference to the south part of the 5.61 acre tract described in Exhibit B, he further defined that Exhibit A would specify that all the permitted uses in a C-1 district would be allowed, except alcoholic beverage sales by the package not accessory to a restaurant, and then list the different uses contained within the letter. Furthermore, Exhibit A would then define that the property described in Exhibit C, which is the north part of the 5.61 acres, may be used for all of the permitted uses in a C-1 district, except alcoholic beverage sales by the package not accessory to a restaurant, and then all the other uses set forth in the letter would be listed.
    Mr. John made the motion that B66-02 be amended per Mr. Boeckmann's suggestion. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman.
    Mayor Hindman asked about enforcement of outside vehicle storage and whether citations could be issued as a violation of this ordinance. Mr. Boeckmann said it is possible, but as Mr. Janku pointed out, it is very difficult. He explained it is hard to determine at what point something becomes storage.
    Mr. Janku offered an amendment to the amendment which would delete motor vehicle repair from the use. The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman.
    Mayor Hindman suggested that the motor vehicle repair business could be constructed so that the parking lot would be behind the building instead of in front. He thought that would be less of an unsightly problem.
    The motion to amend the amendment, made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mr. Coffman, failed by voice vote.
    The motion to amend, made by Mr. John, seconded by Mayor Hindman, was approved by voice vote.
    B66-02, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

B67-02     Rezoning various tracts of property located within proposed Auburn Hills Subdivision, northeast of the
                 intersection of Rangeline Street and Brown School Road, extended.
     The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that seven parcels of land are located in this 3.4 acre tract. The existing zoning does not match the subdivision lines after it was platted. Approval was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B67-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

B68-02     Establishing R-1 zoning on property located on the west side of Warren Drive, approximately 2,400
                 feet north of New Haven Road.
     The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Mr. Beck explained that this recently annexed 3.7 acre tract is located on the east side of the City. The Commission as well as staff recommend approval of R-1 single family zoning.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B68-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

R64-02     Proposed Master Plan for the development of Stephens Lake Park.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said after public comments are received this evening, the next two steps would be to approve the master plan and then adopt a capital improvement plan. Once that occurs, another public hearing would be held on the actual improvements being proposed.
    There was some discussion about the process. Mr. Coffman asked if the Council approves the plan, whether that would allow staff to proceed with the specific improvements. Mr. Beck replied that per Charter requirements, another public hearing would have to be held to specify what improvements would be made under Phase I. He said staff would submit an implementation plan to set in motion the master plan the Council adopts.
    Mr. Hutton asked if the master plan is intended to be a general document and then the capital improvement plan would specifically address when each separate item will be constructed. In reference to capital improvement projects, Mr. Beck explained that the Charter requires there be a description of the project, the estimated cost of such and how the work is to be accomplished. He stated the implementation plan would be specific.
    Mr. Coffman noted that the plan does not show the Pop Collins Cabin. He asked if by approving the plan, whether the Council would also be approving the relocation of the cabin. Mr. Beck said his personal opinion was that the cabin should be specifically addressed.
    Mr. Hood reported that staff believes the master plan should be a conceptual guide for the overall long-range operation and development of the park. He said once the master plan is approved and sets the overall general direction for the park, an implementation plan for Phase I improvements would go through the City's normal process for capital improvements which would include a public hearing, cost estimates and direction from the Council.
    Mayor Hindman believed that when the Council adopts a master plan, it would not prevent them from making certain changes to it as details come along. If the Council wants to raise an issue with respect to the plan, like the Pop Collins Cabin, he thought they would be entitled to do that right now. Mr. Beck verified that improvements to the park would not occur until the Council approves an implementation plan.
    Mr. Hood presented the staff's master plan for Stephens Lake Park. He explained that their planning process began last April with a very extensive public input campaign which included public forums, focus group meetings, and surveys. Based on public input received, the staff developed four possible options for development of the park: a traditional park, a nine hole golf course, an arboretum and an arboretum/park.
    Mr. Hood reported the options were introduced to the public at two public forums and were also displayed at the Library, the City Building, Parks and Recreation Offices and on the department's web site. Survey forms were at each site and the public was asked to indicate their preferred option for development of the park as well as to provide comments as to what they liked or did not like about the plan. They received 497 completed surveys with the traditional park option receiving 84 votes, the golf course option with 84 votes, the arboretum option had 67 votes and the park/arboretum option 262 votes.
    From the comments received, Mr. Hood said staff noted some obvious concerns which included that the park not be overdeveloped, that the natural beauty and general topography of the site be maintained, that infrastructure (roads and parking) be maximized as much as possible, that they should build only what is absolutely needed, and the continuation of winter sports at the park. He indicated there was also strong support for the development of facilities such as trails, swimming, picnicking, indoor shelter day camp, and the general landscape features associated with the arboretum development.
    Based on the input received and staff's assessment of the options, Mr. Hood said they prepared a recommended master plan for the property. The current plan is a modification of Option 4 (the park and arboretum option). He reported the plan was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission and their comments have been provided. He briefly described the plan. Mr. Hood noted that the plan calls for the Pop Collins Cabin to be restored, but relocated to Nifong Park.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Beverly Burge Spencer, 3812 Evergreen, spoke in opposition of the proposed master plan. She believed the park should be left as a wild, natural area. She said it already has wonderful resources such as swimming, picnic areas, a walking trail around the lake, a soccer field area and lots of room for hiking and dog walking. Ms. Spencer believed the proposed plan would overdevelop the site. She also spoke about her concerns related to maintenance costs and the park's historical significance.
    Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, was opposed to the proposed master plan because of the removal of the log cabin. He maintained that the 19,000 residents that voted to keep the park wanted to see it left as is.
    Jane Addison, 2407 Shepard, spoke on behalf of the Greenbelt Coalition. The Coalition is in favor of the park no longer being a wild area. Ms. Addison noted that the Grindstone Nature Park has been left substantially in its natural state and Stephens Lake Park should be more developed. She said they are most excited about an extra section of the trail which will link Oakland Park to the Grindstone Nature Area. Ms. Addition noted that Phase I calls for 278 parking spaces, and the Coalition would prefer that the City hold off on as much parking as possible. She also expressed concern about the plans to prohibit left turns onto Broadway.
    Mary Hubbel Avery, 302 McNab, believed that everyone who voted to keep Stephens Lake expected to see it left as is.
    Debra Thompson, Harrisburg, Executive Director of the Boone County Historical Society, gave a brief history of the Pop Collins Cabin.
    Bob Bedsworth, Hallsville, President of the Boone County Historical Society, explained the position of the Society to be that any historic building should remain at its original location. However, if the decision is made to move the cabin, they would welcome it in Nifong Park. Mr. Bedsworth indicated it would be placed next to the museum and they would furnish it and open it for public viewing.
    Bill Crawford, 802 Edgewood, a member of the Historical Society, noted that the cabin is in great need of repair. He said it would not stand by itself for very much longer due to its current condition. Mr. Crawford reported that there are older log cabins that have had structures built over the top for protection during inclement weather. If the cabin is moved to Nifong Park, he said it would be more than just a monument as the Society would conduct regular tours through it.
    Larry Hall, Hartsburg, a log home expert, offered to answer questions. Mr. Coffman asked what could be done about the cabin and what would happen to it in its current state. To save the cabin on site, Mr. Hall said the ideal alternative would be to build an entire roof system over it. He estimated that 40-70% of the logs are in poor shape. Mr. Hutton asked if any of the logs are salvageable. Mr. Hall replied that the cabin could stand right where it is for a long time, especially if exterior siding were put on it. He said it is a myth to see a log cabin in the woods because most were built to be covered with siding. He said the back side of the cabin is in impeccable shape because it had a small porch over the back. Mr. Hall also believed the cabin could be dismantled and moved to Nifong. Mr. John asked how much more would be involved to move the cabin. Mr. Hall said if he moved it, he would take it down stick by stick. He acknowledged that he is not an architect or engineer, but if he were to restore it on location, he would probably put some sort of steel curtain over the logs to stabilize them. Mr. Hall remarked that the logs would still be visible from the cabin's interior. Mr. Hutton questioned if Mr. Hall were to totally restore the cabin at its present location, whether he would tear it down completely. Mr. Hall said he would not as that would defeat the purpose. Mr. Loveless asked how Mr. Hall would preserve what is left of the structure if siding was not acceptable. Mr. Hall could not answer that question.
    Bill Easley, 705 Cook, commented that the lake should be cleaned out.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    The Council commended both staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission for their excellent job in this process.
    There was some discussion about whether or not the issue should be tabled until it could be discussed further at a work session. Mayor Hindman noted that work sessions are open to the public.
    Mr. Hutton made the motion that R64-02 be tabled and further discussed at a work session to be scheduled as soon as possible. The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mayor Hindman pointed out that an actual vote will not be taken at the work session. He said the work session date, when decided, would be posted.
 

OLD BUSINESS
PR47-02     Establishing policies for the Percent for Art Program.
    The policy resolution was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Ms. Hunter explained that this is an effort to clarify the program guidelines.
    Regarding smaller projects that do not qualify, Mr. John said he would like to see an outright purchase of art work to be used in a City gallery, perhaps in City Hall.
    Mr. Loveless asked about the maintenance costs and to which department they are charged -- would it be a general fund appropriation. Ms. Hunter said the Committee has talked about the importance of having maintenance added to the policy. She reported what they have done to this point is reserve 10% of the 1% for maintenance. That has caused project budgets to be kept open, so it would be preferable to pool this funding together and appropriate it to a general maintenance fund. Ms. Hunter indicated that public art is maintained on an annual basis. She said her department has been the go-between the department and conservator.
    Mr. Beck commented that he supports establishing a maintenance fund, but thought the Council should discuss it as part of the budgeting process.
    Regarding the exemptions, Mr. Coffman believed water towers should not be excluded from consideration.
    Mr. Coffman made the motion that water towers be deleted from the exempted projects (remove from Section 3e and add to 3b). The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved by voice vote.
    The vote on PR-47-02, as amended, was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Policy resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
 

B47-02     Authorizing an agreement with Crockett Engineering Consultants for engineering work related to the
                 storm water detention facility on the Merideth Branch; appropriating funds.
     The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said money had been budgeted this year to construct a detention facility in the Merideth Branch drainage area in southwest Columbia. This agreement would authorize engineering work to include surveys, geotechnical work and preliminary engineering work at an estimated cost of $22,500.
    Mr. John asked for a rough estimate on the cost for the basin. Mr. Patterson thought it would be approximately $200,000-$300,000. He stated the structural work is not going to be anything sophisticated as staff wanted to leave the area as natural as possible and simply hold the high flows in.
    Mr. Janku understood this to be a dry facility. Mr. Patterson said that was correct. He remarked this is one of the first of the Burns & McDonnell identified regional facilities to reduce peak flows in a major area. Mr. Janku asked if the dam would be an earthen berm. Mr. Patterson replied that is what he anticipated.
    Mr. John asked what the purpose of this facility was. Mr. Patterson said it would provide for short-term storage of the Merideth Branch during peak flows that come through the Goodin Branch. He reported that it will reduce the severity of the flooding downstream which is presently occurring. Mr. Patterson noted they have instances of the Merideth flooding south of this point, below Gillespie Bridge Road.
    Mr. Janku commented that Parks and Recreation staff indicated this open space would not be appropriate for any type of recreation or trails. He thought the location of the proposed dam might provide a good access point to the Daniel Boone Little League facility. He said there was some mention of disposing of the lots in the Stone Crest Subdivision, but he was hopeful staff would keep them until it is known whether they could be used as a natural access and pathway to the Little League Park and Chapel Hill Road. Mr. Janku asked that it be kept in mind as staff moves forward.
    B47-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

B62-02     Voluntary annexation of property located on the west side of Old Village Road, approximately 900 feet
                 north of State Route K.
     The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the property owners of this 2.3 acre tract located in south Columbia are requesting annexation for the purpose of connecting to the City sewer line.
    B62-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

B63-02     Voluntary annexation of property located on the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection of
                 West Old Plank Road and Hickam Drive.
     The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the property owners of this 4.8 acre tract located in south central Columbia are also requesting connection to the City sewer system. They have informally talked about requesting R-1 zoning.
    B63-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

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

B45-02     Calling for bids for the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Business Loop 70 along the east side
                 of Paris Road.
B46-02     Calling for bids for the Annual Sidewalk Project.
B48-02     Authorizing the acquisition of property necessary for construction of the Forum Boulevard extension
                 and roundabout at the intersection of Forum Boulevard and Southampton Drive.
B51-02     Appropriating FTA grant funds for the painting of two new paratransit vehicles.
B52-02     Accepting easements for drainage, road, sewer, sidewalk, utility and stormwater purposes.
B53-02     Authorizing Change Order No. One; approving the engineer's final report for traffic signal
                 improvements at Smiley Lane and State Route 763.
B54-02     Confirming the contract of Aplex, Inc. for construction of the Spruce Drive Project.
B55-02     Confirming the contract of Freesen, Inc. for the construction of Cell #3 at Columbia Sanitary Landfill.
B56-02     Confirming the contract of Garney Companies, Inc. for construction of the Upper Hinkson Creek
                 Outfall Relief Sanitary Sewer Project.
B61-02     Confirming the bid of professional Contractors & Engineers, Inc. for construction of an addition to the
                 South Pump Station Reservoir.
B69-02     Authorizing acquisition of land for development of Smith Neighborhood Park.
B70-02     Appropriating funds for Share the Light Program.
B71-02     Adopting the Boone County/City of Columbia Emergency Operations Plan.
R48-02     Setting a public hearing: consider the proposed annexation of the "East Area" to the City of Columbia,
                 Missouri.
R49-02     Setting a public hearing: consider the proposed annexation of the "West Area" to the City of Columbia,
                 Missouri.
R50-02     Setting a public hearing: consider the proposed annexation of the "North Area" to the City of Columbia,
                 Missouri.
R51-02     Setting a public hearing: consider the proposed annexation of the "Northeast Area" to the City of
                 Columbia, Missouri.
R52-02     Setting a public hearing: consider the proposed annexation of the "South Area" to the City of Columbia,
                 Missouri.
R53-02     Setting a public hearing: construction of a right turn lane at the southwest corner of Providence Road
                 and Broadway.
R54-02     Setting a public hearing: special assessments in connection with the Scott Boulevard Hazard Elimination
                 Project.
R55-02     Setting a public hearing: FY 2001 Performance Report for CDBG and HOME Consolidated Plan
                 Annual Performance Report.
R58-02     Authorizing a grant agreement with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for the replacement
                 of Bridge #6 on the MKT Trail.
R59-02     Authorizing an agreement with the Boys and Girls Club for the Summer Camp Youth Program.
R60-02     Amending the agreement with the Voluntary Action Center for essential transportation services.

    The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
 

NEW BUSINESS
R56-02     Authorizing a pole attachment agreement with Boone Electric Cooperative.
     The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. John commented that if the City is going to proceed with a plan to underground power lines, he asked whether it should be stipulated in the agreement that when a line is buried, that Boone Electric would cooperate and go in the trench with us. Mr. Malon replied that Boone Electric would not likely agree to this condition. He said none of the pole attachment agreements have that clause. He indicated that Boone Electric has not used many City poles and that we have never entered into a formal agreement with them. Because of some of the things that have happened with the telecommunication laws, the people at Boone Electric thought we should formalize it. Mr. Malon did not believe the City would have the authority to make them bury anything. Mr. John said the point is if the City allows Boone Electric to use our poles via this agreement, and the City decides to subsequently bury an overhead line, then we could not remove the poles if this stipulation is not part of the agreement.
    Mr. Coffman asked if the agreement would address whether or not Boone Electric would be required to pay all or some incremental cost for their lines to be buried. Mayor Hindman thought that might be going a little far. He understood Mr. John was saying that the City would have the right to remove the pole.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that R56-02 be tabled to the next meeting to allow staff time to explore the issue. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 

R57-02     Authorizing agreements to implement the Dilapidated Building Demolition Program and the Vacant Lot
                 Acquisition Program.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Janku commented that this is a good program. In reference to the house on Worley Street that the City sold for a dollar, he thought there had been a clause that required it to be sold to a single family home owner. He did not find that stipulation in this agreement. Mr. Dudark said it is not a requirement for the structure to be reconstructed as a single family unit. The only requirement is that the property owner reconstruct a dwelling to replace the one that is demolished. Mr. Dudark reported the assistance is to remove the dilapidated, blighted structure. In order to qualify for the program, the property owner would have to rebuild within a year for 100% reimbursement, or three years for half of the cost. He said the dwelling could be whatever the zoning permits. Mr. Janku asked if that could be explored while they negotiate with the property owner so we could get that condition included, particularly when a single family home is demolished. He noted one of the properties is not zoned R-1. Mr. Janku thought that would be consistent with what the City has been trying to do with our different homeowner programs. Mr. Dudark indicated staff could talk to the property owner about it, but that was not a guarantee. Mr. Janku commented that if the City has limited funds, some people might be more amenable to this condition than others.
    Mr. Hutton asked if Mr. Janku wanted to limit the reconstruction to a single family dwelling, no mater what the circumstance. Mr. Janku responded that was not correct, but he would like to encourage it. He said the City's goal is to encourage homeownership and a lot of the properties in this group are primarily owned by landlords, and they would receive reimbursement from the City to tear down the dilapidated structure so they can build another rental unit. He acknowledged it would be an improved property, so that would be a benefit, but not as much as it could be for someone else. Mr. Hutton understood, but he believed it should be administered on a case by case basis as some lots may be very small and only a single family home could be constructed, whereas other tracts may be very large and an R-3 structure could fit. Mr. Janku asked whether this clause could be included, and then if someone objects, the Council could deal with it at that time and funds could be allocated accordingly.
    Mr. Dudark pointed the incentives for single family dwellings, like the Home Buyer Assistance Program which only applies for homeownership as does the New Construction with CCDC. He said there are just not any financial incentives for rental properties as there are for owner occupied. Mr. Janku indicated the clause would target the person who is going to replace the structure. He said they could probably find tenants for a rental property, so they would have an incentive.
    Mr. Janku asked if there was anything in this program that would supply funding to restore an existing structure as opposed to tearing it down. Mr. Dudark replied that there is nothing in the dilapidated building removal program for that because the purpose is to remove the structure. He said the other part is vacant lot acquisition to allow for construction of a new building. In regards to rehabilitation, Mr. Dudark reported the Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program is available to people who live in houses that need to be repaired.
    Mr. Janku reiterated his concern about the problem of vacant lots and absentee landlords not willing to do anything with the property. He noted the Council discussion pertaining to whether or not they should use condemnation or imminent domain to acquire the lots and return them to productive use. He would like to see that issue resolved so it could be used as a tool in the program.
    Although single family ownership should be encouraged, Mayor Hindman said the basic goal is to remove the disreputable buildings that cause deterioration of the neighborhood. When adding the second element to it, and complicating it, he did not think they would be so successful in getting rid of the old buildings.
    Mr. Janku said it was a goal they are striving for and he wants to see the programs work together.
    The vote on R57-02 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
 

R61-02     Authorizing a mutual aid agreement pertaining to the Water and Light Department.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Several years ago, Mr. Malon explained that FEMA enacted a regulation so that a city must show proof that they expect to be reimbursed for their costs when they send crews to another town during emergency restoration. The town receiving the aid will then be eligible for federal disaster relief funds if it is declared a disaster area. Mr. Malon indicated this came to light when City of Columbia employees were sent to both Macon and Marshall after the ice storm in February. He reported the American Public Power Association developed a standard agreement that FEMA identifies will document that participating cities will regularly bill each other for any mutual aid provided. In order to ensure that Columbia will be eligible for reimbursement in the event of some disaster, staff recommends that the form be executed and filed with APPA.
    The vote on R61-02 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
 

R62-02     Approving the preliminary plat of Manor Ridge Subdivision.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this 11.7 acre tract is located in north Columbia in the Holly Avenue/Parker Street area. It will create 43, R-1 zoned lots and was recommended unanimously by the Commission.
    In reference to pedestrian connections, Mr. Loveless asked how far this tract was from Oakland Park. Mr. John said it was across the creek. Mr. Janku added that there is a platted duplex subdivision to the north between this tract and the park. He commented it could be some time before sidewalks are constructed along Parker.
    Christina Luebbert, 2407 Rangeline, the in-house engineer for Windy Point Partners, the owner of the property, offered to answer any questions.
    The vote on R62-02 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
 

R63-02     Approving the elevation plan of the proposed office/residential building to be constructed on Lot 106B
                 of Village Square, Plat 1-B.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Dudark noted that this is the second such drawing the Council has seen in the Village Square Subdivision because of the requirement that the developer must submit elevation drawings to the Council before any building permits are issued. The rendering was displayed on the overhead.
    The vote on R63-02 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
 

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

B72-02     Authorizing an agreement with Providence Acquisitions, LLC, related to land acquisition and
                 construction of a right turn lane at the southwest corner of Providence Road and Broadway.
B73-02     Calling for bids for the reconstruction of Third Avenue from Garth Avenue to Providence Road.
B74-02     Calling for bids for construction of storm drainage improvements in the Bicknell-Walnut Streets area.
B75-02     Calling for bids for the construction of the H-21 Extension and H-21D Sewer serving the Evergreen
                 Acres Subdivision.
B76-02     Amending Ordinance No. 13130 to change the assessment rate and amount of tax bill for property
                 previously assessed for improvements to Chapel Hill Road.
B77-02     Appropriating FTA grant funds.
B78-02     Authorizing acquisition of easements necessary to construct the Hardin-Donnelly Phase II Drainage
                 Improvement Project.
B79-02     Authorizing Change Order No. 2; approving the engineer's final report; levying and assessing special
                 assessments for the Scott Boulevard Hazard Elimination Project; appropriating funds.
B80-02     Authorizing an agreement with Burns & McDonnell for design of the Scott Boulevard Improvement
                 Project.
B81-02     Authorizing an interconnection agreement with Boone County Regional Sewer District relating to
                 service to Waters Edge Estates Block IV, Edgewater Condominiums and Edgewater Condominiums II.
B82-02     Authorizing an agreement with Steve Herigon Construction, Inc. in connection with the Vanderveen
                 Crossing Subdivision.
B83-02     Authorizing a right of use permit with Thomas E. Atkins, III to allow installation of a flagpole, surface
                 mounted accent lighting, ramp and railing on City right-of-way.
B84-02     Accepting grants of easements for utility purposes.
B85-02     Approving the final plat of Thornbrook, Plat 7.
B86-02     Approving the final plat of The Sycamores, Plat 2, a Replat of Lot 2 of The Sycamores; granting a
                 variance to the sidewalk regulations.
B87-02     Vacating all street rights-of-way and easements within Greenhaven Subdivision; abrogating the final
                 plat of Greenhaven Subdivision; accepting a grant of easement for utility purposes.
B88-02     Establishing R-1 zoning on property located on the north side of St. Charles Road, approximately 300
                 feet west of Upland Creek Road.
B89-02     Establishing permanent zoning on property located on the northeast corner of Old Village Road and
                 State Route K.
B90-02     Amending Chapter 25 of the Code relating to the arrangement of streets and interconnections of streets
                 and pedestrian facilities within and between subdivisions.
B91-02     Amending Chapter 29 of the Code regarding zoning regulations.
B92-02     Amending Chapter 25 of the Code regarding street access.
B93-02     Authorizing an agreement with Sustainable Farms & Communities for lease of property at Ash Street
                 and Clinkscales Road.
B94-02     Authorizing an agreement with Columbia Farmers Market, Inc. to operate a farmers market on the
                 parking lot at 1005 West Worley Street.
B95-02     Accepting a grant from the Missouri Humanities Council for support of the Community Study Circles
                 Program; appropriating funds.
B96-02     Appropriating donated funds for the Mayor's Council on Physical Fitness and Health.
 

REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A)     Intra-departmental Transfer of Funds.
Report accepted.
 
 
(B)     Report on Cost to Place All Electric Lines Underground.
    Mayor Hindman believed the City's goal should be to improve streetscapes. He indicated many people agree that power lines detract from the aesthetic appearance of the community in different ways. In reviewing the report, Mayor Hindman recognized that he probably a misstated what the goal should be. However, when new lines are installed, he was sure in some cases it would be possible to review other alternatives. Mayor Hindman did not think the lines should be placed in the sidewalk right-of-way, but there is the possibility of placing them at the back of lots, or bundling/wrapping power lines in some areas so trees do not have to be trimmed so extensively. He suggested that the Council set a goal wherein overhead lines are eliminated on a priority and long-term basis. He indicated lines could be left in areas where they are unobtrusive, etc.
    Mr. Janku noted the power poles also impact placement of driveways and sight distance. He agreed that priorities should be developed. Mr. Janku commented his preference for enactment of an ordinance regarding the installation of power lines in new streets and subdivisions.
    Mr. Beck remarked that if a policy is enacted, the Council will also need to approve a finance plan on how much should be appropriated to implement a plan for undergrounding. He thought the Council should also receive information on how much is possible before customer rates are impacted.
    Mr. John agreed the Council will need to know what level of funding could be reached without affecting rates. Mr. Malon indicated it is close right now. Mr. John conceded that when a street is rebuilt, even though there might be no set plan to bury the lines, that would be the time to do so. He proposed that the Water and Light staff come up with suggestions that would help the Council establish priorities.
    Mr. Coffman asked if the cost to bury power lines would always be funded from the Water and Light utility. Mr. Beck responded that the utility would accept a gift from a project standpoint.
    Mr. Beck mentioned that when lines are undergrounded, the individual homes would need different entrance systems. Mr. Hutton asked who was paying for that currently. Mr. Malon indicated that he plans to prepare a report for the next meeting that relates to the City's current policies. He said underground service is much more expensive and is considered a premium service. In general, those wishing the premium service pay the extra cost for such. However, most new subdivisions install 200 amp loops and the costs are about the same. When this standard is exceeded, Mr. Malon reported the costs escalate very fast and can be as high as ten to one. In those instances, he explained that staff meets with the developer/builder and if they agree to dig the trench and lay the conduit, the City will furnish the cable and the transformers. In regards to Smiley Lane, Mr. Malon said the developer was not interested in participating in any of those costs and the line therefore was not buried. He indicated this information will be contained in his next report.
    Mr. Janku thought the Council needed to figure out how to address the extension policy so that power lines are undergrounded as a part of new construction.
    Mr. Coffman referred to new legislation and asked if the City could prohibit poles in the right-of-way. Mr. Boeckmann thought the City could not prevent utility companies and cable companies from using poles. However, he believed it would be more of an issue if we demanded the removal of existing poles. He did not think they are as resistant to undergrounding new facilities. Mr. Malon reported that in new subdivisions, there is a lot of joint trenching between the phone and cable companies. He agreed that they have not been resistant to it.
 

(C)     Possible Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to Research and Process Laboratories.
    Mr. Dudark explained that the Commission is asking direction from the Council as to whether or not they want them to look into the issue.
    Mr. Coffman made the motion that the Commission be asked to draft a set of proposed changes for Council consideration. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 

(D)     Broadway Corridor Master Plan.
    Mr. Loveless made the motion that the staff be directed to add this to their work program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 

(E)     NRT Proposed Area Expansion.
    Mr. Beck believed good progress was being made in regards to the Neighborhood Response Team. A request has been made to move the eastern boundary to Rangeline, which would include an additional 377 properties, to correspond with the Police Department's Police Beat 50.
    Regarding Area G, the north section between Alton and Wilkes, Mr. Hutton noted that it was not accurate in that the properties located at 802 and 804 Eighth, and 906 Wilkes are not owned by Columbia College. In addition, Alton Street does not go on through. Mr. Hutton asked if properties on the west side of Rangeline would be included in the NRT area. He was told they would be.
    Mr. Loveless made the motion that the Council endorse the expansion and direct staff to proceed. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
    None.
 

COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
    Mr. Janku stated the Council received a report on specific projects in Columbia being recommended for federal funding to our representatives in Washington. He asked that the Business Loop beautification be added to this list. As the Council considers the undergrounding issue, it would be an opportune time to link the two.
    Regarding sidewalks on the south side of Chapel Hill between Fairview and Grant, Mr. Loveless noted discussions about completing this stretch. He asked about the status. Mr. Patterson responded that notifications have been sent out. Those walks that are not part of the development's responsibility will be included as part of the City's next tax bill process. Mr. Loveless asked about traffic calming in the same area. Mr. Patterson reported that he received a preliminary report from the traffic engineer and he sent it back for cost estimates in case the Council wanted to implement it.
    Mr. John requested a map and list of streets that are classified as unimproved. He wanted to review the current policy on unimproved streets and the maintenance of such. He suggested that it might fit into the work session planned for street design.
    Mr. John made a motion that the Cultural Affairs Standing Committee on Public Art be asked to look at some sort of method of collecting funds from small projects for purchasing small bits of art. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. John spoke about speed limits in residential neighborhoods. He did not think the "one size fits all" approach works very well. He asked that a lower tier of speed limits be considered. Mayor Hindman agreed -- he thought speed limits should be set at 20 mph, unless proven there is a good reason for it to be higher.
    Mr. John made the motion that staff be directed to report back on lowering speed limits on residential streets including some of the issues and thoughts it raises. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mayor Hindman explained that a bill was before the State Senate that would make it possible for cities to have red light cameras at intersections. He explained that thirty days notice would have to be given that the cameras would be operating at intersections and the intersections would have to be posted. Pictures are only taken when a violation occurs. Mayor Hindman indicated that a ticket must be sent within 21 days of the event, and the individual can be fined up to $250. However, no points are charged against the drivers license. He noted other cities use these cameras and he would like to see it made part of our legislative authority. If the bill passes, the Council can decide whether or not cameras should be installed in Columbia.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the City's support of the bill be made part of Columbia's legislative priorities. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    William Woodward, 200A Unity, spoke about the lack of public transportation in Columbia.
    Ron Loflin, 25 Broadway Village, discussed two issues: the first was a perceived problem pertaining to water and sewer billing charges, his second concern involved a fairness issue relating to traffic citations when two police cars collided.
    Bill Easley, 705 Cook, talked about lighting, sidewalks and undergrounding.
    The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,
 
                                                                                                Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                                City Clerk