JUNE 2, 2003

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, June 2, 2003, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS and JOHN were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of May 19, 2003, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. John.

    Mayor Hindman noted that Report F was being added under Reports and Petitions.
    Per his request, Mr. Loveless made the motion that Mr. John be allowed to abstain from voting on B154-03. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. Hutton.

FY 2002 Annual Financial Report.
    Ms. Fleming reported that the City remains in sound financial condition. She noted there were no question costs or findings in the single audit. The findings will be posted on the City's web site and will also be available in the Library.
    Bill Stockglausner, Chair of the Finance Advisory Committee, recommended that the Council accept the financial statements and the audit opinion as submitted. The Committee also recommended the auditors, KPMG, be retained for the current fiscal year.
    Mayor Hindman thanked Mr. Stockglausner and the Committee for their hard work.

(A)     Lynda Baumgartner - Thank You to Health Director Stephanie Browning and Gerry Worley for Work with Local Restaurants.
    Ms. Baumgartner explained that Ms. Browning and Mr. Worley spent time with Chamber members discussing the new restrictions as they pertain to outdoor dining, barbeques and other kinds of festivities within the restaurant business. She noted that the changes have been implemented and she thanked them for taking the time to do such a nice job in reviewing the rules and making them more appropriate.

(B)     Kenneth Terry - Abandoned House on Duncan Street.
    Mr. Terry was not present, but spoke when R121-03 was discussed.

(C)     Sara Effner - Falun Dafa - UMC Exchange Program.
    Ms. Effner passed materials around regarding Falun Gong and its practitioners.
    Nora Tseng, a University student, explained that she started practicing Falun Gong two plus years ago because it helped her mother overcome serious health problems.
    Ms. Effner asked for Council support and help in their endeavor to rescue their friend, Liu Lifeng, from a Chinese labor camp. They were certain he is being persecuted and possibly even tortured because he practices the peaceful meditation called Falun Gong. She explained this is an exercise practice which includes a moral philosophy and is based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and forbearance. Included in the material she passed out was an article accounting the story of their friend and also a recent resolution issued by the MSA Senate condemning the human rights abuses of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Ms. Effner asked that the Council send a letter to the Mayor of Shijiazhuang, China requesting Liu's immediate release. She also asked that copies of such a letter be sent to the Chinese Ambassador to the U.S., the head of the labor camp where Liu is being detained, and to Congressman Hulshof, Senator Bond, Senator Talent and President Bush.
    Mayor Hindman remarked the Council would take note of the request.

B58-03     Rezoning property located on the southwest corner of Locust Street and Waugh Street from R-3 to C-P.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the Council tabled this issue to allow time for a work session which has yet to be scheduled. The condition on which this rezoning request was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the Council was that a landscape plan for the parking lot be submitted to the City. Mr. Beck indicated that a plan has not been submitted to date. He reported the Council could pass this ordinance subject to Public Works staff approving a landscape plan.
    Mr. John believed the Council had tabled this issue because they wanted to look at a general, overall policy of the use of downtown parking lots. Because the Council has not had time to review such, he suggested tabling this request until they have had a chance to review the general policy and not single out this one property.
    Mr. Janku stated that the applicant has been operating the lot while this has been on the table and their ability to use it has not been impacted.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Margie Meyer, 1030 Queen Ann Drive, a member of Sacred Heart Parish, explained that she made the presentation at the Planning and Zoning meeting in February at which time the Commission voted unanimously to approve the request. She reported that a landscape plan was not prepared because they were waiting to see what the Council was going to do about the issue. Ms. Meyer pointed out that they told the Commission they would bring forward a landscaping plan that has been approved by the City's Arborist. She said they would not be opposed to tabling the issue further.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Patterson explained that staff has extended the time for compliance on the lot so as not to impose a hardship on the Church until the Council has an opportunity to look into the issue.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that B58-03 be tabled to the August 18, 2003, meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B138-03     Rezoning property located on the south side of Aspen Drive, approximately 275 feet west of West Boulevard; approving the C-P Development Plan of University Chrysler, Phase 2.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck understood the plan was ready to go and that the associated easements have been acquired.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Tim Crockett, offices at 2608 N. Stadium, spoke on behalf of Tom Nick and University Chrysler. He explained the addition is for the existing parking lot and would add 67 spaces for new and used vehicle sales. Access would be through the existing parking lot.
    Tom Nick, 1306 Park de Ville, explained University Chrysler entered into a contract to lease the property in question. He said the lot would be used to store new cars needing to be prepped for sale. The lot will also be used for employee parking. Currently, employees are parking on Aspen Drive, which is a narrow residential street.
    Craig Van Matre, an attorney with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, explained that the applicant has met with some of the neighbors on several occasions to discuss their problems with this application. He noted the problems had nothing to do with the merits of this application, but because of some misunderstandings concerning Phase 1 of the previous C-P plan. Mr. Van Matre spoke with Mr. Gaffney, of the neighborhood association, and residents are willing to withdraw their objections to this Phase 2 application upon the condition that an amendment to Phase 1 of the C-P plan is submitted to the City within the next 30 days. In order to assure the neighbors, University Chrysler will amend the earlier plan and take it back through Planning and Zoning, and ultimately to the Council for final resolution. In the meantime, Mr. Van Matre felt the plan being proposed tonight satisfies the neighbors.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mayor Hindman asked if the Council could approve this plan conditional upon an amendment being made to a previous plan. Mr. Boeckmann thought not as there is no enforcement mechanism. He believed the applicant acknowledged they did not follow their plan the last time, but they will make corrections to such within the next 30 days.
    Mr. Ash asked about the surety bond. Mr. Boeckmann explained University Chrysler has estimated it will cost $9,700 to install landscaping, and they have given the City a check in that amount. If this work is not done by October, the money will be forfeited.
    Mr. Van Matre explained that the difficulties with Phase 1 were not the fault of his client, but based on misunderstandings between them and the contractors as to who was doing what. The occupancy permit University Chrysler has for the body shop is a temporary permit, which the City can withdraw at the end of 30 days. Mr. Van Matre believed that was all the enforcement authority needed.
    Mr. Ash noted the applicant had no certificate of occupancy the first time they occupied the building. He asked what the Council thought about tabling the issue until the amendment is approved.
    Mr. Hutton questioned whether the list of problems had been rectified prior to issuance of the temporary occupancy permit.
    Regarding the surety bond, Mr. Patterson thought there was a misunderstanding on behalf of the applicant -- that it had anything to do with the certificate of occupancy, which it does not. He explained that Planning and Zoning imposed that requirement to assure the landscaping. He said Protective Inspection has been pursuing the deficiencies in Phase 1 to try to achieve compliance. Mr. Patterson noted that several items have simply not been addressed. Subject to the concurrence of the neighborhood association and the conditions that have been discussed tonight, he reported that staff issued a conditional 30-day occupancy permit. If not resolved in 30-days, the conditional occupancy permit will be revoked and legal action will be taken to assure compliance.
    Mr. Hutton asked what the amendment to Phase 1 will be. Mr. Patterson stated that he did not know. Mr. Van Matre understood that some aspects of what was represented on the Phase 1 plan have to be changed in order to meet the conditions of the lot. In addition, the applicant is responding to neighborhood concerns relating to the location of the dumpster, screening, drainage and fencing. He indicated all those issues will be addressed in the amendment. Mr. Van Matre also believed there were some trailer trucks the applicant is using as staging areas for the repair of cars. He stated that University Chrysler wants to use those physical structures as part of the plan, assuming they can satisfy City staff that the trailers themselves are the functional equivalent of a metal building. He said the trailers need to be addressed and the screening thereof, in order to keep everybody happy. Mr. Van Matre felt these issues are a fairly substantial amendment to the plan, but one which will not be presented unless the neighbors find them to be generally acceptable.
    Mr. Hutton asked about the basis for the temporary permit becoming permanent, or extending the temporary permit. Mr. Patterson replied that if the applicant complies with the requirements to obtain the permanent certificate of occupancy, he would not assure the Council the concerns of the neighbors have been addressed because some of these are outside the purview of the C-P plan. The necessary items that have to be addressed as part of the original Phase 1 plan relate to landscaping, the removal of the temporary structures (storage trailers), an additional driveway on Aspen Drive, and the location of the trash dumpster. If those things are taken care of, Mr. Patterson related that staff would be obligated to issue a permanent certificate of occupancy, regardless of whether or not the applicant has addressed lighting, noise and other issues that are a concern of the neighborhood.
    Mr. John suggested tabling the issue to the first meeting in July in order to get the neighborhood's approval after submission. He noted that if there are temporary structures shown on the amended Phase 1 C-P plan, he would vote against it. His expectations are that the applicant must be in compliance with the original plan or those issues have been addressed in the amended plan being presented for approval.
    Mr. John made the motion that B138-03 be tabled to the July 7, 2003, meeting. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B154-03     Rezoning property located along the northwest side of Hanover Boulevard, west of Twin Oak Drive from A-1, R-1 and R-2 to PUD-5.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Dudark explained that this approximate 57 acre tract is located off of Hanover Boulevard, north of Clark Lane. The development density would be five dwelling units per acre which would provide approximately 240 dwelling units on the property consisting of eight-plexes and six-plexes, some being two-story in height. Access would be off of Hanover Boulevard. Mr. Dudark reported that much of the tract to the north and west, toward Hinkson Creek, would be left in open space and construction would be clustered in the middle of the lot. He noted the plan of intent submitted to the Council.
    When this request was reviewed by the Commission, Mr. Dudark indicated that many residents commented about traffic problems, particularly at Clark Lane and access to Clark Lane at Hanover Drive. There was also concern about the type of dwelling units. He stated a speed study had been conducted and it was determined the average speed on Hanover to be 35 to 40 mph. Based on traffic concerns and the compatibility of the dwellings proposed in the area, the Commission voted five to two to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Ron Shy, 5600 S. Highway KK, explained the plan had originally been submitted as a PUD-7. After the staff report was received, prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, this was reduced to a PUD-5. Absent of any organized homeowners association in the area, he reported the applicants were not able to meet with any of the residents prior to the Commission meeting. After the Planning and Zoning vote, Mr. Shy stated that the owners met with a neighborhood group and some specific issues were discussed. After several meetings, the owners have offered to reduce the density to PUD-4 for the entire tract, limit construction within 100 feet of Hanover Drive, and also limit the density to PUD-3 until such time as the Vandiver Drive extension is connected to Mexico Gravel Road and the improvements slated for the connector are completed. Mr. Shy remarked the applicants realize this would not solve all the problems with regard to traffic in the area, but thought it was a fairly generous concession. Mr. Shy reviewed the applicable changes to the statement of intent as being: the development density would be 4 units per acre or 227 units with the buildings being 27 eight-plexes and 1 ten-plex; the total number of parking spaces proposed is 520 spaces or 2.3 parking spaces per unit; and the street setback from Hanover Drive would be 100 feet.
    Mr. Hutton questioned whether there will be any public streets within the PUD. Mr. Shy replied there will be none. Mr. Hutton thought the site was rather large for having no public streets. Mr. Shy explained the applicants are proposing a looped street situation which would connect Twin Oak Drive to the east, and then would connect to Hanover to the south. Mr. Hutton asked if there is potential for a connection in the area to Mexico Gravel and Vandiver. Mr. Shy did not see a good potential for a connection from this tract of land to the Vandiver extension to Mexico Gravel. He related there are other properties involved that would have to approve this kind of arrangement.
    It was noted that Creekwood goes through to Home Depot, and it was drawn to extend into the CenterState property. Mr. Hutton wondered if this road would be on the east side of the creek, or whether a bridge was envisioned. Mr. Shy replied it would cross and go to the west side to connect with Vandiver (it would traverse from Clark Lane, cross the Hinkson, along the east side of the CenterState property just west of Hinkson Creek, and connect at the interchange). Mr. Hutton observed it would be an outer road of 63.
    Mr. Hutton wondered about the benefit of the 100 foot buffer from Hanover. Mr. Shy explained that some of the residents living close to Hanover Boulevard felt the eight-plex structure so close to the road would be intrusive to them. On the concept design, he said there are two or three buildings along Hanover, one being the model structure the owner plans to build. Mr. Shy reported the elevation of the finished floors will lower as the development moves to the north, so these buildings will probably be less intrusive. He also referred to some screening planned along Hanover. Mr. Hutton asked where the bulk of the development would be located. Mr. Shy said from the intersection of Hidden Creek Court, almost straight back to the subject tract sign, and also in the small area to the southwest that extends over the section corner. Mr. Hutton inquired about the proximity of the development to the existing houses on Hanover. Mr. Shy replied there are no houses adjacent to the tract in this location -- these R-1 lots are platted, but not developed yet. Because of the trees and woods in the area, Mr. Shy did not believe anyone would be able to see much of the development from the existing duplexes.
    Mr. Loveless asked if they intended to maintain a 25-foot setback for the remaining perimeter of the tract. Mr. Shy said it would be much more than that in most of the areas, but it would be the minimum to meet zoning requirements.
    Mr. Janku questioned whether there had been any discussion regarding the walking trail tying into the Hinkson greenbelt. Mr. Shy pointed out that his client's property is on the east side of Hinkson Creek. From earlier discussions with the Parks and Recreation staff, and in relation to the CenterState project, he would guess there would be a trail on the flatter side of the Creek, which would be the west side. The owners of the flood plain area have no problem in creating a greenbelt at this location.
    Linda Phillips, project architect with offices at 1007 N. College, explained that she has been working with the applicants for some time in designing units for this development. One of the reasons they looked at the over-and-under condo units is with the intention of developing them as owner-occupied or purchased units as opposed to rental units. The units would be marketed to young professionals, single parents, and empty nesters. She said if they were to construct townhouse style condos, they would be somewhat limited on accessible units because of the second floors. With the over-and-under units, 50% of them can be accessible or adaptable.
    Ms. Phillips noted that this is a very rugged tract of land and the essence of a PUD is to create clustered units. Each condo would have three bedrooms and would be customized to the purchaser's needs. They would be looking at three to four custom designed facades with the idea of having them resemble single family or two family dwellings. Ms. Phillips reported with the proper design of the two buildings directly adjacent to existing residences, she was hoping they could minimize the overall height to 25 to 26 feet.
    Mr. Janku asked what controls would be put in place to control owner-occupancy. Ms. Phillips said it is being set up legally with no lot lines -- these would be surveyed units that could be purchased like any other condo. Mayor Hindman pointed out that a condo could be purchased by someone who might use it for rental property. Ms. Phillips said that was absolutely possible, just like any single family residence or duplex can be purchased and rented.
    Dave Drane, 3951 Overland Valley, one of the owners of DDM Investments, felt after talking to the neighbors that they have come to a livable compromise. He said there is enough density for them to make it work and said it was the right location for a PUD because it is a fragile area.
    Craig O'Keefe, 1709 S. Charleston Circle, adjacent to the subject tract, noted that Mr. Drane has been gracious in meeting with the neighbors. He was speaking on behalf of the Glendale Gardens neighborhood and said they have the paperwork in hand to charter their group. The group agreed that a PUD is the best thing for this particular piece of property, but asked that considerable amount of thought be put into any type of approval. Mr. O'Keefe related that residents' biggest concern relate to traffic and he disagreed with the speed average given. He has personally witnessed cars traveling much faster than 40 mph in this location. Mr. O'Keefe pointed out that this area has no sidewalks, trails, or a park. He pointed out that a park had been promised by the original developer. In summary, Mr. O'Keefe indicated that he is opposed to anything being built, but would rather have a PUD than an R-1 or R-2. He agreed with Mr. Drane's proposal and said he has every right to develop his land.
    Mayor Hindman asked whether the adjacent neighborhoods have been given public access to the trails. Mr. O'Keefe responded that this had not occurred.
    Carroll Blackwell, 1710 Olympic Boulevard, explained that he has lived in this area for ten years and the growth has been phenomenal. He pointed out there has not been any improvement in the infrastructure to support all of the growth and he was concerned about the associated traffic problems. Mr. Blackwell was also concerned about the environment and the storm water run-off from this development. He likewise mentioned the lack of a park in this area.
    Mayor Hindman inquired about public access to the green areas. Mr. Shy explained that the trails proposed as part of this development will be located on the east side of the Hinkson. In order to get to the trail that Mayor Hindman is referring to, it would require crossing over Hinkson Creek somewhere. Mayor Hindman asked about the neighborhood's access to the trails within the development. Mr. Drane had no objections to that. Mr. Shy clarified they would have to be careful as to how they do that, but they could identify easements that would allow public access.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Hutton asked Mr. Dudark if he was familiar with the self-imposed restriction of developing the property to a PUD-3 density until such time certain things are done, and how this would be enforceable. Mr. Dudark thought the Council could amend the bill to say no final development plan shall be approved containing more than 170 dwelling units, which is roughly a PUD-3, until such time as Mexico Gravel Road is connected to Vandiver Drive and Phase 1 of the I-70/63 improvements (the $10 million project) are completed. Regarding the Mexico Gravel to Vandiver connection, Mr. Hutton understood how that would be important by taking traffic coming from the east off of Clark Lane/Route PP and he wondered how big a factor that would be in reducing traffic. Mr. Dudark responded that was a good question because traffic would essentially have to be north of the Ballenger curve to use it, otherwise vehicles would be going north to come south. He thought the answer might a combination of that and the improvements at the connector.
    Mr. Hutton inquired what determines the one access point for 100 units. Mr. Dudark responded that would be identified in the platting process, and right now this is a zoning issue. Mr. Hutton asked the definition of one-way as the current access to the development is via Hanover Boulevard/Rice Road, which is one road. Mr. Dudark clarified that Hanover is considered a through street, it goes in two directions. Without any interior public streets, that is the only connection the development would have, but it would be a through street. Mr. Hutton questioned if within the development, residents would have to be provided with two ways to Hanover. Mr. Dudark said they would not, unless they have a public street coming off of Hanover. Mr. Hutton asked if amending the ordinance to limit the units to 170 would work. Mr. Boeckmann thought this to be true, he also pointed out the applicants would have to submit a new statement of intent in accordance with the information that was presented to the Council.
    Because this is zoning and not approval of an actual plan, Mr. Ash was a bit more comfortable that some of these things would probably get worked out by the time the plan comes before the Council.
    Mr. Hutton commented that there is no question that PUD is the correct zoning for the site, and his only concern related to density. He reiterated that there have been no traffic improvements in this area, and he thought it would be a minimum of five years before any work could begin, not including the intersection work. He was hopeful the intersection improvements would provide some relief. Mr. Hutton spoke about the amount of duplex development in this area and he did not want to see anymore.
    Mr. Loveless believed the applicant has asked to develop this property at the least amount of density the Council could expect.
    Mr. Janku agreed with Mr. Hutton, and in particular with his comment about duplex development. He suggested tying the timing of the higher density to when improvements are made to Clark Lane as opposed to Mexico Gravel. Mr. Hutton noted that had been his concern because he did not think there would be a big impact on traffic flow from Hanover/Olympic to the west.
    Mayor Hindman understood that it would be undesirable to add more traffic to this area, but on the other hand he realized the applicants have a right to develop their property. He thought it would be best suited as a PUD and he appreciated the concessions that have been made.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that B154-03 be amended by changing PUD-5 to PUD-4 throughout the ordinance, and by adding the language suggested by Mr. Dudark. Further, that a new statement of intent reflecting the changes be submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    B154-03, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: JOHN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B160-03     Calling for bids for the installation of methane gas wells at the Columbia Sanitary Landfill.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the proposed work is required by DNR as part of the City's operating permit. The estimated cost for the work is $150,000 to be paid from the solid waste utility fund. This would bring the total number of methane wells at the landfill up to 32. Mr. Beck said that Mr. Patterson and his staff are monitoring the feasibility of utilizing the gas for other purposes with industry in the area.
    Mr. Ash asked if in the future, whether these wells could be used to harvest energy. Mr. Beck responded that is a possibility. Mr. Ash wondered if there are safety reasons for trapping the gas. Mr. Patterson explained the wells are required to capture the methane gas to keep it from migrating horizontally off the site and possibly contaminating ground water sources, or coming up in other areas beyond the control of the landfill.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comment, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B160-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B167-03     Authorizing construction of water main along Forum Boulevard from Dunbar Drive to Old Plank Road.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained this project involves the construction of about 1,900 feet of eight-inch water main in south central Columbia. Part of this work will be in conjunction with the proposed extension of Forum Boulevard. Mr. Beck added that the new line will provide better fire protection and domestic service in the area. Funding for the project will come from Water and Light funds at an estimated cost of $190,000.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Loveless asked if the $190,000 includes fire hydrants and those kinds of things. Mr. Malon responded that hydrants will be included where needed.
    B167-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A)     Storm drainage improvements to the Rollins Road and Rothwell Drive area.
    Item A was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained that this is one of the capital improvement projects in the CIP. He noted the project was originally identified as a flooding problem at a residence on Rollins Road. Some work had been done to help alleviate the problem, but this will completely eliminate all house flooding. The project will consist of upgrading and extending the existing storm drainage system with properly sized pipes and inlets. As part of reconstructing the Rollins/Rothwell intersection, a speed table will be installed as an element of the traffic calming project planned for Rollins Road. Mr. Patterson reported the estimated cost of the work is $178,000 and funding has been appropriated in the CIP.
    Mr. Loveless was appreciative of the traffic table at the intersection of Rollins and Rothwell. He asked if there would be an opportunity to put something to the west of the traffic table. As part of the project, Mr. Patterson said there would be calming islands to the west of the intersection.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Jim Brown, 4014 S. Wappell, asked if the pipe would run into his street. Mr. Patterson responded it would not.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public
    Mr. Ash wondered if any of the problems were due to a design problem with the house that flooded. Mr. Patterson said the problem is associated with the elevation of the house with respect to the drainage, but that occurred long before the City had its current regulations.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be directed to proceed with final plans and specifications for the Rollins and Rothwell drainage project. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(B)     Improvements to East Broadway from Old 63 to US Highway 63.
    Item B was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained the purpose of this public hearing is to consider the proposed street and sidewalk improvements on East Broadway, better known as Route WW. Sidewalks and other multi-modal improvements on this project will be funded from the Surface Transportation Program. All applicable federal guidelines will be followed during design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the project. The plans will be subject to review by the Federal Highway Administration and all acquisition will be in accordance with federal regulations. Mr. Patterson related that the proposed project is expected to have no significant impact on the environment and it has been granted a categorical exclusion from the need for an environmental impact statement. The transcript of this hearing will be prepared and submitted to the Department of Transportation. Any person desiring to make comment will be allowed to do so for the next ten days. Mr. Patterson indicated the consultant from Burns & McDonnell will be making the presentation.
    Ron Schikevitz, project engineer, gave a brief visual presentation of the project. The total project cost is estimated at $5 million, with $4.3 million coming from the Missouri Department of Transportation. There is an additional $339,000 in Surface Transportation money for the pedway enhancement program, and the City will provide the remaining $400,000 from local capital improvement funds.
    Mr. Schikevitz reported the project extends several hundred feet east of East Broadway, tying into the existing widened section just west of the U.S. 63 interchange. Generally speaking, he said there will be four lanes, two in each direction, with a ten foot pedway shown on the north side and a five foot sidewalk on the south side with a green strip in between. He noted that the project is built entirely inside the existing right-of-way, with the exception of some dedication needed for the relocation of Trimble Road. A new bridge will be constructed over Hinkson Creek and the existing structure will be torn down. The ten foot pedway and five foot sidewalk incorporated into the roadway design will be carried through on the bridge as well.
    Because the roadway is going to be divided with a median, Mr. Schikevitz said the project will require some provisions for special access. He pointed out the predominant access points. The existing Brickton Road intersection signal will be removed and left turns will be allowed in with only right turns out. The intersection will stay inside the access jurisdiction of the Missouri Department of Transportation. Mr. Schikevitz said the main impetus of this project with regard to access to the commercial tract on the north, both for the existing and proposed development and from the apartment complex and other residences on the south, will be at a relocated Trimble Road intersection which will be fully signalized with pedestrian signals. The Green Valley Drive intersection in the vicinity of the apartment complex to the west will be opened up with a right in/right out. Because of considerations with regard to opposing left turn traffic, the access currently shown to the relocated Stephens Park intersection will be a left turn in, right turn out. Mr. Schikevitz commented this is still subject to discussion and some ongoing engineering. The only full access to the Eastgate Shopping Center was shown at a median opening several hundred feet to the east of the East Broadway intersection. The other access point from the shopping center would remain as a right in/right out. Due to this access point's proximity to the Stephens Park intersection, he said they could not provide a left turn in this location.
    Although it was not shown on the plan, Mr. Schikevitz reported the bridge will be designed to accommodate some connectivity underneath it to the proposed Hinkson Creek greenbelt. In regard to the Old 63 intersection, he said while the project limit ends east of the intersection, they recognized there are some issues associated with landscaping and minor improvements that are needed. Although these are not part of the project, he noted their importance and said they would coordinate with whatever the City wants done in that location and whatever MoDOT is willing to participate in as well. Mr. Patterson explained issues that need further Council consideration. In regard to off-site drainage, he showed the location of an existing 48-inch corrugated metal pipe which is in very poor condition. He noted there have been several instances where structures in the Eastgate area have been flooded. Mr. Patterson displayed where the new proposed drainage area would be located. Having had discussions with residents of the area, it was agreed this would be the appropriate time to look at solving the problem. Because the flooding situation is not being caused by the roadway project, staff recommends during the development of the design that they look at the alternatives for solving the drainage problem and determine which options should be explored further as final plans and specifications are developed. In-house, Mr. Patterson indicated that staff is doing design work on the intersection evaluation for a roundabout at the Old 63 and Broadway intersection and trying to explore other options to address some of the unresolved issues there.
    After public comment this evening and Council discussion, Mr. Patterson stated the Council will need to make a motion directing staff to proceed with plans and specifications. He was hopeful the motion could provide direction as to the Council's preference for pedways or anything of particular concern that need to be investigated during the process of final plans. Mr. Patterson said interim reports could be sent to the Council before final plans are prepared.
    Regarding access to East Broadway, Mr. Beck commented that he had asked the Parks & Recreation staff to consider internal circulation. He said if access was right in/right out, there would be no good way to turn around for anyone wanting to go east, unless there is a roundabout at the 63 and Broadway interchange. Mr. Beck noted staff is considering a roundabout plus another option of internal circulation.
    Mr. Hutton asked if the cost of the roundabout was included in the $5 million. Mr. Beck said it was not. Mr. Patterson pointed out that they are looking at other alternatives to a roundabout such as U-turn lane abilities. It was ascertained that construction on this project is set to begin in late spring of 2004 and not be completed until the end of the 2005 construction season.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Jack Blaylock, 2100 E. Broadway, explained that his office is located at the east end of the Eastgate Center. He expressed concern about stormwater in this area and he referred to the 48-inch galvanized pipe which crosses under the parking lot at the IGA store and extends further to the east. He noted that the pipe carries all the stormwater from Boone Hospital Center, Stephens College stables, and Cliff Drive. With all of the impervious area that has been added, Mr. Blaylock reported the pipe is terribly undersized. He related that the Eastgate lot flooded when the pipe collapsed. Mr. Blaylock felt this was an appropriate time to incorporate adequate drainage as part of this project.
    Bob Smith, 709 Russell, an owner of the Eastgate Shopping Center, also voiced concern about the inadequate drainage pipe. He said this problem is only going to get more serious and thought this was the right time to address the situation. Mr. Smith passed around a letter regarding his concerns about stormwater. In reference to the construction, Mr. Smith noted the shopping center would be left with only one entrance while the new shopping area would have two entrances on each side and a small entrance in the middle. Besides having only one entrance to Eastgate, he indicated there is a lot of cut through traffic as well. Mr. Smith thought the proposed entrance for Eastgate would cause back-ups in traffic and he believed the logical thing to do is to eliminate the buffer at one point and consider the possibility of moving the park entrance. He pointed out that Eastgate property owners have received nothing for the closing of their entrance because it is in the right-of-way, thus causing great financial damage to them and problems for the City.
    Steve Kuhlman, 205 S. Garth, Chair of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission, commended the staff on addressing bike and ped issues in the project design. The Commission felt the sidewalk should be six-feet in width, enhancing usability for wheelchair users and their companions, and the pedway nine-feet in width. He reported that the Commission suggested that the pedway be located on the south side of Broadway rather than the north. On the north side, Mr. Kuhlman stated the pedway would effectively dead end at Brickton Road, having no connection to the east or north. A pedway on the south would automatically connect on the east end to the Hinkson Creek Trail, the old iron bridge and Moon Valley Road. On the east it would connect with the future Hominy Branch Trail.
    Bill Weitkemper, 1808 Sunrise Drive, asked the Council to support the off-site drainage improvements. He stated that he owns property to the west of the intersection of Broadway and Old 63, and he verified that stormwater comes very close to backing up into his house during heavy rainfalls.
    Dennis Knudson, 2100 Southwood Drive, explained that he has lived in the Cliff Drive area for almost 30 years. He also believed the pedway should be on the south side of Broadway because of better connections to the Hinkson Creek trail. In addition, there is more of a possibility to extend the pedway to the east if it is constructed on the south side of Broadway.
    Ron Shy, 5600 S. Highway KK, commended the project saying it has been needed for a long time. He explained that he had been asked by Mr. Blaylock and Mr. Smith to look at the drainage in this area. He said the four-foot diameter pipe being referred to receives discharge from an eight by four-foot box culvert that runs under Old 63. He verified the pipe is greatly undersized.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku asked if the Council needed to do anything to ensure the storm drainage problem is included as part of this project. Mr. Patterson replied this would be the appropriate time for staff to review the situation and advise the Council what it would take to either incorporate it into the road project or take it as a separate project off-site. At this point, he could not say which would be the preferred alternative -- replacing the existing culvert or try to catch it with the one that will be built as part of the project. Mr. Patterson believed this is something staff should report back on during the development of this project and ask for more direction. He pointed out the Eastgate storm drainage problem is not part of the estimated project cost nor is it a part of the agreement with MoDOT. He said they would look for a public/private partnership on it.
    Mr. Ash agreed the timing seemed right, but thought if a new system is going to benefit the property owners, these individuals should contribute to the solution of the problem.
    Mr. Loveless asked what the recommendation had been from the Broadway Pedestrian Bicyclists Corridor Committee regarding the pedway and walks. Mr. Dudark said the Committee suggested a seven-foot sidewalk on the north side and a seven-foot walk on the south side because of the existence of Green Valley Drive. He noted the sidewalk would provide access to the old bridge and also extend to the Hominy Branch Trail. He said it would provide an alternate facility other than along the roadway.
    Mr. Ash asked if the pedway had been shown on the north side because of the ease of construction. Mr. Patterson responded that as long as the pedway is kept within the cross section shown, it can be built on whichever side the Council prefers. The original thinking was that since the bridge on the north side would be built first if it is a wider section, it would be a safer section for putting two lanes of traffic on when they tore down the south side. However, Mr. Patterson related this is not an insurmountable engineering problem. Another thought was that Green Valley Road would likely become, in de-facto, a pedway that people would use rather than going up along East Broadway.
    Regarding the issue of putting the access to the shopping center and the park at the same spot, Mr. Janku asked if this would cause traffic problems. Mr. Schikevitz explained they had done a traffic intersection analysis for relocating the intersection to a full median opening, and still accounted for it being a full four legged intersection. They found that the problem was not so much allowing the left turn movements in, there were adequate gaps in the oncoming traffic to allow those movements to occur, but the problem was the left turn movements coming out, from both the park or from the intersections. He said there were not suitable gaps along both directions to allow a left turn movement in one phase. Because of the width of the median, Mr. Schikevitz reported there is adequate space to shadow a car to allow a left turn exiting movement. The problem is that as long as there are left turns off the main line, conflicting at the same time with the left turn from the side street, that presents congestion. Mr. Janku wondered whether left turns in could be allowed from both points. Mr. Schikevitz said this would be possible. He said the normal median width is typically between 16 and 20 feet so as to shadow a left turn lane and provide an adequate median to separate oncoming traffic. In this case, Mr. Schikevitz stated they have designed about a 26-foot wide median in order to accommodate the little bit of extra width needed to create this special design island. He explained the island has to allow a little bit of overlap to prohibit that movement from coming out. In other words, the width of the roadway is designed to accommodate that and it can be done from both directions.
    Mr. Ash asked if they had considered putting in a stop light at this location to provide easier access to the park and Eastgate. Mr. Schikevitz responded that they try to space signalized intersections one-quarter to one-half mile apart, and this point is only 400 feet from the main intersection at East Broadway. He pointed out the influence of a signal at this location could back up well into another signal and vice versa.
    Mr. Janku inquired if there was a right turn into the shopping center at the easternmost point where there is an entrance now. Mr. Schikevitz replied that both entrances remain open for right in/right out movements.
    Mr. Ash wondered why the park entrance was moved. Mr. Schikevitz indicated that City staff provided them with that location. Mr. Patterson noted that it was part of the Park Plan. He thought it was to line the entrance up with the Green Valley bridge so both came in at the same place. He noted the park entrance would allow left and right turns in, right turns out, but no left turns out.
    Mr. Ash asked about access the residents from Broadway Village and the other apartments would have during construction. Mr. Patterson replied that the contract will require access at all times.
    Mr. Hutton questioned how much specificity the Council should provide when directing staff to proceed with the project. Mr. Patterson said the primary thing that would be of assistance, if Council is prepared to give the direction, is in regard to location and widths of pedways and sidewalks. He indicated that staff plans to come back with a drainage study.
    Mr. Loveless said he would like to see the staff pursue the pedway on the south side of Broadway. He related that he and Mr. Hutton were trying to remember why staff decided to move the park entrance east of where it is currently. They thought they were told that was the way it would work best with the redesign of Broadway. Mr. Loveless asked that staff look at moving the entrance west to accommodate all interests. Mr. Hutton noted that going north the hill is very steep. Mayor Hindman suggested they ask staff to review the entrance.
    Mr. Hutton recommended directing staff to proceed with final plans and specifications, but bring it back to them for clarification with the exception of the pedway on the south side.
    Mr. Janku asked about the width of the pedway. Mr. Loveless suggested a ten foot pedway and a five foot sidewalk. The Mayor suggested that a nine foot pedway and six foot walk might be better. Mr. Janku agreed. Mr. John proposed stipulating that the pedway is to be located on the south side of Broadway, and then staff should review the actual width. Mr. Patterson said they could do that, and the difference between ten and five and nine and six would not have a big affect. He understood the direction to be to proceed with the development of plans and specifications, but staff would be bringing back an analysis of the location of the Stephens Park entrance with regard to shifting the location to match the shopping center, and the development of some alternatives to solve the drainage problem in the shopping center.
    Mr. Loveless made the motion directing staff to proceed as stated above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B99-03     Approving the final plat of Pratt's Subdivision, Plat 4, a replat of part of Lot 6 of Pratt's Addition.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Dudark noted that the applicant has revised the request to match the existing setback from the house, which is 48.4 feet.
    Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 203 Executive Building, spoke on behalf of the property owner, Carolyn Wells, and Mike Keevins, the contract purchaser. He said they were going to withdraw the plat due to problems with the legality of the lot and setback requirements.

B152-03     Amending Chapter 16 of the city Code to add a new article establishing a juvenile curfew.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Ms. Crayton explained that yesterday a community meeting had been held to discuss withdrawing this ordinance from further consideration. She had been assured that the community was interested in getting more involved in the problems being experienced. She said late night brawls would not be tolerated any longer and that parents are expected to take charge of their children. Ms. Crayton was disappointed by the individuals who want the ordinance withdrawn, but said she would respect their wishes now and will reintroduce the ordinance if need be. She reported another meeting has been scheduled at which time the opposition will be given a chance to propose what they see as better solutions to the problem.
    There was a discussion at this point about tabling or withdrawing the ordinance.
    Mr. John pointed out that Ms. Crayton's neighborhood is not the only place experiencing problems with under-aged kids. He believed 13 and 14 year old children should be home in bed with a parent watching over them. He said it is not up to the City to babysit or come up with babysitting plans for kids that are wandering the streets at night. Mr. John commented that he would respect Ms. Crayton's proposal to give the other groups a chance, but he would prefer that the ordinance be tabled to a date certain, and then if the folks pushing for alternate solutions do not come through, it could be brought back. Ms. Crayton indicated that she plans to bring the ordinance back if problems continue to occur.
    Mr. Hutton agreed that this is not only a First Ward issue. Based on information he has received from constituents, there are neighborhoods in the Third Ward that may be just about as bad at times. Mr. Hutton indicated the ordinance would be a citywide curfew and is important for the entire City. He understood what Ms. Crayton is trying to do, but did not agree that this bill should be withdrawn.
    Mayor Hindman thought the Council would be making a mistake by not passing this ordinance, but was willing to go along with the request to withdraw the bill with the understanding it could be brought back.
    Ms. Crayton made the motion that B152-03 be withdrawn. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved by voice vote.

B162-03     Ordering re-advertisement for bids for the construction of a portion of Rollins Road and Altai Drive.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained that this project had been originally bid in the summer of 2002 with a public hearing being held in February of 2001. When the project was bid, it exceeded the available funding by approximately $261,000. Council rejected the bids at staff's recommendation with the intent of going back to the neighborhood and looking at redesign possibilities that could bring the project more in line with the available funding. Mr. Patterson reported that staff met with the neighborhood design team and reached a consensus of constructing a 29-foot wide street which would allow two 14-foot pavement lanes between the curbs, which is the standard for shared traffic and bicycle lanes. He said a five-foot sidewalk is included along the entire project, a roundabout will be constructed at the park entrance, and traffic calming will be installed at each end of the project and in the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Patterson noted that because the park is in the process of being planned and the final arrangements are not known, staff thought it would be more appropriate to consider a pedway on the south side at the time the park plans are finalized so as to better accommodate the needs of the park. If Council wishes to do that at this time, he said the project estimate would be about $50,000 more than the estimated cost of $672,000. He was hopeful Council would authorize the rebidding so the project could begin this summer and be completed before winter.
    Mr. Janku questioned why the street dips so far into the park. Mr. Patterson said it related to topography and alignment with the street to the east. He related the current alignment was supported by the neighborhood groups. Mr. John remembered the concern about the small leftover piece on the north side being totally worthless if the street was extended straight across. Mr. Patterson noted it also allows the road to come in where the optimum entrance to a park would be, and where the roundabout would be located.
    Mr. Hutton asked if the speed table is just an enlarged, flatter speed bump. Mr. Patterson confirmed that assessment. He said in cases like this, these devices are more effective than the traffic circles originally proposed. He indicated that staff suggested that there be more add alternates to the bid, but the neighborhood felt very strongly that it should go as a complete project with a minimum of what was proposed. Mr. Patterson reviewed the proposal as including a sidewalk, roundabout, traffic calming, and the minimum pavement width.
    Considering the cost of the first bid, Mr. Loveless thought this was a good compromise.
    Mayor Hindman remarked that Rollins is a major east/west cog in the pedway system and he thought the pedway should be included as part of the bid. The rest he thought looked like a good compromise.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the pedway be made part of the bid.
    Mr. Hutton said there was no reason for it to be included in the base bid because as an add alternate, the Council could still see the cost of it. He pointed out that if the pedway is included in the base as part of the project, the bids could come in once again way over what had been budgeted.
    Mr. Loveless added that if the pedway is added to the base bid and the cost of the project is found to be way over again, the Council could not pull that particular amenity out. Mayor Hindman remarked that was his point.
    Mr. Patterson noted that the neighborhood has worked very well with staff, but they would rather not have the street built at all.
    Mayor Hindman withdrew his motion.
    Mr. Loveless made the motion to direct staff to proceed with rebidding the project and that the pedway be included as an add alternate. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    B162-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B165-03     Confirming the contract of Sterling Excavation, Inc. for the construction of the Grindstone Creek Outfall Sewer Extension Project; appropriating funds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that four bids were received on this major sewer line. The low bid was from Sterling Excavation in the amount of $2,926,616.73. The engineer's estimate had been $3,472,000.
    B165-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B169-03     Authorizing an agreement with Burns & McDonnell for engineering services for Water System Vulnerability Assessment and Emergency Response Plan; appropriating funds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck pointed out that the City is monitoring the progress of any congressional action that might be retroactive.
    Since the City took over Water Districts 1 and 2, Mr. John noted that we probably serve closer to 100,000 constituents. Mr. Malon explained that the numbers were based on actual customers, and the City serves 37,000 water customers. He said there has been some efforts made to get some more funding, but so far it has not been helpful. The requirement for the assessment and plan was passed by Congress as part of the Bio-Terrorism Act. Mr. Malon noted that water systems the size of Columbia must have the assessment prepared by the end of this year. After it is completed and filed with the EPA, the City will have six months to update our Emergency Response Plan to address any threats that may be identified. Mr. Malon reported the City would also be expected to come up with the funding to address ways to mitigate the threats.
    Mr. Hutton asked Mr. Malon to convince him why the Council should approve the agreement with Burns & McDonnell when SAIC was $8,000 less. Mr. Malon replied that SAIC is a security company and they know a lot about security in terms of how to block access to buildings and that sort of thing, but it is not an engineering firm familiar with all of the processes, chemistry and the other kinds of issues that are involved in the design of a water system. As a result, staff thought the City would get a better result with a company who is familiar with the whole function, chemistry and process of the system as well as the security of the actual buildings themselves.
    B169-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B170-03     Authorizing an amended and restated ground lease and development agreement with Intermodal Facility LLC, f/k/a COLT Terminal, LLC for rail terminal.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Malon explained that the City entered into an agreement with a developer to construct a rail terminal operation on City owned property on Brown Station Road. He noted that Prost Builders and Show-Me Transportation were the two firms that submitted the proposal. He reported these entities have been seeking financing and getting ready to start the construction. As they began to look for final financing, Mr. Malon indicated they ran into a problem because the original lease included a clause that in the event of a default, the City would take over the operation and the bankers would be left with nothing. He stated that Prost and Show-Me Transportation were reluctant to make a commitment for a large loan on that basis. Mr. Malon related that the only change to the lease is that in the event of a default, depending upon whether it is the operator or the building owner, the City has both the right and obligation to continue the operation and seek a different operator. The other option would be to buy the facility out at the price of the loan. Mr. Malon commented this amendment provides security to the banks.
    Mr. John asked if the City would then control the debt and how much debt the lessee or operator can assume. Mr. Malon said there is a payment schedule included in the contract, so there is a definite price set. Mr. John wondered if the lessee borrowed more against the loan, whether the City would be securing against it. Mr. Malon said we would not be, only what is agreed to in this agreement.
    Mr. Janku questioned if the City is taking more of a risk by having to step in. Mr. Malon responded that if the City did not want the terminal to remain in operation, we would not have entered into this agreement in the first place. He said our interest in the matter is to keep the terminal open and operating.
    Mr. Ash was concerned that the operator would have lost their incentive to make it a successful venture if they knew the City would assume the payments if this does not work. He believed the operator could walk away and the City would have to clean up the mess. Mr. Malon said if the operator walks away, they would lose their investment in the facility -- which includes any equipment used in the business. Mr. Ash asked if staff was certain there was no way that the amount of the loan could ever exceed the value of the assets. Mr. Malon responded staff assumes the property will be maintained and the loan itself has a balloon payment on it. In addition, the building should be worth more than the loan. He reported that the bank's first obligation is to find somebody else to run it, but the City would have the option to move in if we felt that to be appropriate. Mr. Ash indicated that explanation reassured his concerns.
    Tim Sigmund, an attorney from Jefferson City, explained that he represents Intermodal Facility. He said the catalyst for this had been the concerns of the various lenders being approached about financing this project. Overall, this amendment is a win-win benefit for everyone involved. He thought the main reason for this benefit is the insurance of continuity of operations. In discussions with City representatives, the operator and their counsel, and his client, Mr. Sigmund related that it became very obvious that if this facility were to shut down, even for a two or three month period, it would be catastrophic from a business standpoint for both the City and the tenant. He said the way they looked at it was that the operator has already invested a fairly sizable amount of time and money in the project.
    Mr. Ash asked about the City's rights and obligations. Mr. Malon responded the City is obliged to keep going, but we also have the right to go in and use the equipment and occupy the building that has been constructed and financed by the tenant. He noted the legal department worded it this way to ensure we had the rights to go in and do it should default occur.
    B170-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B172-03     Authorizing an agreement with Jeffrey L. Bruce and Company to create a master plan for the preservation and development of Eighth Street; transferring and appropriating funds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that a committee of Eighth Street property owners, including the City of Columbia, began a planning process a few years back to improve the vitality of this street. The estimated cost of hiring the consulting firm to work with the Committee is $70,000. This has been included in this year's fiscal budget and the City has agreed to administer the contract.
    Mary Wilkerson, Chair of The Avenue of the Columns Committee, 1404 Fir Place, explained that they have raised private funds, combined public and private money and deposited these funds with the City of Columbia Trust. She was appreciative of the City's offer to contract with the consulting firm. Ms. Wilkerson explained that Jeffrey L. Bruce was chosen through a public process where a competition took place between organizations.
    B172-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B174-03     Authorizing an intergovernmental cooperation agreement with Lake of the Woods South, LLC for the Lake of the Woods Transportation Development District and associated road improvements.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the agreement is the final approval from the City for this Transportation Development District and associated road improvements. The improvements are not only on City right-of-way, but also on state right-of-way. The scope of the project was displayed on the overhead. Mr. Beck reported the City agrees to collect and administer sales tax set by the TDD Board with the maximum amount being 1%. He was not sure that they decided on an amount for the tax as of yet.
    Mr. Hutton noted that this development has moved forward to the point where it will begin to alleviate a lot of the traffic concerns voiced by residents in this area because Grace Lane has now become part of the project. He said the developer is going to extend Grace Lane from its current terminus to Richland Road, which gives the neighborhood another connection. Mr. Hutton understood it was determined that Grace Lane should not be included in the TDD and asked why. After the staff group met, Mr. Beck indicated it had been decided that the construction of Grace Lane should be at the development's cost rather than that of the general public.
    Tom Mendenhall, office at 2909 Falling Leaf Lane, offered to answer any questions.
    B174-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

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

B155-03     Approving the final plat of Vanderveen Crossing, Plat 9-A.
B156-03     Approving the final plat of Vanderveen Crossing, Plat 12.
B157-03     Approving the final plat of North Hampton Woods, Plat 1.
B158-03     Approving the final plat of Thornbrook, Plat 10.
B159-03     Vacating a utility easement located within Highlands Circle Subdivision.
B161-03     Authorizing Change Order No. 1; approving the engineer's final report for the construction of the American Legion Post 202 Sanitary Sewer Extension Project.
B163-03     Authorizing a grant agreement with the Mid-Missouri Solid Waste Management District for the purchase of fiber recycling equipment; appropriating funds.
B164-03     Authorizing an agreement with Boone County for storm drainage improvements on Columbia Terminal Railroad right-of-way near Heller Road; appropriating funds.
B166-03     Confirming the contract of C. L. Richardson Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of the MC-6 Sewer Extension serving The Cascades Subdivision.
B168-03     Accepting easements for utility purposes.
B171-03     Appropriating funds for grading the rail terminal building.
B173-03     Accepting and appropriating donated funds for the "Let's Talk, Columbia!" Community Study Circles Program.
R109-03     Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located at the north terminus of Shamrock Drive and north of Kelsey Drive.
R110-03     Setting a public hearing: construction of sanitary sewer improvements at Columbia Regional Airport.
R111-03     Setting a public hearing: acquisition of a residential structure at 505 Mary Street.
R112-03     Setting a public hearing: construction of sidewalk ramps at the intersection of Fifth Street and Cherry Street.
R113-03     Setting a public hearing: 2003 annual sidewalk construction.
R114-03     Setting a public hearing: construction of water main along Scott Boulevard between the MKT Trail and Vawter School Road.
R115-03     Authorizing an agreement with Seth Reynolds for lease of 9 North Eighth Street.
R116-03     Authorizing an agreement with Missouri Department of Health and Senior services for surveillance of the West Nile Virus.

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

R117-03     Authorizing an agreement with the Columbia Cosmopolitan Club to assist with the Fourth of July Fireworks Display.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the City again budgeted $5,000 toward the fireworks display on July 4th. Because of the construction around the University, the stadium cannot be used this year.
    Mr. Hood reported that approval had been received from the Boone County Commission to hold the ceremony at Court House Square. The fireworks will be shot off the roof of the Court House.
    The vote on R117-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R118-03     Approving the preliminary plat of Timber Ridge, Plat 2.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained the location of this nine acre tract to be in northeast Columbia. Approval has been recommended by both the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
    Mr. Hutton understood the developer was willing to build this at R-1, but was concerned this intent could change between now and the time of final platting. It was decided if that occurred, the Council would not be obligated to approve the final plat.
    The vote on R118-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R119-03     Authorizing a supplemental agreement with MoDOT for construction of sidewalks along Business Loop 70 from Creasy Springs Road to Garth Avenue.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the City obtained a $65,000 federal enhancement grant to be used for sidewalks on a portion of Business Loop 70. The recommended project was the result of the staff committee working with MoDOT and input from area property owners. He reported that the property owners are now planning to form a community improvement district along the Business Loop. Mr. Beck stated this group asked that the sidewalk project be delayed, and MoDOT agreed to do so for one year.
    Mr. Janku asked about the lead time in order to get this to MoDOT by next July. Mr. Patterson remarked that staff was well into the sidewalk plans with the next step being a public hearing. He said the Council would then need to grant authorization to acquire easements. In order to have this done by next spring, Mr. Patterson related that staff would need to begin this process in the fall because some of the easements may be difficult to obtain. He believed it would be advisable to schedule a public hearing by the end of October in order to assure everything will be in place next spring.
    The vote on R119-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R120-03     Authorizing CDBG agreements with various community agencies.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck commented that HUD recently executed agreements with the City to allocate funding for the 2003 Action Plan. This resolution would authorize the signing of the agreements.
    Mr. Janku noted that one of the areas lacking documentation was housing counseling services.
    Mr. Beck indicated that he sat in on the HUD audit exit interview and it had been very favorable. He said that HUD thought the City's overall program was in excellent shape. Mr. Beck did not remember a problem in the area of counseling. Mr. Dudark stated that staff has tightened up the agreements to provide for the reports from those agencies referred to by Mr. Janku.
    Mr. Janku asked if the Rainbow House has the proper zoning for their relocation. Mr. Dudark presumed they do, but he could not say for sure.
    Ms. Crayton asked about more houses being repaired for the elderly. She stated that staff needs to be more aggressive in letting people know these funds exist. She suggested information be given out in church and other places that seniors frequent. Ms. Crayton thought the City should be able to measure how many senior citizens are receiving citations. Mr. Dudark noted that information is available and is provided by the agency. He said that particular agency has been spending all of their allocation.
    The vote on R120-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R121-03     Authorizing demolition of a dilapidated structure located at 110 West Sexton Road.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    When condemning properties, Mr. Patterson explained that staff follows the standard process identified in the International Property Management Code 2000. In this particular case, he said the property owner is deceased and the heirs and parties having financial interest in the property have failed to respond to notices of violation and orders to bring it under compliance. Having followed the process, he said a public hearing was held in December. After that an Order of Abatement was issued ordering compliance by the 31st of March. The parties have failed to respond to the order and staff is recommending that the building be demolished with the expenses incurred being tax billed against the property.
    Kenneth Terry, 9208 N. Highway VV, explained that he owns four properties within two blocks of the subject tract. He noted a similar situation that he has been working on for the last 18 months. He asked why it was taking so long to have the problem corrected.
    Mr. Patterson reported staff has begun the process for condemning the property on Duncan that Mr. Terry spoke about. He said that notices of violation were sent out last October and then the property went into bankruptcy which delayed the process further. He said they finally got clearance of March of this year to proceed with notifications. A public hearing has been set for later this month at which time staff will make a recommendation on whether or not demolition is warranted.
    The vote on R121-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R122-03     Authorizing demolition of a dilapidated structure located at 710 Westwood Avenue.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson noted that staff followed the same process as described on the previous bill. In this case, the administrative hearing was held in February and the order of compliance was set for April 1st. No responses were received and the recommendation has been made that the structure be demolished with the cost being tax billed against the property.
    Mr. Janku asked about any interim penalty. Mr. Patterson replied the City sends notices of violation, and these notices are sent to the Prosecutor's Office. If activity is underway to correct the problem, he said they are pretty forgiving on them.
    The vote on R122-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R123-03     Waiving the annexation requirement for a sewer connection to Gas Light Acres; denying waiver of the annexation requirement for a sewer connection to Boone Industrial Park.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that several work sessions have been held on these issues. He said discussions are ongoing and the suggestion had been made to table the issue.
    Mr. John made the motion that R123-03 be tabled to July 7, 2003. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

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

B175-03     Approving the final plat of Wellington Manor, Plat 3.
B176-03     Approving the final plat of Auburn Hills, Plat 5.
B177-03     Approving the replat of a portion of F. C. Bradford's Subdivision.
B178-03     Amending Ordinance No. 017627 which established the East Campus Urban Conservation Overlay District.
B179-03     Amending Chapter 23 of the Code as it relates to banners.
B180-03     Rezoning property located on the northeast corner of Richland Road and Grace Lane from R-1 to C-P and R-2.
B181-03     Granting a variance to Section 25-48 of the Subdivision Regulations regarding sidewalk construction along Scott Boulevard, adjacent to lots 109 -112 of The Village of Cherry Hill Subdivision, Plat 1.
B182-03     Officially renaming a portion of Nifong Boulevard to "Nifong Connector."
B183-03     Authorizing the acquisition of property necessary to construct the Donnelly Avenue Street Improvement Project.
B184-03     Calling for bids to construct a sidewalk along the south side of Business Loop 70 from Route B to the west side of Old 63.
B185-03     Authorizing a right of use permit with Thornbrook Development, Inc.
B186-03     Authorizing a right of use permit with LPBW Development Company, LLC.
B187-03     Accepting easements for utility purposes.
B188-03     Authorizing construction of water main along Scott Boulevard between the MKT Trail and Vawter School Road.
B189-03     Accepting donated funds from Rick and Sally McDowell to purchase police equipment; appropriating funds.

(A)     Inter-departmental Transfer of Funds.
    Report accepted.

(B)     Housing Market Analysis.
    Ms. Crayton spoke of her preference to include neighborhood representatives on the Steering Committee. Mr. Janku indicated if the Council thought the Committee should include others from outside the contributors, they could make it part of their motion. He suggested that the Council authorize the contribution of the money and work toward the Committee. He said they may want to revisit the idea of membership.
    Mr. Dudark said that some of the organizations would like to be involved in the Committee, but he said it is not set in concrete.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the Council proceed with authorizing the amendment to the 2002 CDBG Action Plan for a public hearing and distribution of the RFP, hire the consultants, and work with contributing entities to establish a Steering Committee (which may include some neighborhood representation). The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C)     Potential Sanitary Sewer District on Edgewood Avenue.
    Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff be directed to proceed with the preliminary design. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D)     Brown School - Oakland Gravel Road Intersection.
    Mr. Patterson pointed out this is a very much needed project. He stated that staff assumes all of the land issues have been resolved. He noted the City has obtained easements from the developer, but nothing from the county. In order to proceed with the project, Mr. Patterson believed the City would need agreements with both the county and the developer. The issue of funding is still a concern and he reported that the initial estimated cost of the project had been $640,000 and the City appropriated $320,000 towards it. Due to project growth, primarily because MoDOT required additional lanes for the connection, it has increased to $900,000. Staff's recommendation is for the City to offer to share the cost of the project equally with the developer which would necessitate the appropriation of another $130,000. Because a great deal of the project is outside the City limits, agreements must be in place.
    Mr. Ash asked about the additional lanes. Mr. Patterson said these are needed due to a MoDOT requirement of establishing a new access entrance with the lanes coming into the intersection of 63. As a condition of allowing that access, MoDOT is requiring that the road be built to a five lane section up to the ramps from the intersection, and that the intersection be constructed in a manner that it could be fully signalized at a later date.
    Mr. Janku remarked that this is an opportunity to move forward in conjunction with development.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be directed to proceed. The motion was seconded by Mr. John.
    Mr. Hutton asked if it had always been thought that a 50/50 arrangement was the fairest deal and that there is not more public benefit than there is benefit to the developer and vice versa. Mr. Patterson responded that it has not been felt that this project should be a 50/50 benefit. He indicated the developer's property, which is located north of the new intersection, was acquired from the county for commercial development. As far as benefit is concerned, Mr. Patterson thought the developer would see benefit from this as much as the public will, maybe more.
    In reference to the west side of Brown School Road, Mr. Janku noted that there had been an agreement wherein the developer constructed the street and then the City agreed to do certain things. All in all, it had saved money in terms of construction because it was not a publicly bid project. Mr. Janku asked if that had been looked at in this situation. On the west side, Mr. Patterson stated the developer agreed to build the road and intersection, including signals. He said it was to the developer's benefit to be able to proceed with the project expeditiously. Mr. Patterson acknowledged it to be a benefit on the east side as well. Mr. Janku wondered why the same process could not be followed in this situation which might lower the cost to everybody. Mr. Patterson replied that staff would be glad to try to explore some kind of agreement like that, but he did not know what the City would be able to trade off in order to make it equitable. He said the sidewalks on this side probably would not be equivalent to our share like it was on the other side.
    The motion made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mr. John, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

(E)     Historic Preservation Commission 2002-2003 Annual Report and Goals.
    Report accepted.

(F)     Forum Boulevard.
    Mr. Beck explained that the bids have been received and now the Council needs to determine which alternates they want to accept.
    Mr. Patterson explained that the cost of the project exceeded funding by about $231,000. He noted that the City currently is in a cycle of projects that were put on paper at a time when different standards were envisioned for streets. He reported much of these cost increases relate to stream mitigation and Corps of Engineer requirements. In the case of the Forum project, Mr. Patterson said the low bid totaled $1,061,000 with allocated funding being $830,000. He noted the bid included traffic calming, which was outside the project limits.
    Mr. Patterson reviewed one option to lower the Forum project cost would be to defer the roundabout at Southampton which could be installed at a later time when higher traffic volumes necessitate such. Another would be the removal of the traffic calming outside the project areas. Mr. Patterson spoke of his preference to include traffic calming, but with the bids received, staff believes they could do it at a lower cost with force account labor or by a separate contract. He outlined a third alternative to construct a sidewalk or pedway along only one side of Forum rather than both sides. He said this would result in constructing the 30-foot wide street approved at the public hearing and all of the traffic calming in the project language which includes medians within the roadway, and a pedestrian lane the entire length of the project. He pointed out that grading and drainage structures would be in place so as to accommodate another sidewalk when future development occurs in the area.
    Mr. Hutton noted that almost $48,000 would be saved if the City installs the traffic calming with force account labor. Mr. Patterson said they could do it with force account labor, or with the contractor the City uses for concrete work, or a combination of both. He said the $48,000 is outside the project limits.
    Mr. John suggested deferring the roundabout, putting the traffic calming into a force account, and perhaps just building an eight-foot pedway on one side and not the five foot sidewalk. He reminded the Council that this section of road goes through an area where there are no houses from Dunbar down to Old Plank Road -- it extends to a drainage basin behind the Cedar Lake dam. He said people would be getting on the pedway at one end to go to the other end, not getting on and off in the middle. Mr. John said anyone using the pedway would be on the Wilson Swim Club side of the street.
    Mr. Patterson commented that the original pedway was proposed on the west side, but it could be put on either side the Council chooses.
    Mayor Hindman preferred to see both the sidewalk and the pedway. When a street is built, he believed sidewalks and pedways are just as significant as the street itself.
    Mr. John pointed out that the street width was reduced from 38-feet to 30-feet. Mayor Hindman said one of the reasons for doing that was to include both the sidewalk and the pedway.
    Mr. Hutton noted the City has no standards for streets, pedways or sidewalks. He also pointed out that this project's cost had initially been estimated in 1995. Mr. Hutton commented that if someone could tell him where the additional money would come from to pay the difference, he would agree to both the pedway and sidewalk.
    Mr. Ash asked if Mayor Hindman was saying the City should leave something out of the project, or whether more money should be found to cover the cost of all amenities. Mayor Hindman said the items that have added to the project's costs since 1995 relate to stream mitigation and other things he has never heard of before.
    Mr. Loveless wondered if the Council directs the street to be constructed with a pedway on one side, if the other side could be graded so that a sidewalk could possibly be constructed at a later date. Mr. Patterson responded that was possible. He said the figure shown reflects the entire cross section of the street being graded, both width and length, so as to accommodate the section approved at the public hearing.
    Mr. John made the motion that staff be directed to bring back an ordinance without the roundabout, with the traffic calming being done through contract, force account or both, and that the eight-foot pedway be built on the appropriate side of the street, and eliminate the five-foot sidewalk at the present time (but grade the street for such). The motion was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved by voice vote.


    Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff be directed to report back on the potential for traffic calming on Hanover Boulevard. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff be directed to report back on the potential for a traffic signal at Hanover or Olympic, or both, at their intersection with Clark Lane. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    At the Council retreat, Mr. Hutton commented that staff spoke about expanding the Neighborhood Response Team to a new area.
    Mr. Hutton made the motion that the NRT area be expanded to include Indian Hills and the White Gate/Quail Drive area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Mr. Hutton commented on problems in the Indian Hills area. Mr. Beck said he would check into the situation.

    Mr. Janku made the motion that an ordinance be introduced requiring trucks (dump truck loads, etc.) being covered on City streets similar to the state requirements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Mr. Janku explained that a neighborhood was having trouble with a planned development proceeding the way it was inferred to be. He indicated that he would send the details to the City Manager.

    Mary Ratliff, 211 Park de Ville, spoke on behalf of the NAACP about the curfew ordinance. She referred to the group meeting attended by concerned citizens on Sunday evening, and noted that the film shown had nothing to do with the proposed curfew as the people in it were over the age of 17, and the problems these kids were causing took place before 11:00 p.m. Ms. Ratliff did not want to be called and notified of fighting in the streets, she suggested that the Police be contacted.

    John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, related that his neighborhood is excited about the goal of studying the means and methods of improving housing conditions for very low, lower, and moderate income persons in Columbia. He said they agree with the conclusions of the Housing Task Force: that housing for these folks is growing and will likely continue to grow. Mr. Clark indicated residents are generally very supportive of the formation of a steering committee to finalize an RFP. However, they thought individuals from the community should assist the City in selecting the consultant and then continue to work with City staff and the consultant during the study. He voiced concern over the complexities of issues involving housing for persons with very low incomes. Mr. Clark noted that Dale Whitman is available to work with the group on an expanded basis.

    The meeting adjourned at 12:50 a.m.

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                                City Clerk