NOVEMBER 17, 2003

The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, November 17, 2003, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU and HUTTON were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.

The minutes of the regular meeting of November 3, 2003 were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Janku and a second by Ms. Crayton.

Mayor Hindman noted that Report G would be added under Reports and Petitions and B363-03 would be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Old Business.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. John and a second by Ms. Crayton.




B356-03 Voluntary annexation of property located on the northwest side of Old Field Road (3601 Old Field Road); establishing permanent R-1 zoning.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this nine acre tract of ground is located in south central Columbia. He noted that a sewer line was within a reasonable distance to serve the tract and approval was recommended by both the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B356-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B357-03 Rezoning property located generally east of Strawn Road and north of West Worley Street, extended, from District A-1 to District R-1.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck pointed out that the rezoning request on this 46 acre tract has been recommended for approval by both the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Dudark noted that the R-1 request is consistent with the 2020 Plan.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B357-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A) Construction of the H-21 Relief Sewer (Hominy Branch Relief).
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this to be a sizable public improvement project which would be jointly funded by the City and the Sewer District.
Mr. Patterson commented that in 1993, when the City entered into an agreement with the Boone County Sewer District to hook the Lake of the Woods area, Waters Edge Subdivision, to the City sewer, the City was aware that at some point the sewer line would have a capacity problem for the drainage basin and would have to be upgraded. Arrangements were made by contract, that when this occurred, the Sewer District would pay their proportionate share for the additional capacity required to serve their customers. The District's share is approximately $187,000 with the total cost being $810,000. The balance will come from sewer utility. Mr. Patterson stated the goal is to fund it through the State Revolving Loan Program next year in order to take advantage of the low interest rates.
The project itself will consist of constructing a 36-inch sewer line in addition to the existing 15-inch line. Mr. Patterson noted that both lines would remain in service after project completion. In addition, the City will have the benefit of removing a siphon crossing under the creek which has been causing maintenance problems. When the project is finished, Mr. Patterson stated the drainage basin would be at full capacity.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff be directed to proceed with plans and specifications for the project. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B360-03 Authorizing reconveyance of development rights for Lots 117, 118, 120, 121 and 125 of Bearfield Meadows Subdivision.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson explained that at the time the agreement was executed, a provision was placed on the developer to relinquish development rights to five of the 128 lots until the 123rd certificate of occupancy was issued. This was to assure total development would meet the Council goal of having a maximum of 30% impervious area. He noted the City has been monitoring the development, lot by lot, and at this point there are 121 lots that have building permits. They have verified the impervious area on the 121 lots and are confident the site will meet the 30% intent. Currently, the 121 lots are at 21%, therefore, Mr. Patterson felt it unnecessary to withhold permits on the remaining five lots.
Don Stohldrier, property developer, offered to answer any questions.
Mr. Ash relayed concerns of an area resident regarding the developer not having done a good job policing the agreements and covenants. He had heard complaints about parking and traffic problems due to the number of people being allowed to reside in the houses. Mr. Ash felt there was a problem with the process in this case and suggested finding a mechanism for enforcing follow through of the agreements and covenants.
Mr. Stohldrier commented that he does not have the authority to limit the number of people residing in the homes because there is nothing in the restrictive covenants that addresses the number of people residing in a single family house. He stated it was strictly a City code which needs City enforcement.
Mr. Ash understood Mr. Stohldrier to be responsible for enforcing the covenants until a homeowners association was in place. Mr. Stohldrier replied that was correct, but said there is nothing in the covenants regarding the number people in the houses. He reiterated it is enforced by City ordinance and handled by Protective Inspection.
B360-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: ASH. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B362-03 Authorizing an agreement with Columbia's Woodcrest Chapel to allow limited access onto Nifong Boulevard.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the City obtained limited access rights at this location when acquiring right of way for the improvement of Nifong. Unlike other locations where the City paid for limited access rights, he noted that Woodcrest Chapel donated rights to the City. Woodcrest Chapel currently has access only by way of Sinclair Street and because of its growth, there is considerable congestion at the street intersection when services are held. Mr. Beck felt there were sufficient stipulations in the agreement to correct any problems that might possibly arise. Being proposed is a right in/right out only with improvements as part of the development plan.
Mr. Patterson pointed out that the Church representatives are very aware of and understanding of the City's need and desire to preserve the traffic capacity on Nifong. He said they have been very cooperative in trying to assure that is done.
Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 203 Executive Building and a member of Woodcrest Chapel, introduced other church members present. Mr. Simon noted that he had addressed everything in his letter and offered to answer any questions. He complimented the City staff for their very professional approach in this matter.
B362-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B364-03 Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code requiring protective covers on trucks hauling rock.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted this issue had been before the Council several years ago and that after considerable discussion it had not been adopted. He felt this ordinance was very similar. Since the previous discussions, Mr. Beck felt more trucks were being covered.
Mr. Ash asked why the issue was previously voted down. Mr. Beck indicated there were a lot of people that would be affected other than the big trucking outfits. He stated that non-professional haulers would not have a roll out feature on their trucks and would have to cover their trucks by hand.
Mr. John stated the problem is that even when the load is covered, items could still come off of the frame because some of what is dumped in the truck lands on the running gear of the frame and comes off when the truck is down the road. He asked if this scenario was covered under subsection (a) . . . carrying goods or materials which may reasonably be expected to become dislodged . . . . Mr. Boeckmann explained that this section was modeled on the state statute. He did not think it was written with that in mind because if the truck had a protective cover and something fell out, they would not be liable. Mr. John felt very few people that would be affected were aware of this bill. He thought the materials on the sides and the running carriage were as big of a problem in many cases as the load itself. Mr. John asked that the bill be modified to add language for this issue. He also thought that with this discussion, there might be more comments from the community.
Mr. Ash asked about enforcement and penalty responsibilities. Mr. Boeckmann replied it would be the Police Department's responsibility.
Mr. Janku stated this language was more detailed and would make it easier for the Police to enforce. Chief Boehm interjected that enforcement would be mostly complaint driven or would be enforced in conjunction with the enforcement of other traffic laws.
Mr. Hutton pointed out that this would not be in effect until May of next year and could be amended between now and the effective date.
Mr. John stated he would like staff to look into the issue of debris on the side of the truck and provide language to add at a later date. Mr. Boeckmann indicated he would.
B364-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B365-03 Imposing a moratorium on the demolition of buildings in the Special Business District.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this was initiated by the Downtown Columbia Association and was referred to the Special Business District Board for review. The bill calls for a six month moratorium during which time it is suggested that guidelines and regulations be set up relating to historic buildings and buildings being torn down to create surface parking lots. He noted a detailed report had been prepared.
Carrie Gartner, who spoke on behalf of the Special Business District, pointed out that 60% of the surface area in the Special Business District is devoted to parking. They were fearful that new surface parking lots would actually harm the vitality of the District. She said that buildings were destroyed within the Special Business District to make way for quite a bit of surface parking and as a result they are not as vital a downtown as they could be. She stated their goal is to reduce, when ever possible, the number of surface parking lots by buildings. They are asking for a temporary moratorium on demolition of buildings to build surface parking lots while they work on a more thoughtful, long term solution to this issue. She noted that they have been very successful in the past bringing property owners within the Special Business District together to reach a consensus. With the City's help, they felt they could do the same with this issue.
Mr. John saw this as taking away an owners right to do what they see as most beneficial to them because others do not want any more parking. He noted that if the banks and businesses did not have parking, the City and the District may not have had those banks and businesses. He asked why a moratorium is needed all of a sudden. Ms. Gartner replied that there is a very big difference between the availability of parking and the perception of the availability of parking. She did not think the perception problem could be solved by tearing down buildings and building more parking lots. Although it may be a good business decision for a particular property owner to tear down the building next door and build a parking lot, she stated that the rule of her Board is to look at the District as a whole and see what is best for the District as a whole. She said they are not advocating taking away any parking lots. She reiterated that they only want the moratorium until they can come to a consensus as a group. As far as the timing, Ms. Gartner indicated that this probably should have been addressed a long time ago and felt this to be a good time since they have begun their beautification efforts.
Ms. Crayton suggested a free shuttle bus for the downtown area for people parking in the garages. Ms. Gartner commented that there are a lot of creative ways to address the issue of parking, not just garages, but garages with retail on the bottom floor, underground parking, second story parking, parking behind a building, etc.
Mr. Janku discussed the law of unintended consequences. He said people may decide to buy property immediately outside the District to create parking lots or something similar. He felt that some thought needed to take place to ensure the impact was not later determined a negative impact.
Mr. Hutton asked about an emergency situation where a building is in an eminent state of collapse. Mr. Beck replied that the dangerous building ordinance would cover a situation such as that.
Mr. John had no problem with the idea of making sure downtown was well taken care of, but stated that a lot of the businesses that have parking by them need it where it is in order to be vibrant and to be downtown. He indicated he would agree to the moratorium for six months, but would vote against it the next time if the issues surrounding the need for this moratorium were not resolved.
Not being a fan of moratoriums, Mr. Ash noted that along with buildings being torn down and being turned into parking lots downtown, there are also parking lots downtown being turned into buildings. He said there is some thought that market forces will eventually determine the best land use; however, for the greater good of downtown, he thought it would be better to put a little control on the issue.
Mayor Hindman noted that when he has been in other cities and has looked at the most successful shopping areas, there has been no parking in sight.
B365-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
Mayor Hindman made the motion that the moratorium issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission to work with interested members of the downtown community in developing an ordinance regulating the demolition of buildings in the downtown area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B366-03 Authorizing a supplemental agreement with the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission for the installation of active warning devices at the Rogers Street COLT highway-rail crossing.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Malon explained that the Highway Department has a program they administer for grade crossing protection. He said they have performed a survey and have determined the grade crossing on Rogers Street is eligible to have flashing signals installed. The proposal is to grant the City $130,000 for the project. The project will include the installation of cantilevered flashing lights, a warning bell, and associated track circuitry. In addition, the driveway to Boone County Lumber will be relocated to the west in order to prevent turning movements that could damage the new signals. The City will need to appropriate the funds, perform the work, and then be reimbursed by the Highway Department. Because the City has a master agreement with the Highway Department, this will be a supplemental agreement.
B366-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B363-03 Appropriating FY 03 Fleet Operations revenues to the FY 03 operating budget to offset expenditures for items for resale.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson noted that the appropriation was directed by the Finance Department in order to bring budget controls in line that show appropriated revenues to cover the additional expenditures. He said it is not uncommon and that this occurs each year. Mr. Patterson explained that they try to estimate revenues conservatively, but realistically. This year more work came in than they have had in the past. They also had additional outside work orders over which they have no control. Mr. Patterson stated the fleet management budget is not necessarily correlated with what a department may budget. He said that it had no impact on the overruns for any other department budget and that it is necessary for them to reflect revenues and expenses to balance at the end of the year for audit purposes.
Mr. John was concerned about the departments involved being charged the $550,000. He thought there would be some maintenance budgets in other departments that would be low and would need to be revised. Mr. Patterson said if they had everything correlated from one department to the other, then theoretically the Street Division would budget $200,000 for parts and equipment because they would have based that on what staff expects to spend. Mr. John understood the expenditure budget covered the expenses even though Mr. Patterson's expense budget originally did not. Mr. Patterson agreed and reiterated that it is more a matter of his underestimating than the others underestimating their costs.
B363-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. 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.

B358-03 Approving the final plat of Boone County Bank Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B359-03 Appropriating funds for the Housing Market Analysis Study.

B361-03 Authorizing a Right of Use Permit with The Curators of the University of Missouri for chilled water lines and control cable conduit within Elm Street right of way.

B367-03 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B368-03 Appropriating fire equipment sale proceed funds.

B369-03 Accepting a grant from the Missouri Department of Public Safety for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Program project; authorizing sub-grant agreements; appropriating funds.

R246-03 Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the south side of St. Charles Road, approximately 120 feet east of Elderbrook Drive.

R247-03 Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the north side of Thompson Road, between Cotton Wood Drive and Spring Cress Drive (5513 Thompson Road).

R248-03 Setting a public hearing: construction of water main serving Norbury Hill Subdivision.

R249-03 Authorizing acceptance of a thermal imaging camera from the Columbia Police Foundation.

R250-03 Authorizing Ameren UE to temporarily close a portion of the eastbound lane of Broadway.

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

R251-03 Approving the Airport Master Plan Update.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the FAA requires a Master Plan update every ten years. He noted that a year ago the updated Plan was presented to the Council at a work session held at the Airport. At that time the Council asked for additional review of parts of the Plan and this is a result of that review.
Mr. Patterson explained that Master Plans are required as a principal agent for funding improvements at the Airport. The general range of the Master Plan is 20 years with an update every ten years. The goal is to come up with a five-year action plan that is fairly detailed with the remainder of the 20 years being more speculative, more dependent upon changes, and more reflective of long term goals. The process the City had to go through in developing an updated Master Plan begins with hiring a consultant. That was done in 1999. One of the principal responsibilities of the consultant is to develop an inventory of assets and provide forecasts of aviation. He explained this has been a drawn out affair with a lot of adjustments having been made for various reasons. Mr. Patterson felt the consultant has worked hard trying to come up with the best possible and realistic estimates of what the City might expect over the next 20 years. The consultant also does a lot of public input work in developing the projected needs of the Airport over that period of time. He lists the requirements and then makes recommendations for meeting the requirements. The FAA approved the Airport Layout Plan, as did the Airport Advisory Board.
Mr. Patterson explained the short term recommendations to be the continuance of rehabilitating existing facilities, the implementation of environmental assessment and other requisites for extending runway 13-31, and the start of the design and feasibility considerations for a new or renovated passenger terminal. Another important aspect was on general aviation activities, particularly development of feasibility studies for construction of expanded air cargo. It was also recommended that we continue to try to protect the land around the Airport through rezoning of property, acquisition of property, and trying to influence the use of the property so we do not get uses that would, at some point, become contradictory to the principal use of the Airport facility. Long term recommendations for the airfield are to extend the runway 220 by 1,000 feet from 6500 to 7500 feet. Mr. Patterson noted this was one of the areas of discussion. The direction of runway extension is being preserved as an option in either direction subject to Council approval after engineering studies deemed necessary are completed. Another is the extension and strengthening of runway 13-31 and the addition and construction of T-hangars for general aviation. With regard to passenger terminal alternatives, he explained there were three recommendations with no preferred alternative put in the Plan. It specified those options would have to be evaluated by more detailed studies at the time the decision is made whether to proceed with renovation.
Regarding the preservation of land use around the Airport which is substantially out of City control, Mr. Beck commented that he would soon be suggesting the City establish a revolving fund for land purchase around the Airport.
Mr. John has heard from several individuals who have worked with people moving to town who have found there is not adequate space for them to have their private planes at our Airport. He said they have to look into keeping them in Boonville or Fulton. He felt the T-hangars to be something the City has needed for some time. In regard to the expense of some of the items, Mr. John noted they are put in place so the City can be in a position to appropriate the funds if and when it is needed.
Mayor Hindman asked if the City currently has two fixed base operators. Mr. Boston, the Airport Manager, explained that they have given permission to Flying Tiger, (Dr. Wes Stricker) to begin a fixed base operation, but he has not done everything he needs to do yet to begin operation.
The vote on R251-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. 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:

B370-03 Approving a C-P Development Plan to be known as "Lot 40 Pannell Place" on property located on the west side of Fay Street, approximately 150 feet north of Smith Street.

B371-03 Changing the designation of PUD zoned property bounded by Brown School Road, Derby Ridge Drive, Citadel Drive and Edenton Boulevard from PUD-12 to PUD-13; approving the Auburn Hills 8 PUD site plan.

B372-03 Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code as it relates to permitted uses in District M-C.

B373-03 Approving the Final Plat of Eastport Gardens Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B374-03 Approving the Final Plat of Boone Quarry, Plat No. 3; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations regarding sidewalk construction; authorizing a performance contract.

B375-03 Appropriating funds to purchase a video camera surveillance system as part of the Missouri State Homeland Security Grant Program.

B376-03 Authorizing a development agreement with Drew Properties, LLC for construction of street improvements at the Oakland Gravel Road, Brown School Road, Roger I. Wilson Memorial Drive intersection.

B377-03 Confirming the contract with APAC-Missouri, Inc. relating to the Oakland Gravel Road, Brown School Road, Roger I. Wilson Memorial Drive intersection project.

B378-03 Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Emery Sapp & Sons, Inc. relating to the Forum Boulevard water main relocation project.

B379-03 Confirming the contract with Sterling Excavation, Inc. for construction of a water main along Kircher Road, between Dusty Rhodes Lane to Mount Hope Road.

B380-03 Authorizing construction of water main serving Norbury Hill Subdivision; providing for payment of differential costs.

B381-03 Appropriating funds received from the sale of excess SO2 allowances for the repair of Boiler #7.

B382-03 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B383-03 Amending Chapter 15 of the City Code as it relates to the power of the municipal judge to grant parole or probation.

B384-03 Amending Chapter 16 of the City Code as it relates to panhandling.

B385-03 Authorizing the issuance of special tax bills against seven parcels within the Grasslands Addition benefit district; cancelling the special assessment and tax bill against a small parcel of land in the Grasslands Addition.

B386-03 Accepting a grant from the Department of Health and Human Services for the Medical Reserve Corps Demonstration Project; appropriating funds.

B387-03 Amending the FY 2004 Pay Plan, the Classification Plan and the 2004 Annual Budget relating to personnel in the Health Department.

B388-03 Appropriating donated funds to the Special Olympics Program.

B389-03 Authorizing agreements with the Columbia School District relating to playground improvements at Parkade Elementary School and West Boulevard Elementary School.

B390-03 Appropriating funds for the purchase of an Interactive Voice Response System (IVR) and phone system upgrade.

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

(B) Potential rezoning of an 8.90 acre tract of land from R-2 (Two-Family Dwelling District) to R-1 (One-Family Dwelling District), located along both sides of Wren Wood Drive, extended, owned by Holiday Construction, Inc.
Mr. Beck noted that the owner would like the City to pay the advertising fee of $406.00. He said it could be handled in the manner followed when down-zoning in older parts of Columbia.
Mr. Hutton felt this would be a benefit to the City and that it actually would be a down-zoning the Council initiated.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that rezoning processing and advertising fees for the property be waived. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C) Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation regarding need for review of development and pre-annexation agreements.
Mr. Beck pointed out that this comes to the Council on an 8 - 1 vote from the Commission. Their recommendation is that the Council consider a policy that would require any development agreement or pre-annexation agreement that would alter any provision, requirement, or standard set forth in a transportation plan, subdivision regulation, or zoning ordinance to be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission before consideration for final action by the City Council.
Mr. John explained that this issue came up because of the recent 80-foot vs. 100-foot right of way for the extension of Chapel Hill. He saw the question being whether or not those kinds of things should be negotiated, taken to P & Z, brought to the Council for approval, and then the plan going back to the Commission before being brought forward. He noted that in the Chapel Hill issue the development agreement was done before the plan was approved on one side of the street. Mr. John pointed out that the Commission is the recommending body and the Council is the decision making body. He was not sure this would benefit the process.
Because the Commission's request was so broad, Mr. Loveless suggested getting a staff analysis on exactly how this might affect the procedures they work with and how it might impact developers in the time sequencing of what it is they want to do. Without knowing what is involved, his preference was to take no action at this time.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that staff (Planning and Public Works Departments) report back with some idea of how intricate this might be. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.
Mr. John suggested adding the Law Department to the motion. Mr. Loveless agreed.
The motion made by Mr. Loveless, seconded by Mr. Janku, and amended by Mr. John, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D) Hunting and fireworks on recently annexed property.
Mayor Hindman felt the issue should be pursued and added that he was not sure it should be limited to newly annexed property. He suggested that large properties that have been annexed for a long time and have not been developed be included also.
Mr. Janku suggested checking with other municipalities to see how they are handling the issue.
Mr. Loveless felt they should take the next step. He thought the most critical issue for the City to be the issue of shooting firearms and how to go about determining the minimum parcel size. He asked that staff prepare legislation for Council review.
Mr. Ash felt it should be tied to size. He commented that there are some very large tracts that could potentially be annexed into the City, but are being held back because of the hunting issue. He did not think it should be made retroactive to other parts of the City. Mr. Ash thought the reason it is currently illegal inside the City is for safety reasons.
Mr. Loveless pointed out that one problem facing them is urban deer and thought any effort the City could make to help trim the deer herd, within the corporate City limits on larger tracts, would be time well spent. He was not sure they should limit it to only recently annexed areas. He felt the critical criteria to be when to stop.
Mr. Ash remarked that Mr. Loveless had made a good point regarding the deer. He said he had been referring to fireworks more so than deer. Regarding the discussion about the trigger for these rights being taken away, Mr. Ash was thinking a trigger could be when the property is subdivided down to a certain point. He also thought the zoning might be a good trigger. He asked if most big tracts are A-1.
Mr. Janku did not think it should be tied to A-1 zoning because they may want another type of zoning when they annex.
Mr. John thought that tract size was the important issue, not the zoning. Once the tract is subdivided down to a point that it is no longer big enough, then the rights would go away. He saw the question as how big is big enough. When dealing with hunting, he said he would rather see the size of the tract and the distance from occupied structures and roadways being the governing controls over whether or not the property could be hunted.
Mayor Hindman felt this was a work session issue. He asked if the Council should request staff research on what other communities have done.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that staff be directed to prepare background information on the issue to include information regarding how other municipalities have dealt with it and to draft and ordinance for their review at a work session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(E) Inter-connection agreement with BCRSD for El Chaparral area.
Mr. Beck mentioned this had been discussed at the pre-Council dinner and it had been decided the City should move forward with the South Grindstone Interceptor Sewer. This sewer would intercept the existing lagoon serving El Chaparral and other connections in the area, along with providing additional capacity in the future for the area. In order to move forward with this joint project, Mr. Beck explained the City would need to enter into an agreement with the Regional Sewer District because the District currently has customers in the El Chaparral Subdivision. He explained the policy and the exceptions. The recommendation is that staff be authorized to begin working with the Regional Sewer District to prepare a development agreement that would allow those persons in the developed El Chaparral Subdivision to have their waste water treated by the City. The newly developing areas in the drainage area would need to sign pre-annexation agreements with the goal that they become City customers. The cost for this interceptor would be pro-rated on an equitable basis to keep the Sewer District solvent in that drainage area and also to assure less problems when these areas are annexed voluntarily.
Mr. John suggested they move ahead and allow for the exception for those people who are current customers of the Sewer District. He said he would like to see a way for those people who would like to reduce their sewer bills and become City customers by signing a pre-annexation agreement, to be able to do so - that a buy out be worked out with the Sewer District for those customers as part of this agreement. He said he would also like to limit those to people on gravity feed. Mr. Janku asked if he was talking about people coming in at the present time. Mr. John stated he was and said they would have to sign a pre-annexation agreement. Mr. Janku pointed out that some of the properties may be contiguous. Mr. John replied they would have to sign now, but was not ruling out accepting others at a later time, and noted it would be more efficient for the City to do it in larger groups. Mr. Beck commented that it would almost need to be a subdivision or a block in the existing areas. Mayor Hindman asked if Mr. John was talking about individual lots. Mr. John replied that he was. Mayor Hindman pointed out practical difficulties with respect to that.
Mr. Beck suggested the staff review Council comments and report back on the feasibility with the goal being to increase the number of City customers in the area.
Mr. John motioned for the staff to be directed to move forward with an agreement with the Boone County Regional Sewer District for the El Chaparral service. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(F) Location of pedestrian countdown timer installations and pedestrian flag crossings.
Mr. Beck noted a question as to priority areas for installation of the timers and about additional flag locations. The money provided for in the budget was to do Broadway from Fifth Street to Hitt Street. He said he also put in a level of funding for additional flags thinking that they would look at an unprotected downtown crosswalk east of Hitt Street. Mr. Beck pointed out the funds were all in the traffic budget so the monies could be redistributed within that particular budget.
Mr. Janku asked if contingency funds could be used for this purpose. Mr. Beck responded that contingency funds could be used.
Regarding the question of the State approving the timers on streets like Providence Road, Mr. Janku assumed the timers could be put in without changing the traffic sequence. Mayor Hindman replied that if the City starts putting pedestrian lights on MoDOT streets there may be standards that must be met. Mr. Janku thought if the City could explain to MoDOT it would not necessarily require a change in the signalization and that the City just want its pedestrians to feel more comfortable, they might be receptive.
Mr. Beck suggested bidding Broadway as shown in the budget with the idea the numbers could be increased when decided by the Council.
Mayor Hindman asked if they could agree on Broadway. Mr. Janku said he had no problem with that, but would like to see staff begin conversation with MoDOT because it was apparently going to be a challenge. Mayor Hindman asked about a work session to determine where the others should be installed. Mr. John said he could not agree to Broadway. Because of the bump outs and planters, he felt it was pretty easy for everyone to cross the main streets down Broadway. He noted that traffic moves fairly slow on Broadway.
Carrie Gartner, Special Business District, said they would love to see the countdown timers downtown. She commented that the they have been working hard to make the Special Business District pedestrian friendly and ADA accessible. She thought this would help people get across Broadway, along with the planters and bulb outs. Ms. Gartner suggested the timers would be a good addition for the holiday shopping season.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that they move ahead with the Broadway countdown timers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman asked about the possibility of getting at least one installed at Ninth and Broadway before Christmas. Mr. Patterson replied a supplier had been found who had said they could put together enough for one intersection in ten days to two weeks, but because he is not a sole source provider, bids must be taken. Mr. Loveless asked about an emergency purchase. Mr. Patterson explained if the Council wished to declare it an emergency they could make the purchase. Mayor Hindman asked if that was a reasonable thing to do. Mr. Boeckmann replied it would have to be a department decision. Mr. Patterson felt it would be a stretch to declare it an emergency, but said they would make every effort possible to get it here as quickly as possible.
Mr. Janku asked if they would try to identify the locations. Mayor Hindman thought that should be done at a work session. Mr. Beck suggested they not only bid the timers for downtown, but also have a provision added where the order could be increased. Mr. Patterson commented that they would get an annual contract.
Mr. Hutton asked about the flags. It was decided that would be discussed at a work session. Mr. Hutton said he would like a very short report for the work session on whether the staff thinks the flags are actually worth the trouble based on the number that have been taken. Mr. Patterson said there have been some successful programs in other cities, but there is usually a buy in by a business association or a school.

(G) Philips/Stormwater Draft Report.
Mr. Beck explained the staff met with the City's hired consultant last week after their review of the developer's consultant report. If the Council wishes to respond to the consultants draft report, he said it would be desirable to do it by this Wednesday because the consultant was to get feed back and have their final report by this Friday. Mr. Patterson remarked that the City would need to give them a one week extension if the Council had comments. Mr. Beck questioned whether or not the Council wished for more information from the consultant.
Mayor Hindman commented that he had read the draft and there was a lot he did not understand. He noted the draft said certain changes needed to be made before the City would be safe in allowing the development to go forward. He felt they should have a thorough understanding of the reports before going any further. He asked if the consultant could join the Council at a work session so they could answer questions. Mr. Patterson was sure they would be happy to do it, but said there may be an additional fee for the trip.
Mr. Ash recalled the reason the Council asked to have a consultant look at the report was not so much for them to understand the report, but for the staff to understand the report. Mayor Hindman replied that was true. If the staff feels like they can digest the report, Mr. Ash did not see the need to have them visit a work session to explain it.
Mr. Beck suggested the staff make a presentation of the consultant's report at a work session Wednesday to see if they could answer Council questions. He felt the consultant addressed the issues brought up. He did not think there were many large issues.
Mr. Janku suggested Mr. Patterson let the consultant know there may be more interest either on the part of the Council or the staff in having more input as the issue moves forward so they could be prepared to respond. Mr. Janku understood this consultant was not to be an ongoing advisor to them. Mr. Patterson confirmed they were not unless the City continues the contract. The contractor's responsibilities were to do the preliminary final report based on the parameters of the scope of services in the contract. Mr. Beck pointed out that if the Council had no comments, this would be their final report.
Mr. Janku asked if the report had been made public. Mr. Patterson said they have made sure the news media has a copy and have also contacted people with concerns about the development and made sure that they have a copy. In addition, he stated it was available to anyone interested.
Mr. Patterson noted that the developer is now expected to respond to the issues raised in the report. He suggested they look at that response before asking the consultant to do more. He thought a lot of it was a question about the intent and that discussions would clarify the intent of both parties.
It was decided the Council would wait until the developer reviewed the draft and commented on it.

Pauls, William R., 306 Whitetail, Ward 2 - Term to expire 5/31/04

Potter, Richard H., 4415 Glen Eagle, Ward 5 - Term to expire 9/30/06

Mayor Hindman made the motion that the Council adjourn to a closed meeting at 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 19, 2003, in the fourth floor conference room in the Daniel Boone Building to discuss pending litigation, the purchase of real estate, and personnel matters. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Motion passed.

Mr. Loveless stated he received a call from an elderly constituent concerned about the speed of the traffic on Stadium Boulevard, in the area of Miles Manor, and City enforcement efforts.

Mr. John passed pictures of street flooding to Mr. Patterson for staff to look into the situation.
Regarding earlier discussions about City Police and liquor control and a discussion earlier this evening about trucks needing to be covered and the enforcement of it, Mr. John stated that if the Council continues to pass bills and expect them to be enforced, they needed to look at adding to the Police Department.

Mr. Janku voiced appreciation about the reports sent to the Council on a regular basis from Water and Light regarding their capital improvement projects. He commented that the reports are helpful in answering constituent questions about various projects. He was hopeful other departments would look into doing the same or something similar to keep the Council updated.
Mr. Janku asked for an update on the various City housing programs. He passed a copy of the housing report from two years ago to the City Manager. Mr. Janku commented it had been helpful to see which programs are being used and in which wards.

The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheela Amin
City Clerk