M I N U T E S

CITY COUNCIL MEETING - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI

AUGUST 2, 2004

INTRODUCTORY

The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, August 2, 2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN and ASH were present. Mayor HINDMAN was absent. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting of July 19, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. John.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA

Mr. Hutton noted that there was a request to table four bills, B234-04, B235-04, B236-04, and R136-04, to the September 7, 2004 meeting. He stated those would be read together (moving R136-04 from Old Business) and tabled by a motion when they were read.

Mr. Janku made the motion that public comments precede Council and Staff comments at the end of the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. John 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. Janku and a second by Mr. Ash.

SPECIAL ITEMS

None.

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

B232-04 Voluntary annexation of property located south of Prathersville Road and east of State Route 763; establishing permanent M-1 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a one and one-half acre tract of ground owned by the Boone County Sewer District. The Commission and Staff recommended approval of the M-1 request.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem Hutton closed the public hearing.

B232-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B233-04 Rezoning property located on the northeast side of U. S. Highway 63 and at the southeast terminus of Jenne Lane from A-1 to O-P; approving the A.H.J. O-P Development Plan; approving less stringent screening requirements.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this property as a ten and one-half acre tract with a plan that would allow for an office development of four single-story buildings containing 6,400 square feet each and a two-story building containing 12,800 square feet. The request for a variance from the screening requirements was recommended by both Staff and the Commission.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem Hutton closed the public hearing.

Mr. Hutton assumed the ordinance was written to include the variance. Mr. Boeckmann replied that it was. Mr. Hutton also assumed the area in question was where the tree line separated the north property line. Mr. Bondra responded that he was correct. He pointed to the area on the overhead and noted that since it was already a heavily wooded area, there was no need for screening.

B233-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B234-04 Rezoning property located on the northeast corner of Green Meadows Road and Green Meadows Circle from R-1 to PUD-10.

B235-04 Rezoning property located on the northwest corner of Green Meadows Road and Green Meadows Circle from R-1 to PUD-10.

B236-04 Rezoning property located on the north side of Green Meadows Road, approximately 100 feet east of Skylark Drive, from R-1 to PUD-3.

R136-04 Approving the preliminary plat of Trail Ridge Subdivision Block 3.

All bills were given second reading.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton opened the public hearing for B234-04, B235-04, B236-04 and offered anyone that wanted to speak regarding R136-04 to also come forward.

There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem Hutton closed the public hearing.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that all of these bills be tabled to the September 7, 2004 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. John pointed out that the request to table was made by the developer at the request of the neighborhood.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton noted the public hearing would be continued to the September 7, 2004 meeting.

B237-04 Calling for bids for the repair of runways and taxiways at Columbia Regional Airport; appropriating funds.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that a consultant worked with Staff and the FAA in preparing the bid specifications for the damaged pavement portion and that the estimated cost of this project was $990,000, with 95% being paid for by the FAA Improvement Program. The remainder, $49,500, was budgeted in the CIP.

Mr. Ash asked if the secondary runway could be used while the primary runway was shut down. Mr. Patterson responded that they would be coordinating with the users of the airport and flight services. He thought the taxiway and accessory work would be done this fall, but said it might be spring before they have a window of opportunity to get on the main runway and shut it down for 48 hours.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem Hutton closed the public hearing.

B237-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B240-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Stonecrest, Plat 6; providing for payment of differential costs.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that per City policy, the City would pay for extra diameter pipe size in the interest of the community. In this case, an 8-inch pipe would be required and the developer would pay the equivalent of the 6-inch line. The estimated cost for the 8-inch line was $4,070.40 and would be paid with Water and Light funds.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem Hutton closed the public hearing.

B240-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B242-04 Authorizing the construction of improvements to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial at Battle Garden; appropriating funds, authorizing a grant agreement with the National Park Service.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Using an overhead, Mr. Hood described the project. He explained that they had recently received notice of final approval for a Save America's Treasures grant in the amount of $98,768 for the restoration of and improvements to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial. The scope of the grant included testing and study of the conservation treatments necessary to restore the Memorial, actual restoration of the Memorial, construction of an interpretive shelter, creation of some ADA parking spaces and walkways to serve the shelter, and installation of interpretive signs. He noted the grant was a 50/50 matching grant and added that the matching funds would include $76,000 raised by donations to the New Century Trust Fund, $11,768 in force account labor, and $11,000 from annual Park Improvement funds. The total project cost was estimated at $197,536.

Mr. Beck voiced appreciation for the private fund raising that helped make this overall project possible.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton opened the public hearing.

Wally Pfeffer, 1405 Overhill, Chair of the New Century Fund, offered to answer any questions. He commended City Staff in the Volunteer Services and Cultural Affairs Offices, noting they were invaluable in helping put together the initial fund raising effort. He also added that the Parks and Recreation Staff was very helpful in coming up with a priority list for them to review and make choices from in regards to the best ways to use the funding.

On behalf of the Council and the citizens of Columbia, Mayor Pro tem Hutton stated he truly appreciated the efforts of the New Century Fund and other volunteers for the money that was donated. Mr. Pfeffer pointed out that Susan Gray and Eliot Battle were Chairs of the fund raising effort. He said they deserved a lot of praise for putting it together. Mr. Pfeffer commented that his group was only trying to be good stewards of the money raised.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton closed the public hearing.

B242-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

OLD BUSINESS

B243-04 Amending Chapter 16 of the City Code relating to medical marijuana and paraphernalia cases in the Municipal Court.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that the City Clerk verified the two initiative petitions pertaining to the marijuana law were valid. Under City Charter the Council must either pass a proposed initiative ordinance or submit the ordinance to the voters at the next available election. Four bills were prepared for Council consideration - two would enact the proposed ordinances and two would place the ordinances on the November ballot.

Christy Welliver, 184 W. Green Meadows, spoke in favor of medical marijuana. She explained that a lot of people with MS would benefit greatly from marijuana use to deal with the pain. She also noted that a lot of people move to Columbia from other States where they had previously been allowed to use it. She felt it was unfortunate that people could not use it without doing it illegally.

Dan Viets, an attorney with offices at 15 N. Tenth, commented that he has represented people in the City charged with offenses identified under this ordinance. He called the ordinance modest in comparison to what at least ten other States had adopted during the past eight years. He felt this was a proposal would provide at least a small degree of protection for people who used marijuana with a doctor's approval. He listed harder drugs, such as cocaine, opium, etc., that doctors were currently allowed to prescribe under Missouri law and said this ordinance would allow those same doctors to authorize the use or possession of small amounts of marijuana when they felt the patient suffered from a serious medical condition such as cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and AIDS. In regards to the question on whether the City and its voters had the authority to mandate dismissal of charges in situations described in this ordinance, Mr. Viets remarked that he would be surprised if a court would hold otherwise. He explained that a Prosecuting Attorney had total discretion of whether to prosecute in any given case and in any set of circumstances. He felt the proposal, because initiated by the voters, would direct the Prosecuting Attorney to exercise that discretion in a certain manner. Mr. Viets pointed out that they had amended the proposal, from what was before the voters last year, to include language that stated, "if it was held invalid, the punishment would be limited to a maximum of $50."

Mr. Loveless asked if the City were to pass this ordinance, if it would still be in conflict with State law. Mr. Viets stated he did not think it was in conflict and noted that there were many ordinances, currently, that covered the same topics covered by State law, including this topic. He indicated he was aware of cities within the State that had ordinances that covered far more serious drug offenses and had penalties under those ordinances that were more lenient and limited than State law. He was not aware of any challenge or any court that had determined the City did not have the authority to punish certain offenses as City ordinance violations. He did not think this was inconsistent or in conflict with any State law.

Mr. Hutton asked where a person would acquire the marijuana, if this was approved. Mr. Viets replied they would continue to acquire it where they were acquiring it now. He noted that there were many people forced to resort to illegal cultures, either cultivating their own supply or purchasing it from people who sell it. He agreed it was not a perfect solution.

Mr. Ash asked Mr. Viets if he had defended anyone using the defense of it being used for medicinal purposes. Mr. Viets replied he had. Mr. Ash asked if the Judge seemed lenient. Mr. Viets thought that all Judges took that into account, but stated that they also felt compelled to enforce the law as it was written.

Heather DeMian, 509 Clinkscales, explained she was born with a terminal vascular illness, which has caused her to be in chronic pain and nauseous most of her life. She explained the purpose of her medications and pointed out that the State of Missouri under Medicaid paid over $32,000 for seven of them. She remarked that if she were allowed to grow enough of her own marijuana or have a friend or care giver grow it, taxpayers would save over $30,000 per year, for one patient.

Lana Jacobs, 901 Rangeline, St. Francis House, explained that she was Heather's mother. As a person who dealt with drug addicts every day, she noted this issue was not about drug addiction. She stated that she has watched her child be sick all of her life and that she has already buried one child from this syndrome. She finds it very painful to watch her child suffer when something so simple could help her. She asked the Council to look at the issue and how it would affect sick people.

If this were passed and determined to be in conflict with State law, Mr. Ash asked what the sequence of events would be. Mr. Boeckmann guessed it could be raised in a number of ways, but said, he felt, if it was passed, it was unlikely it would be challenged. He thought if the Police were to arrest someone and send them to State Court that defendant could not raise it as a defense because it was a violation of State law. Mr. Ash asked how likely someone would get prosecuted, if they had a true medical reason for having the marijuana. Mr. Boeckmann explained that both the Police and Prosecutor have discretion. He added that when this came up last year, he asked the City Prosecutor if she recalled ever prosecuting someone who used marijuana for medicinal purposes. She stated she could not recall a situation and added that she would not prosecute them, if the case were brought to her. He noted a laundry list of different examples of people who would use it for a medical purpose. The list included migraine headaches, arthritis, glaucoma and other things. He pointed out that he had not asked her the question in those contexts, but in the context of a terminally ill cancer patient. Mr. Boeckmann did not think this would have much affect from the Prosecutor's point of view if it were passed because he did not think many cases actually involved medical marijuana. Mr. Ash asked Chief Boehm if he thought the Police had given more discretion in the instance of medical marijuana use. The Chief had no statistics in reference to the question, but noted that it was very rare for the medical issue to come up for officers making arrests. He added that he could not say that an officer would not make an arrest if they identified a person having marijuana in their possession claiming that was the reason. He stated they would probably note that in the report and leave it to the Prosecutor to deal with. Mr. Boeckmann pointed out the possibility, if this passed, that a number of people would say they were using it for migraines. He thought they would require that to be verified in some fashion.

Mr. Ash remarked that he was sympathetic in hearing about people who were suffering and in pain, but as a parent of young children, he was also concerned about the message they would be sending -- that Columbia was a town where smoking marijuana was okay.

Mr. Hutton asked if the ordinance was written as a mirror image of the petition itself. Mr. Boeckmann stated it basically was, but had some minor changes to put it in ordinance format. Mr. Hutton thought it was vague regarding a doctor's permission because it stated "with the recommendation of a physician." He asked if it would be possible to change that to "with a written recommendation from a physician." Mr. Boeckmann explained they could not change anything substantive like that. He felt it had to be passed in the form it was presented or else placed on the ballot. If it were to pass in this form, like any other ordinance, he thought they could come back and make changes to it, if they felt it would be an improvement.

Mr. Loveless did not have a problem with it the way it was written. He stated there were all sorts of more natural ways to address health issues than this Country used. He thought this was one that had been long suppressed for purely political reasons.

Mr. Hutton agreed with Mr. Loveless and said this ordinance did not bother him, especially after hearing the compelling arguments made.

B243-04 was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: JANKU, JOHN, ASH. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill defeated.

B244-04 Calling a special election to be held on November 2, 2004 to consider an initiative ordinance to establish a medical marijuana policy.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Janku felt part of the problem with the other ordinance was that within the jurisdiction of the City of Columbia, there were two other police departments that had the authority to initiate and bring referrals for prosecution -- the Boone County Sheriff and the University Police. He did not think the City should pass something that would give people the sense that they would not be subject to prosecution within the City limits. Mr. Loveless said he could agree with that argument on the next issue they were going to consider, but not on medical marijuana. Mr. John thought Mr. Janku's comment was that the Sheriff's Department, the University Police, and Highway Patrol could arrest that same person and they could be under a different set of ordinances because they would be taken to the County Court and prosecuted under State ordinance. He said this would only affect those arrested and prosecuted by a City employee. Mr. Hutton thought they would still have an option, if a deal was worked out between the Prosecutor's Office and City Police, that those issues would still end up in Municipal Court, as opposed to Circuit Court.

B244-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B245-04 Amending Chapter 16 of the City Code relating to the prosecution of marijuana and paraphernalia cases in the Municipal Court.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this initiative would prohibit Police from arresting adults for the possession of less than 35 grams of marijuana. It would be prosecuted as an ordinance violation with a maximum fine of $250. He pointed out this was the issue where it could be worked out with the County Prosecutor as to which court the cases would be prosecuted in. He explained prosecution, in most cases, would be deferred by the City Prosecutor or the City Judge would suspend imposition of a sentence.

Mr. Loveless asked about the definition of an adult in this case. Mr. Boeckmann said it would 17 or older.

Dan Viets, an attorney with offices at 15 N. Tenth, stated the primary goal of this initiative was something not actually worded in the ordinance. He explained that Congress passed an amendment to the Higher Education Act which affected all federal aid to education. If convicted of possession of even a tiny amount of marijuana in a State or Federal Court, one would lose eligibility for any form of federal aid to education. For most middle to low income families, that would mean the difference between being able to finish one's education or not. He pointed out that persons convicted in State or Federal Court for murder and burglary were still eligible for those student loans. He explained that last year's proposal provided for fines of up to $25 only, which many college towns had done. Because that was a concern for many people, this ordinance provided for fines ten times that amount. Based on his fairly extensive experience in Municipal Court representing people charged with this type of offense, he indicated he had not seen a fine larger than that imposed, although they could be fined up to $1,000 and sent to jail for up to a year. He did not think the City Prosecutor had ever recommended anyone go to jail for any period of time, certainly not for up to a year. He pointed out this would be putting into the ordinances what was already the established practice. He credited Chief Boehm with enacting a policy last year, which declared all misdemeanor possession cases, where there was not a more serious crime involved, would be sent to City Court.

Ms. Crayton said she would like to see people living in public housing included, not just students, because if someone was even suspected of marijuana use, they could be removed from public housing. She felt housing, a place to live, was just as, if not more important, than a college education. Mr. Viets indicated he would be in support of that change.

Mr. Hutton understood Mr. Viets to say the student loans were based upon state or federal convictions, not municipal. Mr. Viets replied that was correct. Mr. Hutton commented that if it stayed in Municipal Court, as the deal was now, with or without this ordinance, this would not make them ineligible for those loans. Mr. Viets replied that was correct, as long as that was done, but he pointed out that no one would stay in office forever and he feared that a future Chief might have a different policy. Going back to Mr. Janku's earlier point, if it was the Highway Patrol, Sheriff's Department or University Police that arrested a person within the limits of the City of Columbia, they could still be referred to State Court as opposed to Municipal Court. Mr. Viets disagreed. He said he hoped it would be construed otherwise and that the University Police and the Sheriff's Department would respect the wishes of the voters and the Council. He felt the voters of the community held that authority.

Chief Boehm pointed out that whether the University Police Department would follow that or not would be up to the University. However, he said, the Sheriff's Department and the Missouri State Highway Patrol did not have any bearing in Municipal Court. He said they did not arrest individuals for City ordinance violations and therefore did not take any charges to City court under any circumstances. If they were arresting someone, Mr. Hutton understood it would be a State charge. Chief Boehm replied that he was correct. He also clarified that their policy was that all first offense misdemeanor possession cases go Municipal Court. This policy was a little different from the proposal, as he understood it, in that second, third, and additional offenses could be taken to State Court.

Sterling Neeb, 1402 Court, CAPE (Columbia Alliance for Patients and Education), spoke in support of Mr. Viets comments. He noted that education and housing were both very important things and he was concerned about how they were dealt with. By denying anybody the ability to go to school and better themselves, he noted, was doing nothing, but condemning them to the life they were living at that moment. Most likely, he felt they would continue along that same path. To be denied an education and condemned to working at minimum wage, he said, would probably not stop anyone's marijuana use.

Mr. Ash understood the point that it seemed a shame for a kid to not get an education for smoking marijuana, but argued that perhaps the kid should learn to be responsible in knowing that since the money came with strings attached, he had better honor them. He understood the current policy gave them a second chance and did not feel they needed a third or fourth.

Mr. Loveless agreed with Mr. Ash and said if a student accepted funding from some agency, he should also accept that agency's rules. If one decided to violate those rules and then got caught, he stated, no one had denied them an opportunity to further their education, but rather they forfeited it themselves by their own choice.

Ms. Crayton noted that if put on the ballot the citizens could make the decision one way or the other. She hoped those in favor of it would also work on the zero tolerance issue for those living in public housing.

B245-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: CRAYTON. VOTING NO: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill defeated.

B246-04 Calling a special election to be held on November 2, 2004 to consider an initiative ordinance to establish marijuana law enforcement policy.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

B246-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

CONSENT AGENDA

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

B238-04 Appropriating and transferring funds for the purchase of a yard waste grinder for the Solid Waste Division.

B239-04 Authorizing a utility easement agreement with the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission to allow for the construction of a water main serving Timber Creek Subdivision.

B241-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

R137-04 Setting a public hearing: setting property tax rates for 2004.

R138-04 Setting a public hearing: setting tax rate for all taxable property in the Special Business District of the City of Columbia for the year 2004.

R139-04 Setting a public hearing: FY 2005 Budget.

R140-04 Authorizing an amendment to the agreement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the Missouri Community-Based Home Visiting Program.

R141-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services to extend grant support for minority health services.

R142-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Family Health Center and El Centro Latino relating to minority health services.

R143-04 Authorizing amendments to agreements with various home health care agencies.

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

NEW BUSINESS

R144-04 Authorizing various Adopt A Spot agreements.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that he continued to hear more and more comments about the areas that had been beautified within the City, particularly some of the islands. He said the program was very positive and that there was a plan in place to encourage anyone to participate. He thanked the volunteers.

Mr. Hutton voiced appreciation for the willingness of volunteers to take on these projects. He felt it did beautify the City and was a good process. He pointed out it also saved the City money because if volunteers were not taking care of them, the tax payers would be paying to have it done.

The vote on R144-04 was recorded as follows; VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R145-04 Approving the Preliminary Plat of Brookside Square.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 53 acre tract of ground located on the western terminus of Smiley Lane. It would create 123 R-1, single family lots. Approval was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Tom Bass, 909 Westover, pointed out a blank in the center of the plat. He explained that would be a PUD. He passed around a diagram of what he would be doing and noted it would be a two acre town square surrounded by townhouses that would then transition into a traditional neighborhood.

Mr. Hutton asked if the 800 foot street included going through the PUD section. Mr. Bass replied it would go through the town square where there would be a stop sign. Mr. Hutton assumed they could approve this because the other part of the 800 feet was not on this plat. Mr. Bondra explained that the regulations stated "straight streets in excess of 800 feet shall be discouraged," but did not say they could not be allowed.

Mr. Bass pointed out that he did not have to put in a town square. He was only doing it because there had been a cry for some innovative development. When the PUD came through, they would get into more detail. He thought it would be something unique to Columbia and something that would add a lot of character to north Columbia.

Mr. Ash asked about the 100 year floodplain shown on the drawing. Mr. Bass explained the buildings would not be in the floodplain, but the way the tract split came about, the lots tail off into the100 year floodplain. He said they envisioned that area being green space and, possibly, a trail easement. Mr. Bass commented that they had walked the area with Steve Saitta and that the Parks Department was interested in developing some trails.

Mr. Janku thanked Mr. Bass for working with Parks and Recreation in terms of finding a park location and added the trail easement would be a great amenity for this development.

The vote on R145-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R146-04 Authorizing an agreement with Stinson, Morrison & Hecker, LLP for consulting services for transportation infrastructure financing.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this resolution would authorize him to execute a contract of about $80,000 with the consultant in providing assistance in developing a policy framework and a financial plan for the funding of Columbia transportation infrastructure. They were proposing to pay for this out of the CIP contingency account wherein funds were appropriated, but not designated. Earlier the Council directed Staff to solicit proposals from firms. Four firms were interviewed by telephone and two in person. Mayor Hindman and Presiding Commissioner Schnarre sat in on the interviews with Staff and it was the unanimous feeling that this firm be hired. Mr. Beck noted that, at work sessions, the Council discussed having a citizens committee work with the consultant and City Staff. He commented that he would like to see the Council adopt a motion authorizing the Mayor to appoint a citizens committee to formalize the process talked about informally at the public work sessions. It was anticipated that it would take about four months to complete the review and, earlier tonight, at the pre-Council session, he outlined how this might fit together, if they started to work immediately and got a report back to the City by December 1. That would give the Council some opportunity, if looking at an April election, to have public hearings and review what was brought in by the citizens committee. In order to have something on the April ballot, an ordinance would have to be introduced at the first meeting in January.

Mr. Ash understood they wanted to limit the stakeholder committee to a small, workable sized group, but was hopeful there would be public hearings and other things so that all of the people that want to get involved would have the opportunity to participate. Mr. Beck replied that the consultant wanted to have public input and that had been built into the process.

Mr. Hutton asked if there would be public input at a public meeting with the task force and the consultant. Mr. Janku noted that they should not wait until they got the report. He felt the report should reflect the public comments. The advantage to having a consultant was that they had worked in other communities and would know how to get that done and assimilate the information quickly. Mr. Beck noted that the recommended firm had worked with a number of communities successfully in bringing in public input. When there was an election, the people were very well education on the issues because they helped develop the plan. If they were not going to look at what other communities had done, Mr. Ash stated he would like to see the public come in and share their ideas for consideration. He wanted them to have their input early enough in the process, so their input could be considered.

Mr. John felt the time frame had gotten very tight. Although he wanted to see it done as quickly and efficiently as possible, he also wanted to ensure there was enough time to get the right ordinance written, to have a good effort to explain it, and to get it on the ballot and voted on properly. Mr. Beck noted that the time frame he mentioned was the earliest an election could be held on it.

Don Stamper, 1304 Sedona Villas Drive, spoke on behalf of the Central Missouri Development Council. He said the Council appreciated the opportunity to meet with Staff to discuss the issues before the community. They believed solutions in the future would be based upon creative financing mechanisms, not just sales tax. He commented that they believed the challenges to be significant as a community and that it would take everyone to get it done. They understood the responsibility they had to continue to help grow great communities and they looked forward to any opportunity to work with the City Administration and Council as they went about this task, as long as there was equity and fairness. Mr. Stamper said his Council felt the City was headed in the right direction in this venture.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, commented that he was generally supportive of this effort. He stated he would have preferred the wording not be about funding of Columbia's transportation infrastructure, but funding of Columbia's infrastructure. He was pleased to see there would be a tax based task force and was hopeful the citizens group and the Council would come to the conclusion that we needed to think about the whole tax base and a number of the components of the infrastructure together, as opposed to just creating pockets of strategies for individual projects.

Mr. Beck pointed out that several years ago he submitted to the Council a financing plan that dealt with all areas. He said they would not just be looking at transportation, and the reason they were calling it transportation was because it did not only deal with streets, but with sidewalks, pedways and everything else except buses.

The vote on R146-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

Mr. Janku made the motion that the Mayor be authorized to appoint the task force referenced in the agreement just voted on and that Staff be authorized to give any assistance necessary to begin the process in an expeditious manner. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

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

B247-04 Approving the Final Plat of Sunrise Valley; granting a variance relating to street right-of-way width.

B248-04 Vacating street right-of-way in conjunction with the proposed Final Plat of Eastport Gardens Plat 1-A.

B249-04 Approving the Final Plat of Eastport Gardens Plat 1-A, a Replat of Lots 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of Eastport Gardens Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B250-04 Vacating street right-of-way in conjunction with the proposed Final Plat of Vintage Falls Plat 1.

B251-04 Approving the Final Plat of Vintage Falls Plat 1; authorizing a development agreement and a performance contract.

B252-04 Approving the Final Plat of Vandiver Business Park Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B253-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B254-04 Amending Chapter 27 of the City Code to enact a renewable energy standard.

B255-04 Calling a special election to be held on November 2, 2004 to consider an initiative ordinance to enact a renewable energy standard.

B256-04 Amending Chapter 17 of the City Code as it pertains to hunting in city parks; establishing an archery deer hunting program.

B257-04 Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code relating to conflicts of interest and financial disclosure procedures.

B258-04 Accepting and appropriating donated funds for the purchase of fire prevention education equipment.

B259-04 Accepting and appropriating donated funds for the purchase of uniforms to the Special Olympics program.

B260-04 Appropriating funds donated by the Columbia Cosmopolitan Luncheon Club to the youth scholarship program.

B261-04 Accepting and appropriating donated funds to the WIC program.

B262-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the purchase of influenza vaccines; appropriating funds.

B263-04 Establishing a moratorium on the demolition and removal of buildings in the Columbia Special Business District.

B264-04 Setting property tax rates for 2004.

B265-04 Setting tax rate for all taxable property in the Special Business District of the City of Columbia for the year 2004.

B266-04 Adopting the FY 2005 Budget.

REPORTS AND PETITIONS

(A) Intra-Departmental Transfer of Funds.

Report accepted.

(B) Street Closure Request.

Mr. Beck explained the request from the Old Wheels Car Club as being the closing of Broadway from Seventh to Tenth Streets, and Ninth Street from the alley north of Broadway to the alley south of Broadway on Sunday, October 3, 2004.

Mr. Hutton noted the Central Columbia Association, after reviewing the request, suggested approval, but changed the location. Their recommendation was to close Broadway from Fifth to Eighth Street and closing Seventh and Eighth from alley to alley. Mr. Janku pointed out that Ninth and Tenth Streets impacted some of the Churches. Mr. Hutton asked if anyone had talked to the Car Club about the recommendation. Mr. Beck replied he would have to check into that.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that Staff be directed to check into the issue with both groups and report back at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless.

Mr. Ash noted he was still wanting to know from Staff what happened after approval by the Council was given as far as the applicant was concerned and what it was they were required to do in order to inform the public.

The motion made by Mr. Hutton, seconded by Mr. Loveless, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C) Proposed Revisions to the Planned District Zoning Districts.

Mr. Beck asked the Council if they wanted the Commission to hold hearings at this point based on their report or if the Council wanted to discuss it further and make comments back to them before they had a public hearing.

Mr. Janku stated he would like to discuss it at a work session and have a Staff Report at that time stating any departmental concerns so those could be discussed.

Mr. Janku made the motion that a work session be scheduled on the subject before referring it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Ash agreed with Mr. Janku in that Staff input be included when considering the revisions.

(D) Renewables Report.

Mr. Dasho explained they looked at options where they could either bring renewable power into the City or generate it locally. He said there was green power available, renewable energy and wind energy, out in the market place and it was just a matter of signing a contract for the purchase of it. He pointed out that they estimated the cost of purchasing green power off of the wholesale marketplace to be an additional $460,000. They also looked at the option of generating it internally and noted that the City already did this at the Waste Treatment Plant where they used methane gas to run a diesel generator, which provided a portion of their electricity. Mr. Dasho explained that methane gas was being flared off at the Landfill and that they could use that gas to run a generator out there. It was an option they were looking at and they were working with the Department of Public Works. If that went forward, the estimated additional cost was about $200,000.

In regards to sewer utility, Mr. Janku asked if there were any plans for expansion and putting it into the grid. Mr. Patterson replied that when they looked at the Wastewater Treatment generation capability, it was obvious to them that it would be more useful to offset the use of electricity by the utility. He said they did not see a growth in production there like they did at the Landfill and they did not anticipate making it part of the grid system because a system was already set up to utilize it at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. In addition, since it did not provide all of the electricity at any time, there was not a question about having a surplus of gas that was not being used.

Mr. Hutton asked about the bio-gas from the Landfill, assuming over time it would have a potential of increasing the volume of gas. Mr. Patterson replied that it did, and added that they had been monitoring and measuring it ever since they started putting in the collection system, when they went to subtitle D landfill construction. In the last year, he noted, it had reached the point where it had an economic feasibility of using it for industrial, setting up a system similar to that at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, or putting it as part of the Water and Light grid to produce electricity out in the system. Another item they were studying was a bio-reactor cell, which would have a tremendous impact on the amount of methane gas that would be generated at the Landfill.

Mr. Hutton understood there were other sources for renewable energy, which had been studied, but were not economically feasible. Mr. Dasho replied that was correct. He said there would not be quantities to meet the two percent being asked for in the ordinance. They were looking at sources that could provide that quantity in a short period of time. Mr. Hutton understood that neither of the two options mentioned provided the two percent. Mr. Dasho said that was correct, depending upon what happened with the Landfill, where there was a potential for additional generation. He noted a combination would work and added that they could probably negotiate a contract to get the two percent if they wanted it totally on wind energy.

Mr. Ash asked if they would look at other possibilities besides the two given. Mr. Dasho replied that he expected, by 2010, that the marketplace might change and that there might be an alternative out there in the future. Right now, he said, these two were the most obvious ones that could actually be dealt with.

Mr. Hutton noted a wood chip wood waste being used elsewhere in the State and asked if that would work in our existing coal fired boilers. Given the way our existing boilers were set up, Mr. Dasho did not believe it would work. He pointed out, however, that they were about to engage a consultant to take a look at the existing set up to see what we could do and what modifications would be necessary to burn some kind of bio-mass wood waste. Mr. Hutton saw the downside of that being that it would not produce any more power because we would be going off the existing boiler. It would only be a substitute, not something producing more power.

Mr. Ash asked, if it turned out that the best way to use some of this green power was internally, if that would be calculated somehow in the equation to meet percentages, or if, because it was not part of the grid, it would not be considered as us doing our part on green power. Mr. Dasho felt the City should be credited for the renewable resources we were using right now. Mr. Boeckmann did not know, legally, if it would.

Ms. Crayton asked about safeguards in peak times. Mr. Dasho explained that they looked at the peak requirements they needed to meet, calculated those for years into the future, and added 15% of additional resources to cover the City in case of unexpected cold weather or the loss of a resource. He also noted that they had additional resources to where they could bring them in to meet unexpected peaks. It was a reserve margin and was built into their calculations and contracts.

Mr. Hutton asked if the additional cost relating to bio-gas was calculated into the rates. He thought it was an initial cost of $1.5 million to $2 million that would have to be spent in order to generate the electricity off of bio-gas. Mr. Dasho replied it was and added it was for the generator itself.

APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:

None.

COMMENTS OF PUBLIC, COUNCIL, AND STAFF:

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, understood the biggest source of savings to be conservation. He was hopeful, on the renewable energy issue, the Council would investigate what could be done in terms of encouraging conservation. Regarding the medical marijuana issue, Mr. Clark asked the Council to follow up on getting discussions started with the County, the Highway Patrol, and the University.

Linda Rootes, 811 N. Eighth Street, told the Council she was appreciative of the North Central Neighborhood being given the grant that initiated their planning process. Now that they had matched it through business contributions and financial institution contributions and had retained a very good consultant, she was hopeful the Council would continue to support it both personally and institutionally.

Mr. Ash explained that a Southridge constituent had contacted him regarding a problem with a truck cab being left running to recharge the battery. The gentleman also thought it was a safety issue because it took up a portion of the travel lane and caused people to pull out into the street. The Police stated the truck owner was not breaking any laws since he did not leave it there over 24 hours and since the engine was not loud enough to violate the noise ordinance. Mr. Ash commented that he had a similar situation in his neighborhood with a large landscaping truck and asked if anyone had any suggestions. Mr. Loveless replied that they had dealt with a tractor trailer on Northland and he thought they passed an ordinance about not parking a tractor trailer on that particular street. Mr. Ash noted that this tractor trailer tended to move around within the neighborhood. Mr. Janku asked if he was talking about a trailer or just a cab. Mr. Ash said he thought it was just the cab.

Mr. John noted that he had checked into the issue and that a lot of subdivision ordinances did not allow people to park anything over a half ton, buses, boats, etc., in their driveways. Those people had to park them in the street. If people cannot park their particular means of income near their house, they cannot work at their job because of some ordinance. In the past, that was the thing the issue got hung up on - we were affecting people's livelihoods. Mr. Ash felt the common thread was the size of the vehicle being parked, which created a safety concern.

Mr. Ash made the motion that Staff be directed to report back on the current ordinance and how it addressed this issue and that they also report back with any recommendations for consideration. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Ms. Crayton reminded everyone about National Night Out tomorrow, the 3^rd, and was hopeful everyone would participate in their own neighborhood.

Ms. Crayton welcomed home those in town to participate in the Black and White Ball.

Mr. Janku noted the Council received a request from the North Central Neighborhood Association asking for authorization for Staff to work with them on their neighborhood planning project. He noted in their letter that Staff had already been doing that.

Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff be authorized to work with the North Central Neighborhood Association in connection with their planning project. He further motioned that it be left to the Staff to determine their level of participation. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku made the motion that proper legislation be prepared in order for public comment to precede Council comment on the Council agenda permanently. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku noted a lot of concern expressed regarding the incorporation of smaller communities around Columbia. He wondered if it would be appropriate for the Council to formally express their feeling about the issue. He felt their were multiple issues besides the impact on the City of Columbia and its ability to extend its boundaries. He thought the recent concern was premature because the City's process for annexation was long and very open. He felt the City could certainly advise the County if they were getting ready to talk about it. He also felt their thoughts as a body should be conveyed to the County. Mr. Hutton agreed and thought it would be appropriate for the City Manager to write a letter to the County Commission voicing the opinion of the Council.

Mr. John asked when the last voter approved annexation had taken place. Mr. Beck thought it was probably Cedar Lake, but said the last major expansion had been in 1969. Mr. Ash was not sure the incorporation debate centered on voter annexation. He thought they were reacting to voluntary annexation nearby. Mr. Hutton agreed and noted it was not how it was happening, but the fact that it was happening. Mr. John explained the concern was generated because Rock Bridge State Park requested to be on the City sewer system. Looking at Rock Bridge State Park and its potential expansion at the exact time the City was looking at the north side of Columbia, where the County owned a bunch of land, which basically formed a two mile blockade across the north side of town, we realized that 10 to 20 years from now there could be a blockade formed across the south side of town. He stated the request was for annexation along the right-of-way, not inside the Park, so we would not have the blockade in case people beyond the Park wanted voluntary annex some day. Mr. John felt that discussion created the concern to the south that the City wanted to annex them. Generally speaking, Mr. John pointed out, the City wanted the people living in that area to have the option of annexation, if they ever wanted to be on a sewer system. Mr. Janku commented, in the last year, the City had some good cooperative relationships with Boone County on things like the Fairgrounds. He was hopeful they could continue to build on that relationship and stated that they did not need to react to this long term thing that might happen. He saw no immediate need for Pierpont or any other area to become incorporated. As things moved forward, he felt we could work with the County.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the City Manager and Mayor Pro tem be directed to communicate with the Boone County Commission stating Council opinion regarding the unincorporated areas around the City. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Hutton reminded everyone to vote tomorrow.

The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheela Amin
City Clerk