M I N U T E S
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI
JUNE 21, 2004



INTRODUCTORY

The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, June 21, 2004, 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.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting of June 7, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. Ash.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA

Mr. Beck noted that a request had been received to remove B204-04 from Introduction and First Reading.

The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mayor Hindman and a second by Mr. John.

SPECIAL ITEMS

National APWA Re-Accreditation of Columbia Public Works.

Mr. Beck explained that the Public Works Department was first accredited three years ago, one of only a few in the Country. He felt the Department had done a wonderful job of following up on their initial accreditation. He congratulated Mr. Patterson and his Staff.

Larry Frevert, National Director for the American Public Works Association,

congratulated the City of Columbia. He explained that obtaining this national accreditation, which involved a lot of work, was no small task. He pointed out that Columbia, which was the first agency in the State of Missouri to be accredited, was also the first agency to be re-accredited. Mr. Frevert presented the City with the accreditation plaque.

Mr. Patterson expressed his appreciation to the City Manager and Council. He stated the Department was dependent upon their support and guidance. He also voiced appreciation for his Staff, to include Kathy Frerking and Mary Ellen Lea, who were the Co-Project Managers for the accreditation project.

On behalf of the Council, Mayor Hindman thanked the Staff and stated he was proud of the City's Public Works Department.

Mayor Hindman stated they had another special item to discuss and asked Ms. Crayton to elaborate.

Ms. Crayton explained that she attended the Missouri Legislative Black Caucus this past weekend and the Governor signed a proclamation making June 19th Juneteenth Emancipation Day. Ms. Crayton read the proclamation and noted that next year she would like to see it celebrated in Columbia.

Mayor Hindman introduced Helen Hsatsava, a visitor from our Sister City of Kutaisi, Georgia. Ms. Hsatsava, a previous intern for the City of Columbia, was in town in connection with Sister City activities.

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS

(A) James K. and Deborah L. Smith - City Bus Route/Traffic Problems in Broadway Farms.

James Smith, 3108 Kunlun, passed around a map and spoke about a recent bus route change, which included Kunlun Drive. He noted that Staff explained that Kunlun Drive was included to allow buses to circle, pick up, and drop off at HyVee. He explained that he wanted to see Hy-Vee's service road used in conjunction with Broadfield to circle HyVee, instead of Kunlun. Mr. Smith pointed out that he had discussed this with the HyVee Manager, who indicated he was agreeable. He asked Council to look into using this alternate route in an effort to decrease traffic on Kunlun. He noted 46 other neighbors supported this request and provided the signed petition to the Council.

(B) Rick and Connie McBroom - Emergency Alert Response System.

Connie McBroom explained this system was developed to alert civilian vehicles to approaching emergency vehicles. She provided examples of why this notification was beneficial and stated that it would help improve emergency response time and increase awareness. She noted that transmitters were bing offered free of charge to the City and asked the Council to consider using the equipment.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

B161-04 Rezoning property located on the west side of Oakland Gravel Road, south of Edris Drive from R-1 to PUD-3; approving the Bear Creek PUD site plan; granting variances to the subdivision regulations.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a five acre tract of ground, which would allow for 11 single family structures. The variance request was to reduce the right-of-way width from 50 feet to 44 feet and the street width from 28 feet to 24 feet. Other variance requests were to construct a T-type turnaround rather than a standard cul-de-sac and to reduce sidewalk construction along one of the streets. The Commission recommended approval.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Jay Gebhardt, a civil engineer with A Civil Group, displayed a drawing and pointed out the location of the variance requests.

Mr. Hutton asked if Paw Print Road would be public or private. Mr. Gebhardt replied it would be a public street and that parking could be determined by the Council.

Mayor Hindman asked about a concern regarding the closeness of this development to the Creek. Mr. Gebhardt explained the original drawing had a building envelope where it looked as though a building could be built in the creek. He had since changed the drawing to show the actual foot prints of the buildings. The closest location to the creek was about 30 feet. Mayor Hindman asked about the reasoning for the 24 foot street. Mr. Gebhardt indicated that they were using the proposed street standards, which had not yet been approved, as a guide. They were trying to design it like an enclave street. In addition, he noted that they considered making it a private street, but later decided in favor of a public street.

Mr. Hutton understood that a 24 foot street in a 44 foot right-of-way would meet the standards for an access street. Mr. Bondra responded that was correct, but since this was submitted prior to adoption of the street standards, the applicant was still required to go through the variance process.

Mr. Janku understood the setback was now at 20 feet rather than 18. Mr. Gebhardt replied that was correct.

Mayor Hindman asked if the reason for not having a turnaround was so more lots could be developed. Mr. Gebhardt replied affirmatively and added it would also force them to pipe the creek. He noted that the Fire Department prefered the T-shape turnaround to the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Beck asked if he understood that Staff recommended approval of the T-turnaround. Mr. Bondra replied because the Commission and Council had already approved a couple of the T-turnarounds, they took the position that although they were leery of them, they would not recommend against a whole PUD because of that one issue.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Janku felt this development had unique characteristics that would justify the use of the T-turnaround.

Mayor Hindman asked about the length of the street. Mr. Bondra thought it was 600 to 650 feet. Mayor Hindman asked if City service trucks would be able to turnaround in the T. Mr. Patterson replied they would be able to with maneuvering and backing. He thought the reason the Fire Department was not as concerned was because they might not ever have use the street, but the Public Works Department would be in there every week.

Mr. Janku asked about the difference in size between this and what was being proposed in the back of the new health facility. Mr. Patterson stated the one in the back of the health facility was an off-set type cul-de-sac. Mr. Janku asked if the same thing could be done in this case.

Mr. Beck noted that these types of turnarounds were continuing to be requested and stated that if the City started allowing them more regularly, there would be safety issues to deal with. He did not feel backing trucks through neighborhoods was a good idea.

Mayor Hindman noted they had allowed a lot of streets to be stubbed out, and pointed out that if there were houses on the street, the same situation would occur there. Mr. Beck felt there was a solution in those cases because at some point those could continue through. Mayor Hindman commented that in most cases, they were not continued.

Mr. Loveless asked if it would help if the pavement was rounded off. Mr. Patterson stated the additional pavement would improve maneuverability. Mr. Loveless asked Mr. Gebhardt if that would be acceptable to him. Mr. Gebhardt responded it would be fine and offered to construct a full circle if the Council would allow use of some of the parkland. The Council did not want to give up any parkland. Mr. Patterson stated the Public Works Department could work with them on the final design.

Mr. Hutton pointed out that they would still need a variance to a standard cul-de-sac with a condition that it would be an agreeable design at the time the final plan was submitted.

Mr. Ash made the motion that B161-04 be amended from a T-shaped to an alternative turnaround. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B161-04, as amended, was read 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:

B162-04 Rezoning property located on the south side of Vandiver Drive, west of U.S. Highway 63 from O-P to C-P; approving the MV Properties at Centerstate Crossings C-P development plan; granting a variance relating to parking.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 5.3 acre tract located in northeast Columbia. Only a small portion of the tract was involved with the rezoning request. The remainder was already zoned for its proposed use. Approval would allow for commercial development consisting of 45,000 square feet of retail restaurant space. He noted there was a variance request for parking. The Commission recommended approval subject to reducing the height of the street light standard from 25 feet to 20 feet.

Mr. Bondra noted that the parking variance was based on the unknown mix of restaurant and retail.

After some discussion, it was clarified that the Commission was recommending changes to the parking lot lights, not the street lights. Mr. Hutton noted that it seemed that Planning and Zoning was designing lights on a regular basis and that the developer consistently agreed to the changes in order to obtain an affirmative vote, however, the Council had no idea whether these changes were adequate. He recalled that they previously received a report on this issue, but had chosen not to act on it. He suggested they might want to re-evaluate the issue.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Brian Harrington, Allstate Consultants, explained that along Vandiver they were proposing an 8 foot sidewalk. He pointed out that the lights in question were parking lot lights, not street lights.

Mr. Loveless pointed out a discrepancy in the drawings regarding the Vandiver sidewalk. Mr. Harrington said it was their intent for the sidewalk along Vandiver to be 8 feet and apologized for any confusion.

Mr. John asked Mr. Harrington how the lighting plans were affected when they spaced out their lighting based on 25 feet and were then told to plan them at 20 feet. He wondered if that caused dark spots. Mr. Harrington indicated the lighting was generally developed based upon what the specific retailer was accustomed to and what they felt would be appropriate in regards to traffic and safety concerns.

Mr. Hutton asked if they changed the fixture itself when they lowered the light or if they just assumed they would have dark spots. Mr. Harrington was not sure, but thought there would be dark spots. He added that the locations were already illustrated on the plan and that they could not change the locations at this point, even if they were to reduce them by five feet. Mr. Hutton felt that was why standards were needed.

Mr. Janku asked if the 64 square feet allowed for wall signage was per business or per the overall development. Mr. Harrington stated he thought it was equivalent to C-3 zoning, which allowed a sign for each tenant. Mr. Bondra believed that each tenant could have 64 square feet of wall signage.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B162-04 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:

B163-04 Approving the Hilton Garden Inn at Centerstate Crossings C-P development plan.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 6.3 acre tract which would allow for a four-story 152 room hotel. He noted it was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission subject to reducing the light standard to 20 feet.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Brian Harrington, Allstate Consultants, offered to answer any questions.

Mr. Loveless felt there might be too much signage. Mr. Harrington explained there would be two monument signs, one along Vandiver on the north side of the entrance and the second just east of it on the entrance off the private street. Mr. Harrington distributed a drawing showing the wall signs. He noted the signs were a little larger than what was typically put on wall signs, but said that was mainly due to their location and sense of perception, being a four story building. He provided pictures of a similar Hilton Garden Inn and pointed out the signage would be the same as what was shown on the picture.

Mr. Janku asked if this would be a two phase project. Mr. Harrington replied that they had initially planned an adjacent conference center, but it was not in their plans at this time. Mr. Janku assumed that was the reason for less parking. Mr. Harrington replied that was correct.

Mayor Hindman asked about the 20 foot lighting. Mr. Harrington explained the plan was amended to reflect the 20 feet.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Loveless reiterated his thought that there might be too many signs. He could see the propriety of the monument sign on Vandiver, but not on the private drive. He noted a significantly scaled wall sign on the east face of the building showing it was a Hilton Garden Inn. If looking at it from the Bass Pro Shop to the west, he felt it would be seen.

Mr. Ash understood the reason for limiting the number of signs was to avoid visual clutter. He could see being overprotective of bombarding someone with visual pollution along the public right-of-way, but did not feel the extra signs would be a problem at the interior where there was a lot of commercial with people needing to know where to go.

Mr. Hutton disagreed with Mr. Loveless as well. He noted monument signs were something they implemented instead of free standing bollard signs. He did not see the 6 ½ foot monument sign as a problem.

Mayor Hindman asked what size wall signs would be permitted if this was zoned C-3. Mr. Bondra stated that the total wall signage allowed under C-3 would be 256 square feet, assuming the private street was a public street, and they were proposing 368 square feet. Mr. Janku was comfortable with the monument signs, but wished the wall signs would adhere to the C-3 standard. Mayor Hindman agreed.

Mr. Hutton asked how the square footage of the sign was measured. Mr. Bondra believed a geometric shape was drawn around the lettering and then measured. Mr. Hutton commented that if it was rectangular there would be a lot of space that was not actually signed. Mr. Patterson explained the practice to be to take the group of words and make a rectangle out of them for the signage. If it was two lines, it would be two rectangles.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that they restrict the wall signs to C-3 standards. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.

Mr. John noted they were again redesigning signs during a Council meeting. He asked if freestanding signs were allowed in C-3 even if there were monument signs. Mr. Bondra said he would have to check the regulations because it might be an "either or" situation in the case of a hotel. For buildings other than hotels, he said, you could have a wall sign and a free standing sign based on the street frontage. Mr. John asked if they wanted a freestanding sign as well as a wall sign, how big of a freestanding sign they could have. He was concerned that they could opt for the wall signs and freestanding signs instead of just wall signs in that case.

Mr. Hutton noted if they passed the motion they would be reducing their signage by 30%.

Dr. Raymond Perry, developer of the Hilton Garden Inn, felt signage to be very important because a lot of their customers would be coming in at night and might have difficulty finding the facility. He explained the wall signs would be done tastefully with channel letters, not block letters. He also noted the square foot calculation was based on block letters and that channel lettering involved less square footage. Mr. Perry pointed out the signage used was based upon studies conducted by the Hilton Hotels. He explained one of the signs was to get people off of the highway and to come to the development. Another, in front, was for people coming in from the intersection. He also pointed out the entrance on Vandiver was not the main entrance since it was a right in, right out. The main entrance was off the secondary road.

Mr. Ash felt this was not a major issue.

Mr. Janku preferred wall signs to pole signs and suggested they encourage people to move in that direction.

Mayor Hindman withdrew his motion and Mr. Janku withdrew his second.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B163-04 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:

B171-04 Calling for bids for street construction on Rowe Lane and sidewalk along Worley Street adjacent to the Sanford-Kimpton Health Facility.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained the project would include the construction of a six foot sidewalk on the north side of West Worley along the front of the Boone Health Center and a turnaround at the end of Rowe Lane. The estimated cost for the sidewalk and turnaround was $78,000 and $52,000, respectively. The source of the funding would be Community Development Block Grant money.

Mr. Janku asked about putting in a curb or something that would not cost $52,000. Mr. Patterson pointed out that some stormwater drainage work, which included piping and drop inlets, was also included in the cost.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Mark Shutley, Balwin, Missouri, explained that he owned the residential lot on the corner of Tammy and Rowe. He was glad to see the cul-se-sac since it would eliminate cut-through traffic. He noted that the termination of Rowe Lane would allow for future vacation of Tammy Lane and asked what would happen to the road surface once it was vacated. He was concerned about it growing up in weeds. Mr. Shutley was also concerned about the mention of property swapping with the MFA commercial property. He asked how much of the Tammy Lane property might be swapped out. He stated he was glad to see the stormwater issues being addressed. Mr. Shutley felt one of his shrubs would have to be removed when the cul-de-sac was put in and asked about an allowance for the replacement of those kinds of things.

In regards to the abandoned portion of Tammy Lane, Mr. Patterson explained that a parking lot was planned behind the Health Facility. It was being designed in such a manner that they hoped it could be done in conjunction with Tammy Lane. The area scarified due to the storm drainage work would be put back. They would not leave it as a hard surface or unattended. Mr Patterson stated the property exchange would provide the opportunity for the commercial property owner to square up some of the property lines and that it would be to everyone's advantage. They did not intend to give them any more encroachment back into the residential area and it would be confined to the eastern portion toward West Boulevard. In regards to the shrubbery, Mr. Patterson noted that one of the reasons for the offset, irregular shaped cul-de-sac was to minimize impact on that property. He was not certain what shrubbery might have to be removed, but said compensation was typically provided or the shrubbery was part of a replacement plan discussed when acquiring the easement. He pointed out that they still had to obtain some easements and proposed dividing the two projects in an effort to start the sidewalk while they developed the cul-de-sac on Rowe Lane.

Mr. Janku asked if the parking lot would be landscaped. Mr. Patterson said it would.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Ash suggested that Mr. Shutley visit with the Public Works Staff. Mr. Patterson explained that they have held interested parties meetings in the area and have also contacted everyone in the neighborhood to provide them an opportunity for input and to let them know what was going on.

Mr. Ash complimented the Staff on their creativity with this project.

B171-04 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:

B181-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Lake Shire Estates, Plat 1; providing for payment of differential costs.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this would be done under current City policy where Water and Light Department funds were used to construct a larger diameter pipe over and above that needed for the development. The project would consist of 3,560 feet of eight inch water main, instead of six inch, at an estimated cost to the Water and Light funds of $13,599.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B181-04 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:

B182-04 Calling for bids for replacement of a maintenance building and the modification of coal bunkers at the City Power Plant.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained two projects at the Power Plant had been included during the last budget process. This would provide for the removal of a maintenance building in favor of a new building at an estimated cost of $550,000. They would modify and expand the coal bunker in order to increase coal storage capacity and improve safety clearances at an estimated cost of $185,000. Both projects would be paid out of the Water and Light Department funds.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B182-04 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:

B186-04 Authorizing construction of improvements to Stephens Lake Park.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Hood noted that the $604,700, which came from the Park Sales Tax, was included in the City's FY 04 budget. This was the fourth and final funding phase of the $2.5 million project. He provided a summary of the items that would be funded during this phase and pointed out the Staff would use a combination of contract and force account labor to complete the proposed project. Mr. Hood stated they planned to begin construction on the roadway and the perimeter trail this construction season. It was likely that a majority of the perimeter trail would be completed this fall, however, the portion than ran along East Broadway would be impacted by and coordinated with the widening of East Broadway and he did not believe that would be completed this fall. He pointed out that they have realigned the Broadway entrance to be opposite the East Gate Plaza entrance, as previously discussed with the Council. He also noted that the roadway, which broke to the east, had been shifted slightly to the north as a result of the design discussions with the Highway Department about that entrance and in order to avoid five very large trees.

Mr. Ash asked why they decided on a ten foot concrete walk instead of chat, which was on the MKT Trail. Mr. Hood noted a high number of disabled people living in the near vicinity and stated that during the public forums there was strong interest indicated for a paved surface so that it would be easily accessible to the disabled population, seniors, and mothers with young children pushing strollers and wheeled vehicles of various types. From Staff perspective, Mr. Hood noted the paved concrete trail provided a lower maintenance type trail for them. Mr. Ash asked if asphalt was ever used or if concrete was the best and cheapest way to go. Mr. Hood replied that they found the maintenance of the asphalt to be higher based upon the one asphalt trail at Cosmo Park. In the long run, considering all cost, they believed concrete to be the most efficient option.

Mr. Janku asked at what point construction would begin on the day camp facility. Mr. Hood was hopeful to initiate construction this construction season. They were finalizing plans for the building and expected to have it out to bid within a few weeks. Mr. Janku asked if there was any thought given to having it closer to the southwest quadrant of the park where it would have a good view of the lake. Mr. Hood replied that they had looked at both areas when doing the Master Plan and thought there was a lot of interest in keeping the area as an open green view into the park off of Broadway rather than locating a structure there. He noted the chosen location was one of the high points in the park and had a very nice view of the entire park.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. John commented that ever since the City bought this park, it had been under construction. He felt a lot of people were wondering if it was ever going to be open for public use. He suggested after this portion was done that the public be given use of the facility before beginning other construction.

B186-04 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:

B187-04 Authorizing construction of improvements to Indian Hills Park; transferring funds.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that the proposed shelter was to be 26 by 26 with an estimated cost of $31,000 and that Community Development Block Grant funds would be used.

Mr. Hood pointed out that the shelter would be located in the northeast corner of the park. He displayed a picture of the proposed style shelter on the overhead. He explained the existing structure had been there for many years and was in poor condition. Staff felt the new structure would make a very nice addition to the park.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B187-04 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) Voluntary annexation of property located on the south side of Rustic Road and at the north terminus of Warren Drive.

Item A was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as 97 acres located east of the present City limits. The applicant was requesting R-1 zoning. He noted an ordinance would be introduced later on the agenda and that no action was required at this time.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

(B) Voluntary annexation of property located on the west side of U.S. Highway 63, approximately 1,000 feet north of Brown School Road.

Item B was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this parcel consisted of 197 acres owned by Boone County and pointed out there had been quite bit of discussion on this in the past in meetings with the County Commission.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comment, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

(C) Construction of Sewer District No. 154 (West Broadway, Glenwood Avenue, Westwood Avenue and Maupin Road).

Item C was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Patterson explained that the area consisted of 51 separate parcels of land and would cost slightly over $500,000. Under current policy, in regards to the replacement of private common collectors, the sanitary sewer utility would pay for one-half of the cost and the other half would be tax billed against property owners benefitting from the construction of sewer lines. In this case, he stated, the maximum rate was $0.2133 per square foot with individual assessments ranging from $14,200 down to $1,600. The cap of $5,000 on the initial tax bill would affect about 13 of the 51 parcels. This would result in about $29,000 of deferred tax bills. In conjunction with this project, Mr. Patterson pointed out they would be designing and bringing forward an associated storm drainage project for a public hearing. Their hope was to perform this work at the same time as the sewer project in order to minimize disruption of the properties. He noted they have had several contacts with property owners and have tried to look at alternatives that would minimize the impact on properties. He explained there would be approximately 3,200 feet of open cut line which they felt could not be avoided. About 1,500 feet of that would be on private property and about 1,700 feet would be installed in street right-of-way. He noted they were using a pipe burst technology on approximately 1,550 lineal feet. They were not able to address all concerns, but tried to take them into consideration.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Doug Hunt, 206 Westwood, noted that his home was built in 1979 and that he had a relatively new PVC line which went directly into the collector on Maupin. Although the old collector ran through his lawn, he did not use it and would therefore not be benefitting from the change. However, he stated he was willing to pay his fair share for a project in which some of his neighbors would benefit. His major concern regarded tree loss, which he felt would affect several lots. Of the 51 lots in the project, he noted 13 were completely traversed with open trenches. In his case, he felt the open trench was most likely to affect a very large walnut tree. Consulting standard resources on tree replacement, Mr. Hunt pointed out that the value of the tree might be between $6,325 and $9,000. If it died, there would be an added expense of up to $2,000 to remove the tree. He suggested this was a dramatic project for some who was not experiencing difficulties.

Charles Snyder, 110 Westwood, explained that six years ago he noticed raw sewage running out of his neighbor's house on Maupin Road. When he called the State Health Department he was told it was up to the property owner to address the situation. Since then, he had been trying to get the lines replaced in the area. Mr. Snyder suggested the project be done now, before it got any more expensive.

Steve Schopp, 700 W. Broadway, commented that he recently found out that he was part owner of a private sewer district that he never knew existed. He felt he and his neighbors were being asked to give up something without any compensation because they did not have a problem with the sewer. He objected to paying for any part of the project. He questioned the method for arriving at the tax bill amounts and asked why the total amount could not be divided by 51. He also did not understand the $5,000 cap, explaining that he was one of the 13 residences which would be charged over that amount. He also pointed out that he owned one lot, not two.

Christian Quin, 719 W. Broadway, explained that she was one of the property owners who was not experiencing any problems. She noted other work might be done in the area and asked that everything be done at the same time as to not disturb the properties more than once.

Dan Cass, 605 W. Broadway, said every time a bond issue passed and sewers were expanded to the outer areas of the City, they helped pay for it. They also helped pay for maintenance of the sewer. Mr. Cass was concerned that people annexed into the City who had never paid a penny towards anything related to sewer issues were treated the same. He asked how much of the maintenance fee was going toward the sewer for which they were getting no credit. Mr. Cass stated he had no problems with his sewer and did not want a new one. He pointed out that there were a lot of people on the north side of Broadway who felt the same way.

Blaise Brazos, 615 W. Broadway, asked about the $5,000 cap and the reasoning behind it. He asked the Council to table the issue until an explanation was given. Although his house in not included in the district, he spoke against the issue. He felt that every time a bond issue passed, they were paying for somebody else's wastewater treatment capacity.

David Shanker, 107 Westwood, agreed with many issues voiced by his neighbors and said he would like to hear responses about the trees, the development, the sidewalks on Broadway, and the fact that so many people were not affected. Although he had no sewer problems, he realized there were those that did have real problems in the neighborhood and understood something had to be done, particularly in the low lying areas around Maupin.

Lou Mazacco, 301 W. Parkway, just east of the proposed sewer district, stated he lived in the house at the lowest point in the neighborhood. He indicated that he would like to speak in favor of the project, but had serious reservations due to the possible downstream impact. As far back as he could remember, his house, as well as other houses in the immediate neighborhood, have had to deal with water problems originating from sanitary and stormwater sewers. He and his family have spent $3,000 to make improvements in an attempt to have a dry basement. This did not include money spent cleaning and repairing due to damage from backed up sewerage and from surface water getting into the basement. Work completed by the City in recent years had helped lessen water problems, but did not eliminated them. Mr. Mazacco noted the neighborhood was continually plagued with flooded sanitary sewers due to cross contamination stormwater flowing into the sanitary sewers. He had not seen any proposed improvements downstream of the designated areas that would manage the additional sanitary and stormwater that flowed into the system in his neighborhood. He commented that the manhole and a 48 inch oval storm water drain in his front yard had six inches of water on top of it during the recent storm. He asked if Public Works had a plan to increase the size of the main outlet pipes in the sanitary system or if they had a plan to reduce or eliminate cross contamination of the waters so as to lessen the chance of flooding in his neighborhood. He also asked about alternative routes the system could take to lessen the chances of flooding in his neighborhood. He suggested bringing the stormwater straight down Maupin Road and into John Stewart Park, just like they did when putting in two new drains for the Library.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Patterson explained they did have a a stormwater improvement project planned in this neighborhood which would also address the problems on Maupin Road. He explained that the replacement of private common collectors was only part of the sewer utility comprehensive program and that they would address the downstream and increased capacity issues as well. The overall plan included eliminating the infiltration coming from private common collectors where the pipe was deteriorated causing water to readily flow into the system and increase the flow into the pipes downstream. They also budget over one-half million dollars per year to reline and rehabilitate the trunk and main lines in downstream areas. The were also completing the sewer utility master plan, which would further identify areas of need where capacity constraints existed and pipe conditions were such that they needed to put special emphasis on replacement. Mr. Patterson reiterated that they were looking at this in a comprehensive manner, not just as isolated cases. In areas like this, it was never easy to implement projects that did not impact some people adversely. He pointed out that it was not uncommon to hear people living at the top of the hill state they were not experiencing problems, but that Staff felt they were part of the overall problem and should be part of the overall solution. He explained the rationale for the $5,000 cap was based upon looking at typical subdivisions, typical lot sizes, past experiences with past sanitary sewer construction costs and what appeared to be an acceptable or average tax bill against an individual residential property. Anything over that amount was to be deferred until redevelopment occurred. Regarding the City's share, he reminded everyone that the sanitary sewer utility was picking up a minimum of one-half of the project cost. In reference to tree removal, Mr. Patterson stated that some trees would have to be taken out, but added they would try to minimize the impact.

Mr. Beck explained a policy had been in place since 1960 wherein the City paid for treatment facilities, major pumping stations, and trunk sewers up to 80-acre points so that all new developments could be treated equally. He noted sewer lines in subdivisions and street sewers were paid by either the subdividers or the developers, who passed on those costs on to the lot owners. Once the lines were built to standard, the City took on maintenance for them. The City had never accepted ownership of older lines because they were not built to standard, but had been doing some maintenance work on them to assist people experiencing problems.

Mr. Janku pointed out that the creation of sewer districts had been going on for years, largely in the older parts of Columbia. He noted that they had been rebuilding the inner part of the City for a long period of time, as reflected by the number of sewer districts that had formed. Funds were coming from throughout the community and the community was working together. Mr. Janku paid for his when he bought his home in a new subdivision and added that he would also be paying toward this sewer district.

Mr. John reiterated that everyone in Columbia would be paying slightly over half because of the caps on the tax bills. He noted there were sewer lines throughout the City with no easements and no maintenance agreements, and the City did not know where they went or how big they were. They just knew sewage was coming down into the City system. Regarding the people up stream that stated they did not have a problem and that it was the guy downstream with the problem, he suggested that they could disconnect from the sewer system, run their own sewer all the way down and pay for the whole thing on their own, but that did not make sense either because they would be paying tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases. He pointed out that Staff had worked diligently to implement the pipe bursting method so they would not have to dig everywhere. He was sure that in places they had to dig, they would do it in the best possible spot to avoid disruption to homes and trees.

Mr. Hutton understood this to be a burden, as well as a lot of money, but pointed out the City was doing at least two things to try to reduce the burden. He explained that everyone else in the City who paid a sewer bill was be paying over half of the cost of this because of the $5,000 cap and that since this was a tax bill situation, they would have ten years to pay for it. The purpose was to try to make this as fair as possible.

Mr. Loveless pointed out that there were five districts being worked on now in older parts of the Fourth Ward. This was simply rebuilding something whose useful life had passed for the good of all, even if they lived at the top of the hill and were not experiencing problems. Regarding the assessment method, he was not sure there would ever be a perfect way to define how one family would pay one amount and then another family pay something different. He felt paying on the square footage of the lot seemed to be the most equitable way found so far.

Mayor Hindman pointed out that after the project wass completed, these people would be in the same position as a new subdivision and the City would take over all maintenance and replacement.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that Staff be directed to proceed with detailed plans and specifications for Sewer District 154. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D) Construction of the Cow Branch Outfall Sewer Extension Project.

Item D was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this project would extend the Cow Branch Outfall Sewer approximately 750 feet from its current terminus to the Juvenile Justice Center Pump Station. This would also remove the existing pump station. The estimated cost was $115,000.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Tom Murphy, 4016 Bent Oak, member of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission, asked the Council to consider an easement on this property for a future trail.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Janku thought it was conceivable at some point that they might want a trail in the area, but since it was the County's, they would not need to talk to them about it. Mayor Hindman thought they could be alerted. Mr. Patterson said they would contact them, but noted that it would have to be a separate discussion because they already had the sewer easement.

Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff be directed to proceed with the Cow Branch Outfall Sewer Extension project. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

OLD BUSINESS

B164-04 Approving the Cross Creek PUD site plan.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Bondra explained this proposed 102 unit development would consist of two and three unit structures. It was unanimously approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission subject to two conditions.

Mr. Janku pointed out that the Staff Report noted the need for parkland in the area.

B164-04 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:

B175-04 Calling for bids for the F-1 Relief Sewer - Phase 1 (UMC South Campus Relief Sewer) and Maryland Avenue Drainage Project - Phase 1.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted there had been a substantial change to the estimated project cost since the time of the public hearing.

At the time of the public hearing, Mr. Patterson pointed out there had been a request to extend the storm drainage project across other property and they were under the impression that the property at 915 Maryland would be tearing down part of the building and building a parking lot, which would have allowed putting that portion of the storm drainage system where the building was currently located. Those plans had changed, which necessitated a redesign. The end result was a total estimated cost of $233,000 for the storm drainage work instead of $68,000. The sewer project stayed the same as it was originally proposed. Mr. Patterson pointed out this was part of a larger project planned for FY 06 and that they were essentially moving money forward. All of the storm drainage project could not be done at this time because it would have to be coordinated with work done by the University, which would not be ready until 2006.

B175-04 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:

B178-04 Authorizing a road construction cost reimbursement agreement with THF Grindstone Plaza, L.L.C. relating to the Green Meadows Road extension project.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Patterson stated that Green Meadows Road had been a high priority project for quite some time. He said they were prepared earlier this year to proceed with bidding the project, but approval of the Grindstone Plaza Center created a need for some adjustment to the vertical alignment of Green Meadows if they were going to proceed with construction of the shopping center. He said the City was prepared to go ahead with the project as it had been designed, but noted it did not make sense to put it in and then have it torn out at a later date to accommodate the entrance to the Wal-Mart Center. In discussions with the developer, it was agreed that if the City designed and changed the grading to accommodate their development, they would pay all additional costs associated with it. This would consist of taking out slightly over 200 feet of the existing pavement already built on Green Meadows. That cost was estimated to be $210,000. Mr. Patterson pointed out the biggest part of this was being funded with Surface Transportation Program funds that had accumulated over a period of time and had to be spent before they were taken back by the State for other projects. It was important to get the project under contract this year.

Mayor Hindman understood there was to be a pedway included. Mr. Patterson replied that all of the elements included at the public hearing would be constructed with this portion.

When approving the zoning for the Wal-Mart Center, Mr. John noted there had been a commitment to form a TDD and to actually pay for all of the construction of Green Meadows. He pointed out that this agreement was just for the additional cost. His concern was that the L.L.C. making this agreement with the City was not the owner of the property. He asked what would happen if the buyer did not close on the contract. He also asked if the City had control over zoning on the property to require the commitment to pay for the road if another developer came along to do basically the same type of retail center or some other use consistent with the granted zoning. Mr. Boeckmann replied that when the rezoning occurred there had also been approval of a development plan. Part of the ordinance was that before there was a final plat there would be a development agreement, which would outline a lot of things and include everything that was discussed at the two public hearing. He pointed out that we had not gotten to that stage yet. He felt there could be problems if this development were not to move forward. If it was just a question of different people doing the same thing, he thought the Council would be in the position to try to enforce the TDD repayment. But if the scope of that development was changed drastically, he thought they might have trouble with it. If things changed drastically, Mr. John assumed a new plan would have to be submitted and the Council would have the opportunity to discuss what fees might be charged and accepted. Mr. Boeckmann said that was true and if someone picked up the plan, they would take all of the strings attached to it.

Mr. Beck understood the financing of Green Meadows Road would be out of the capital improvement plan except for this adjusted area. Mr. John said that was correct, but that the commitment at the hearing was that the City would later be entirely reimbursed by the TDD.

Craig Van Matre, an attorney with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, said he spoke specifically with Roger Schwartze, District Engineer for MoDOT, about this very point. He was assured by Mr. Schwartze that it would not violate MoDOT protocol, that they would approve reimbursement versus direct payment, and that there would be no strings attached to it regarding what the City did with the reimbursement thereafter. In other words, Mr. Van Matre said, it would not be subject to the same refund limitation they were up against right now with the initial funding. He stated unless the City or MoDOT objected, he was confident it would be approved as a project and that the Bond Council would approve of it. He said if he was completely wrong about this, they would make it up to the City in some fashion. Mr. Van Matre stated it was not their intent to skate the issue.

Mr. Boeckmann interjected that for the Centerstate development, the State raised that objection when the TDD was being formed, but later withdrew their objection.

B178-04 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:

B179-04 Authorizing the transfer of property from the Sewer Utility to the Parks and Recreation Department; dedicating a sewer utility easement for the Upper Hinkson Outfall Relief Sewer along the east side of the Stephens Lake Park property.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained the history of the property and noted, at the time of purchase, there was discussion about converting it into a neighborhood park. In order for that to occur, it was necessary for the property to be transferred to the Parks and Recreation Department. At the time the Upper Hinkson Outfall Sewer was being constructed, it was determined that a sewer easement was needed along the east side of the Stephens Lake Property. It was agreed that the departments would trade property rights.

B179-04 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:

B183-04 Authorizing an engineering services agreement with R. W. Beck, Inc. to review the Peabody Prairie States Energy Project.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

At the Council Retreat, Mr. Beck explained, the Water and Light Director made a presentation on the status of our electric power source. His suggestion was that we hire a firm to work with Staff to determine the feasibility of entering into an agreement with other agencies for purchasing power from the new plant being proposed in Illinois.

Mayor Hindman pointed out that the City Manager was in no way related to R. W. Beck, Inc.

B183-04 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:

B188-04 Amending Ordinance No. 017838 relating to the definition of family memberships at The ARC.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Hood explained they had looked at this to determine whether or not individuals who qualified as dependents under the IRS guidelines could be included as part of the family membership. The new family definition was such that a maximum of two adults and up to three children or dependents residing at one residence would meet the definition of a family. He reiterated the definition of dependents was based upon the IRS definition.

B188-04 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:

CONSENT AGENDA

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

B165-04 Approving the Final Plat of Bay Hills, Plat No. 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B166-04 Approving the Final Plat of Mill Creek Manor, Plat No. 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B167-04 Approving the Replat of portions of Lots 76, 77, 78,115 and 116 of Columbia Old Town.

B168-04 Vacating street right-of-way for a portion of Old 63; accepting easements for utility purposes.

B169-04 Vacating street right-of-way in conjunction with the proposed Final Plat of Cernterstate Plat 2.

B170-04 Approving the Final Plat of Centerstate Plat 2.

B172-04 Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to contract with N-J Wilson Contracting, Inc.; approving the Engineer's Final Report relating to the Bicknell-Walnut Storm Drainage project.

B173-04 Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to contract with Emery Sapp & Sons, Inc.; approving the Engineer's Final Report relating to construction of the pedestrian bridge over I-70.

B174-04 Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to contract with Columbia Curb & Gutter Company; approving the Engineer's Final Report relating to construction of the Paris Road pedestrian bridge over Business Loop 70.

B176-04 Authorizing a grant of easement for the construction of the fire station at Columbia Regional Airport.

B177-04 Authorizing a Right of Use permit with Lake of the Woods Transportation Development District to allow the installation of landscaping and an irrigation system within a portion of the Bull Run Drive and Port Way rights-of-way.

B180-04 Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code as it relates to special pedestrian control signals.

B184-04 Authorizing an agreement with Wisconsin Electric Power Company for market rate electric power sales and the resale of transmission rights.

B185-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B189-04 Appropriating funds to install fiber optic cable to Columbia Regional Airport.

B190-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Safety Center for the Missouri Police Chiefs Association Step Grant; appropriating funds.

B191-04 Authorizing an amendment to the Regional Public Health Emergency Planning and Preparedness contract with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services; appropriating funds.

R107-04 Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located east of Range Line Street (State Route 763) and south of Prathersville Road.

R108-04 Setting a public hearing: authorizing construction of storm drainage improvements at 4609 Oakview Drive.

R109-04 Setting a public hearing: authorizing construction of storm drainage improvements at 201 West Ash Street.

R110-04 Setting a public hearing: replacement of water main along Melbourne Street.

R111-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of sideboards at the roller hockey court in Cosmopolitan Recreation Area.

R112-04 Setting a public hearing: transfer of a cable television franchise from Charter Communications Entertainment I, L.L.C. to Falcon Telecable, a California limited partnership.

R113-04 Authorizing acceptance of a thermal imaging camera from the Columbia Police Foundation.

R114-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the 2004 Summer Food Service Program.

R115-04 Accepting an emergency shelter grant program contract with the State of Missouri Family Support Division; authorizing agreements with various human service agencies.

R116-04 Authorizing an agreement with The Curators of the University of Missouri for the annual Fourth of July celebration.

R117-04 Authorizing an agreement with Fire in the Sky/KMIZ-TV for funding for the annual Fourth of July celebration.

R118-04 Authorizing an agreement with Trabue, Hansen & Hinshaw, Inc. for engineering services related to the Business Loop 70 sidewalk project.

R119-04 Authorizing a supplemental agreement with the Missouri Department of Transportation for construction of sidewalk improvements along the north side of Business Loop 70.

R120-04 Authorizing an amendment to the FY 2003 CDBG Action Plan.

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, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:

NEW BUSINESS

R121-04 Extending the existence of the Cable Television Task Force.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained the group was asking to have their terms extended until the Council renewed the current cable television franchises. They would be submitting an interim report following their July 1st meeting. Mr. Beck noted that they were also suggesting the franchise fee be increased by two percent with the fee being used to fund public access television.

Mr. Ash inquired as to whether this group should be made into a committee rather than a task force at some point in time. Once the renewals went into effect, especially if the public access channel was created, he thought there would be ongoing issues they could work with. Mayor Hindman thought that was a definite possibility, but thought they should wait until that occurred.

The vote on R121-04 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:

B192-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the south side of Rustic Road and at the north terminus of Warren Drive; establishing permanent R-1 zoning.

B193-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the west side of U.S. Highway 63, approximately 1,000 feet north of Brown School Road; establishing permanent M-1 zoning.

B194-04 Rezoning property located on the west side of Maryland Avenue, between Rollins Street and Kentucky Boulevard from R-3 to C-P; approving the Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity C-P development plan; granting a variance relating to perimeter screening.

B195-04 Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code to establish new criteria for surface commercial parking lots in the Central Business District.

B196-04 Approving the Final Plat of Eastport Plat 1-A; authorizing a performance contract; granting a variance relating to C-P development plan approval.

B197-04 Approving the Final Plat of Eastport Plat 1-B; authorizing a performance contract; granting a variance relating to C-P development plan approval.

B198-04 Approving the Final Plat of Woodland Springs Plat 2; authorizing a performance contract; granting a variance relating to C-P development plan approval.

B199-04 Approving the Final Plat of Forest Ridge Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract; authorizing a development agreement.

B200-04 Calling for bids for the construction of storm drainage improvements at 4609 Oakview Drive.

B201-04 Calling for bids for the construction of storm drainage improvements at 201 West Ash Street.

B202-04 Calling for bids for the Green Meadows Road improvement project.

B203-04 Calling for bids for the Rollins and Rothwell drainage improvement project.

B205-04 Accepting conveyances for sewer, utility, drainage and street purposes.

B206-04 Authorizing replacement of water main along Melbourne Street.

B207-04 Authorizing an agreement with J. C. Industries, Inc. for construction of water main along University Avenue from College Avenue to Ninth Street.

B208-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B209-04 Calling for bids for the construction of sideboards at the roller hockey court in Cosmopolitan Recreation Area; accepting grant funds; appropriating funds.

B210-04 Authorizing the transfer of a cable television franchise from Charter Communications Entertainment I, L.L.C. to Falcon Telecable, a California limited partnership.

B211-04 Amending Chapter 18 of the City Code as it relates to Police and Fire pension plans.

B212-04 Appropriating funds for Share the Light Program.

B213-04 Accepting a grant and authorizing an agreement with The Missouri Foundation for health for the Hepatitis C Risk Reduction Program; amending the 2004 Annual Budget by adding one position; appropriating funds.

B214-04 Accepting FEMA Homeland Security grant funds for the purchase and installation of exhaust removal systems in City fire stations; appropriating funds.

REPORTS AND PETITIONS

(A) Intra-departmental transfer of funds.

Report accepted.

(B) Street closure request/use of downtown sidewalks.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the requests be granted as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C) Salute to Veterans Air Show - 2005.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that the request be approved as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D) Park de Ville Drive - parking restrictions.

Mr. Beck explained the request to be restricted parking on the east side of Park de Ville, south of Ash Street, for a distance of 350 feet.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that Staff be directed to draft an ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(E) Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission Report - pedestrian and bicycle facilities for Brown School Road in Auburn Hills Development, and for Smiley Lane.

Mr. Beck explained that Public Works Department felt that there should be a cost estimate made before given direction.

Mr. Janku commented that he had made the motion to refer this to the Commission and that he agreed that there should be more information. He thought it would be helpful if the information went to the Commission since the City was implementing a development agreement with the developer where they would put in the roads and the City would put in the pedestrian facilities. He was hoping to get guidance from the Commission as to what their priorities would be, particularly if there were constraints. He wanted to get their sense of what would be appropriate in terms of a pedway as opposed to a sidewalk. Mr. Janku thought they were just saying what they thought would be the best thing to have up there and asked that they be given the constraints so they might make a recommendation based upon those constraints. He also felt it would be helpful for them to have a report from Public Works and asked that they be made aware of what the development agreement stated so they had it in the right context. Mr. Ash asked how Staff could provide cost estimates until something was recommended. Mr. John thought they could give costs for five, eight, and ten foot sidewalk/pedways, if they had an average cost per foot and what the development agreement stated. The only thing they would still be missing was the budget constraints and how much the Council was willing to fund.

Mr. Ash felt the Commission's role was to provide their ideal recommendations as if there were unlimited resources. It would be the Council's responsibility to make the decision after receiving cost information from Public Works.

Mr. Janku was concerned that they asked for input from this Commission and gave them no information. He preferred to give them some information.

Mr. John agreed and said they would not be able to prioritize things if they did not know what their limit was. He said Staff could not give that to them because they did not have it. Mr. Janku thought there was a number talked about as far as costs at the time of the hearing. Mr. Patterson said there was an estimate of what the costs would be associated with sidewalks when the department provided the report to the Council so they would have an idea of what the developer would be doing versus the cost to the City. Mr. John did not think there was a commitment from the City stating that we would build our portion in a certain year. Mr. Patterson thought it was in the CIP.

Mr. Janku thought our expected contribution was about $400,000 and stated they could allocate it in a way that best met what the Commission perceived was the need of the bicycle and pedestrian community in that area. The Council had the right to disagree and could decide whether they wanted to do it or not.

Mr. John asked if he understood that Mr. Janku wanted to use the current CIP for that line item as a constraint on the project, to give them a cost per lineal foot for the project on the different amenities, and to have them prioritize based upon the constraint, even though it might be modified in two months. Mr. Janku said that was accurate.

Mr. John made the motion that the issue be sent back to the Commission while providing them information regarding the development agreement, giving them the CIP for that line item, letting them lay it out, and requesting they provide a recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(F) Chapter 12-A Amendment - Tree Preservation Logging Permit.

Mr. Loveless pointed out that in the definition section it mentioned the Soil Conservation Service. He explained that the organization was now called the Natural Resource Conservation Service. He asked that the language be changed.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that ordinance be placed on a future agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:

Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council the following individuals were appointed to the following Boards and Commissions:

CULTURAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION

Harris, Katherine G., 2400 Topaz, Ward 4 - term to expire 4/1/05

CULTURAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ART

Polley, Michael J., 721 Columbine Court, Ward 5 - term to expire 7/1/07

DISABILITIES COMMISSION

Boettcher, Lisa W., 3608 Blue Cedar, Ward 5 - term to expire 6/15/07 (disability)

Labadia, Sandra, 219 Anita Ct. #11, Ward 3 - term to expire 6/15/07 (knowledge)

Murdock, Fred A., 3909 Grace Ellen, Ward 2 - term to expire 6/15/07 disability)

Weston, Dovie S., 4316 Forum, Ward 5 - term to expire 6/15/07 (knowledge)

HEALTH INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Hentges, Mary L., 2317 Cherry Ridge Court, Ward 4 - term to expire 2/16/07

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

McCoy, Rachel L., 1750 West Way, County - term to expire 9/1/06

LIBRARY BOARD OF DIRECTORS - MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT

Gerding, Rosalie J., 101 S. Fifth St. #1, Ward 1 - term to expire 6/30/07

Richards, Thomas F., 1810 Valley Vista, Ward 4 - term to expire 6/30/07

Sapp, Jo, 1025 Hickory Hill, Ward 4 - term to expire 6/30/07

BOARD OF MECHANICAL EXAMINERS

Clithero, Philip J., 4208 S. Wappel, Ward 4 - term to expire 6/17/07

SUBSTANCE ABUSE ADVISORY COMMISSION

Mulkey, Carrie, 2741 Braemore, Ward 4 - term to expire 10/31/05

WATER & LIGHT ADVISORY BOARD

Macias, Gregory E., 600 Woodridge, Ward 3 - term to expire 6/30/08

COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC

Mr. Hutton commented that they had received a report on lighting standards a while back. He asked that it be put in ordinance form for debate purposes.

Mr. John thought they should be focusing on light spillage beyond certain amounts instead of worrying about how many lumens per square foot on the ground. He thought that should be up to the safety and desire of the property owner.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that the report be brought back for Council review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Loveless commented that he had heard concern voiced regarding the speed of cars coming eastbound on the new stretch of Rollins.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that the radar trailer be set up on the east end of the new Rollins connector. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Loveless noted they had been sent a growth management report recently and said he would like to see the discussion continued. Mayor Hindman pointed out the issue was placed on the work session list.

Mr. Loveless brought up the tax billing interest rate being 9% and made the motion that Staff be directed to report back on the issue of a more equitable rate. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku noted this was the last meeting the Pony Express mural would be on the Council Chamber wall before being sent away to be refurbished.

Mr. Janku commented that at the last meeting they approved commercial zoning on Providence Road, which was a break in a long standing policy. He asked if they should try to develop guidelines for what should be approved there or if they would react on a case by case basis. Mr. John pointed out, in the O-1 zoning, there were a lot of high traffic uses that were probably not anticipated at the time the policy was put in place. He suggested that they might want to look at the type of traffic generation instead of just the type of zoning. Although traffic was a difficult issue, Mr. Janku said, his main concern was the uses. Mr. John suggested sending it to the Planning Staff for their review before sending it to the Commission.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the issue be sent to the Planning Staff for their review. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku noticed they had been getting variance requests because plats were coming to them before plans. He asked if there was a reason for the policy or reasons for exceptions, and whether or not they should do away with it. Mayor Hindman thought they would be getting a report shortly regarding the whole planned district issue. Mr. John said that was true.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the issue be referred to the subcommittee working on planned districts. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mayor Hindman suggested that Staff be delegated the authority to approve the requests when a repetitive annual event was concerned, such as the Soap Box Derby. Mr. Janku thought the key was getting input from the downtown business community. Mr. Ash commented that from Council standpoint, it was only a one page request which they spent mere seconds on. Mr. Hutton suggested giving the Staff emergency power for cases where someone had forgotten to apply for closure in a timely manner and the Council would not be meeting again before the event. Mayor Hindman liked that approach.

Mr. Janku asked for a Staff Report on the issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mayor Hindman liked the idea of the new orbiter route, but did not think enough people were aware of it. He said he would like to see a report on painting the orbiter buses a certain color or looking at a trolley type thing, so that people would catch on to the special bus that came by every 15 minutes. Mr. John mentioned a radio station promoting the bus after painting it with their logo on it.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that Staff be directed to report back on possibilities of making the orbiter bus distinctive. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheela Amin

City Clerk