NOVEMBER 18, 1996

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, November 18, 1996, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri.  The roll was taken with the following results:  Council Members COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, and HINDMAN were present.  The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of November 4, 1996, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Kruse and a second by Mr. Campbell.

    The agenda, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Harline and a second by Ms. Coble.



                    OF WEST BROADWAY.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck pointed out that this bill had been tabled from the October 7 meeting.  The 2.2 acre tract was displayed on the overhead.  He said there was no recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission in that there had been a tie vote on the recommendation that it be zoned R-1.  He said the property owner had requested R-3 zoning.  He said the property had been developed with duplexes and there was one structure being used for R-3 multi-family use.  He explained that a protest petition had been received against R-2 or R-3 zoning; however, there was not an adequate number of signatures to make it legitimate.  He said the staff had suggested, if everyone seemed to be uncomfortable with the R-3 zoning that perhaps R-2 might be a possibility.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Frank Day, 4414 W. Broadway, spoke on behalf of his mother, owner of the property.  He said he wanted to speak in favor of R-3 or C-1.  He said Mr. Prato, President of the King's Meadow Association, had called him and asked what the Day's were planning.  Mr. Day said he had told him the only thing they wanted to do was to get hooked on to the sewer.  He said they have already done that and now they wanted to put the property in compliance.  He said there was a tri-plex on the property and his thinking was that if there was a casualty loss like a fire this income producing property would be able to continue to operate.  Mr. Day said Mr. Prato had told him he could understand his request and it was fine with him because they also had four-plexes and tri-plexes in their subdivision.  He had said he didn't think there would be a problem.  He said at the Planning and Zoning Commission about 15 or 20 people showed up demanding R-1.  He said at the Planning meeting Mr. John recognized that the property was on West Broadway.  Mr. Day noted that West Broadway was a main arterial street even though it was gravel in front of his house.   He said it would be extended and a by-pass would be built from West 70 to South 63 and Broadway would intersect with it.  He said the Council would hear that this was a predominantly R-1 neighborhood, but he said it was not.  He said if they squared the property and put his mother's property, the Smith property on Scott and W. Broadway, and King's Meadow, there would be 37 R-2 lots and 34 R-1 lots.  He said that would be 74 units in multi-family and 34 in R-1.
    Mr. Janku asked about the property owners to the west and north, in the County.  Mr. Day said Tommy Howard, Bill McBain, and one other person he didn't know were the owners.  He said the property across from them was owned by the McMickles and he was sure it would be coming into the City soon in some type of planned arrangement.  He was also sure that the Todd Farm would be coming into the City shortly.
    Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Day if he had met with any of the neighbors to try to work out something that would be compatible. At Mr. Campbell's suggestion, Mr. Day said he had called Mr. Prato and told him that R-2 would be fine.  He said Mr. Prato told him they wanted R-1 and nothing else.
    Scott Boyd, 102 Dayspring, explained that he lives on the property directly south of the Day property.  He said he was also speaking for their association as Tony Prato was out of the country at this point.  He asked the people living within King's Meadow to stand.  Approximately 30 to 36 people stood in favor of R-1.  He said they favored R-1 for several reasons.  The first reason was that they felt R-1 most closely resembles the development of the surrounding property.  He said there was no R-3 closer than Crossroads West and they didn't feel it would blend with any of the development that has gone on.  He said R-1 would be consistent with the zoning that the property currently has.  He said they didn't have a problem with what the Day's were doing on their property now.  He said the building referred to as a tri-plex actually had only two people living in it.  He said there were two apartments on the first floor and thought there was potential for a third apartment in the basement.  He said it hadn't been leased in the four years that he had lived in his home there.  He said he guessed Mrs. Day's house had an upstairs apartment, but he was not aware that anyone had leased that apartment in his four years there either.  Mr. Boyd said the area was not a transient type neighborhood.  In the King's Meadow Subdivision, he explained there were 38 single family houses built and 17 duplexes.  Out of the 17 duplexes, Mr. Boyd said 15 of them are condominiums, 12 of which are owner occupied and two leased with purchase agreements.  Regarding their petition, he said they were not aware they hadn't reached the criteria of having enough adjacent land owners for the petition to be accepted as proper.  He said the reason was that it included County property owners in addition to City property owners.  He said when they looked at it they thought it was only City property owners that could sign the petition.  He said they had made some calls today and they would be able to get enough signatures on it so they would have 30%.  He requested that if the Council couldn't recommend R-1 for this piece of property that they table the issue to allow the resubmission of the petition.  Mr. Boyd said Mr. Day was his neighbor and the only way he had found out about this was through a letter in the mail.  He said he had called Mr. Day the day before the Planning & Zoning meeting and they had not had a very pleasant conversation.  He said since that time Mr. Day had not talked to him.  Mr. Boyd said if the property were to be zoned R-3 and the Day's didn't own it anymore, it could be bulldozed and apartments could be put in.
    Mr. Harline asked why the King's Meadow Association was opposed to R-2.  Mr. Boyd said they would be opposed because their neighborhood has a covenant and to grant an R-2 zoning would permit a much higher density than what they have currently in the surrounding area and potentially have a development that would be substantially different than what is there.
    Mr. Kruse said if one were to drive by the homes they look like single family homes, not duplexes.
    Mr. Janku asked Mr. Boyd if the property owners of the R-1 structures on R-2 zoned property had ever thought about down zoning.  Mr. Boyd said he thought they would now.
    Jim Crone, 105 Bright Star, said he had lived there about a month when someone pointed out to him that their home was not the only duplex.  Because of how the homes are built and the covenants are such that everything resembles a single family development.  He said even though they are duplexes they don't look like it.  He said the same was true with the opponent's property.  He said they are single family homes and they had been well done.
    Mr. Harline said there was still the possibility of the R-2 area being redeveloped as a standard duplex.  Mr. Crone said the covenants would severely restrict the unrestricted R-2 language that would allow so much more than what is currently allowed there.
    Terry Briedenstein, 100 Dayspring, explained that her back yard was adjacent to Mr. Day's property.  To her knowledge, she said there were no tri-plexes and no four-plexes there.  She said that her house could be called a duplex because they finished space in their basement for her parents to live with them.  She said they have separate living quarters so she assumed it could qualify as a duplex, but she would never want her house to be called a duplex.  She said they had not had any problems with Mr. Day and they didn't want any.  She said their goal was to protect the long term use of the land, the neighborhood, the character, the property values in the neighborhood, and to keep it a owner occupied area for the majority versus having a lot of tenants come in.  She said Mr. Day had told her husband that he planned to build on the area that is a garden multiple units that would be used for rental.  She said that would put him within five to ten feet of their property line and about 60 feet from their back door.  She said she would be opposed to having rental units put up approximately 50 feet from their door.  She encouraged the Council to go with R-1 because it was the feel of the existing neighborhood.
    Scott Woodruff, 300 Bright Star Court, reiterated that there were no tri-plexes or four-plexes in the King's Meadow neighborhood.  He said he had lived there 10 years.  He said while Mr. Day was interested in protecting his income producing property he was interested in protecting his life producing property, his three children.  He said he had brought his children home from the hospital to an R-1 neighborhood.  He asked the Council to let his children grow up in the R-1 neighborhood to which he brought them home.
    Mr. Day said the tri-plex had always been occupied as three units for 35 years.  He said there were three people there now.
    Mr. Harline asked how long Mr. Day's property had been in the City.  Mr. Day said it had been in since July 9 of this year.  He said it was a voluntary annexation and there were lots of pieces of property like this one and the Council would have to deal with them.  He didn't believe the zoning laws would allow the City to bring in the pockets that are left.  He said this piece of property would not be in the City if they were to start over again.  He said King's Meadow was probably the best duplex development in town, but that couldn't change the fact that it is R-2.  He said tonight wasn't about this piece of property, but about Columbia and what was going to happen to the periphery with bringing it in and integrating it.  He said the big pieces would come in, but the small one's would not.
    Regarding the smaller parcels coming into the City, Ms. Coble asked why he thought voluntary annexations would be less appealing.  Mr. Day said people didn't want to put up with the hassle.
    Mr. Harline asked Mr. Day how many units he had rental certificates for.  Mr. Day said he realized they were in violation, but they hadn't applied for any certificates yet.
    Mayor Hindman asked if they had been zoned R-S in the county.  Mr. Day said they didn't know it because people in the county don't know what kind of zoning they are living in.  Mayor Hindman's point was that had they tried to get rezoning being R-S they would have faced the same issues.  Mr. Day said he would rather take his chances with the county.    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Campbell asked what the permitted number of units would be if they rezoned the property R-3.  Mr. Hancock said the ordinance would allow up to 17 units per acre on R-3, but he said he doubted that was what would occur on the site.  He said the ordinance would allow it, but he said it didn't actually reflect what gets built.  Mr. Campbell asked what would be built.  Mr. Hancock said he thought apartments and those they have seen were 12 to 13 or 14 per acre, high density apartments.  Mr. Campbell asked what they would see in R-2.  Mr. Hancock said they would see right around six duplex units per acre.  Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Boeckmann about their options if they wanted to change the zoning classification.  Since it had been advertised as R-3, Mr. Boeckmann said he didn't think they could go up to C-1 or anything more intense.  He said their options were to vote on the ordinance as it is or amend it to R-1 or R-2 and hold it over.  Mr. Campbell asked what would happen if they simply rejected R-3 zoning.  Mr. Boeckmann said they would have to start the process over.  He said when this property came in it was automatically placed in R-1 and it would remain that way for six months until permanent zoning is placed on it.  He said if they didn't want to go with R-3 he thought they should amend the ordinance before them.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that B299-96 be amended to permanent zoning as R-1 and that Section 2 be amended to read low density instead of medium density residential.  The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett.
    Mr. Campbell said this was a difficult decision to make because he could see some logic in what both sides were saying.  He said he was going to go with R-1 for several reasons.  He said the Day's would be grandfathered so they could use the property as it is now being used.  He said if the property burned or was otherwise destroyed to more than 60% they would not be able to maintain its use.  He said Mrs. Day was income protected.  He thought it would be spot zoning to go to R-3 and couldn't see it as C-1 at all.  In view of what the neighborhood had said and what was developing in the area, Mr. Campbell said he thought most of the area would eventually develop into R-1 with some R-2 scattered along some of the major thoroughfares.
    Mr. Janku said he would support the amendment because the property had been single family zoning in the county for a long time.  He said there was really no change coming into the City.  He said if West Broadway was to develop he thought how it developed should be determined by our Land Use Plan and not necessarily by a decision here tonight.
    Mr. Harline said he thought a 2.2 acre tract of R-3 by itself a difficult piece of land to develop.  He said if adjoining land were annexed and there was a larger tract of ground there would be a much more usable lot in R-3.  He said putting higher density residential along streets that are more likely to become collector or arterials was a pretty well established plan.  He said trying to get a better, overall plan out there might be a better approach.
    Mrs. Crockett said she would like to see the area remain R-1 for the neighborhood's sake.
    The motion to amend B299-96 made by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Mrs. Crockett, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that B299-96, as amended, be tabled to the December 2, 1996, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.

                    COLT RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this was an almost 36 acre tract of ground currently zoned A-1.  The Planning and Zoning Commission and the staff were recommending rezoning to M-1.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 601 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Scavone and Lillian Keene, Mrs. Scavone's mother.  He said the property had been in the City since 1968 and Mrs. Keene's family had owned the property since 1910.  He said the family had now found that they were in the way of progress and that all of their neighbors were industrial concerns.  He said they didn't know who would buy the property or what they would use it for, but they had been advised that to derive the best price for their property they should have in placed into the proper zoning classification because industrial users will not wait.  He said none of their neighbors were in opposition.
    Mr. Janku asked Mr. Simon if he had gotten any comments from the M-C property owners to the east.  Mr. Simon said he had.  He said he had written letters to all of the people along Route B, Waco Road, Mr. Heller, and Jeffrey Smith.  He said they had received a number of responses, all either stated that they were not opposed to the request or that they supported the request.  He said Mr. Heller's lawyer had appeared on his behalf in support of the request.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mrs. Crockett said this would give the City another piece of land zoned for industrial if a company were to come in and need it.  She was in favor of the request.
    B332-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

                    HANOVER BOULEVARD.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the request on this three acre tract of ground had been recommended for approval.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Ron Shy, 5600 S. Hwy. KK, offered to answer any questions.
    Mayor Hindman said the things that caused them the most concern were the driveways that would go onto Hanover Boulevard.  He said in reading the minutes the feeling was that there was no alternative.  Mr. Shy said with the lay of the land there probably wasn't.  He said it wasn't one of the designated roads preventing driveways to be brought out onto Hanover Boulevard.
    Mr. Campbell asked if any of the adjacent tract was under common ownership.  Mr. Shy said all of the land on the north side shown as A-1 and R-1 was under common ownership presently.  Mr. Campbell asked if the use of it had been determined.  Mr. Shy said it hadn't been decided yet.  He said there would be some R-1 in the area shown as R-1, but the rest of the area on the preliminary plat was shown as a PUD area. He said there had been some discussions only about possibly making a good portion of the area into a City park.  Mr. Campbell said his concern was not with this particular tract, but with how this whole package would fit together.  He said he was concerned about piecemeal kind of planning and development.  Mr. Shy said if the area north of it came in it would be all at one time as a PUD.  Mr. Campbell asked if it had been possible to see the whole plan if it would have been possible to reverse some of the lots or to have them access from some other way to avoid some of the concerns with driveways.  Mr. Hancock said the land was fairly rough in the back and probably could not be developed.  He said they were talking about an area in the back where the Council had indicated they wanted a park.  He said they were trying to deal with the topography, the desire for a park and their desire to just get some lots and access the sewer without having to come from another direction.  He said they couldn't make people preliminary plat an entire tract of ground.
    Mr. Janku said he had looked at the property and had noticed a drop off also.  He said if they would have put the restriction on Hanover the area could have been developed differently so there would be enough space.  He said with Olympic intersecting there they would probably see some sort of stop sign at the intersection that would make traffic slow down making it easier for cars to back out of their driveways.
    Mrs. Crockett said she thought the engineers had done the best job they could in this situation.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B333-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that B336-96 be amended per the amendment sheet.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku said Mr. Wade of the Planning and Zoning Commission raised the question as to whether or not there should be a seventh parameter dealing specifically with landscaping.  He thought that would be an appropriate parameter to include.  Mr. Kruse asked if that was set out in the ordinance.  Mr. Janku said his thought was that if a plan contains so much landscaping and then it goes to Mr. Hancock for a change it would be up to him to determine if it is a minor change.  He thought part of the reason for this was to give the staff some guidance so they felt comfortable making these decisions.  He thought landscaping was probably one of the most sensitive.
    Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Hancock if he had seen such instances.  Mr. Hancock said probably when they have been combined with other changes the landscaping plan had to change.  He didn't know that they had only the landscaping plan change come to them.  He said if it did it would go to the arborist and they would ask if it met the requirements of the ordinance, yes or no, and if it did then they would approve it.
    Mr. Harline asked Mr. Hancock if he felt comfortable with the language here.  Mr. Hancock said he wouldn't mind adding something if the Council wanted to add something about landscaping.  He said he thought they expressed to the Commission that they felt pretty comfortable with the way it was.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that B336-96 be amended by adding parameter (g):  the minimum percentage of the site to be maintained in landscaping to both O-P and C-P.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mayor Hindman asked if there would be a letter stating what the maximum or minimum of these different things would be.  Mr. Hancock said there would be the plan and then there would be minimums and general parameters that would be attached to it.  He said it wouldn't necessarily be at the time of zoning because one can get C-P zoning now with a list of uses right now without a plan.  He said they wouldn't do it then, but at the time the plan came in.  He said that way everyone would know what they were looking for when they wanted a revision.  He said they would know what would be allowed and would not be allowed when a revision was to be made.  Mr. Hancock said the big issue they wanted in the ordinance related to square footage.
    B336-96, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck commented that this was a small sewer district off West Worley Street and because it is a tax bill district, he asked Mr. Patterson to report on it.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Mr. Patterson explained that the public hearing was for the purpose of levying special assessments against three properties on West Worley where new sewer lines were recently constructed to replace an existing private common collector.  He said that collector had a history of stoppages at these locations resulting in environmental problems and maintenance expenses for the property owners so they petitioned the Council to replace it with a public sewer line.  He further explained that the project consisted of approximately 150 feet of eight inch sanitary sewer line, two manholes and a clean out, plus the reconnection of the houses to the public sewer.  The total cost of the project was $16,181.55 with the property owners being liable for assessment up to one-half of the maximum per square foot cost.  He said that would result in approximately $6,505 to be paid by tax assessments and the remainder to be paid out of the sewer utility fund.  He said benefits should be considered as follows:  the long history of stoppages, the elimination of the maintenance cost and the liability for those stoppages, the elimination of potential health hazards, and the traditional increase in property value which results from connection to a public sewer line.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B337-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Mr. Patterson explained that this was a street reconstruction project in a Community Development Block Grant area.  Prior to its reconstruction the street had been an asphalt pavement street, approximately 20 feet in width, and a 40 foot right of way with a sidewalk along one side.  He said the improvements consisted of building a 28 foot wide asphaltic concrete street with concrete curb and gutters and sidewalks on both sides.  In addition to that, he said there had been some minor rehabilitation work on a public sewer line and storm drainage work had been performed in order to eliminate a known drainage problem at the parking lot on the south end of Lyon Street.  The total project cost was $100,392 with $2,400 being paid from the sewer utility for that portion of sewer rehabilatation work, and the balance coming from CDBG funds and tax bills against adjacent properties.  He said properties would be subject to one-half of the normal cost of construction of a local residential street.  That amount had been set at $12.50.  Mr. Patterson said the tax bills, if approved, would provide $12,675.  He pointed out that property owners adjacent to the street were eligible for Community Development Block Grants if they meet the criteria for low and moderate income families.  He said that grant would pay the entire cost of the tax bill.  In order to levy the special assessments, he said it was necessary for the Council to determine that there have been benefits accrued to the properties as a result of the reconstruction.  He suggested that they consider that the curb and gutters have improved the appearance and maintainability of the properties as well as contributing to improved storm water control, the new street and sidewalks provide for increased safety, the new street surface provides for better maintenance, particularly in the form of street cleaning and snow removal, and property owners would no longer be liable for tax bill maintenance which he said could be as much as $2.00 per foot per year.
    Ms. Coble asked about the normal process for informing residents about the CDBG grants.  Mr. Patterson said that was done by letter along with the notice for the tax bill hearing.  He said they are advised at that time to contact the Planning Department because they process the applications.
    Richard Winjum, owner of properties at 606 and 700 Lyons explained that his properties abut the access road into the low income housing parking lot.  He said he was being tax billed $3,868.75 when the main beneficiary of the project was the Housing Authority.  He wanted to know what percentage the Housing Authority was being billed.  He said the street's main use was as access into the projects and goes no place else.
    Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Winjum if his properties opened to the street.  Mr. Winjum said he had a garage that has access to the street.  He said he had built the garage about 10 years ago for about half the cost of this assessment.  He said he probably used that street twice a month.
    Mr. Beck explained that the basis of charging for the cost of constructing a street was not necessarily on the usage, but on who abuts the property.  He pointed out that every property owner abuts some public property and it was just a matter of how much they have.  He said everyone pays toward a street improvement project.  Mr. Winjum reiterated that this street was strictly for the use of the Housing Authority.
    Regarding the beneficiaries of the street construction, Mr. Patterson pointed out that they were only assessing the properties $12.50 per lineal foot with all of the rest of the money coming from the federal government.  He said they couldn't use that money if it wasn't for the purpose of benefitting low and moderate income persons.  He said generally those are the inhabitants of the housing area.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Harline asked why there was not an assessment to the Housing Authority.  Mr. Patterson said the Housing Authority does not abut the street and, therefore, wouldn't be adjacent to the street improvement.
    Putting things into perspective, Mayor Hindman pointed out that the total project cost was $100,000 with $85,000 being paid for by CDBG funds.  He said that meant only roughly 12% of the total cost was being paid for out of tax billing.  Mr. Campbell reminded everyone that Mr. Winjum has two lots so they were talking about $1,500 per lot.  Mayor Hindman said while the Housing Authority was maybe getting a good deal out of it, he didn't think Mr. Winjum was getting an unfair deal.
    Mr. Janku said they had heard from other people that property values are rising in some of these neighborhoods, in part because of the street improvements and CDBG Home Loan programs.  He expected there had been a benefit in this case.
    Mr. Harline pointed out that the owners have a ten year period of time over which to pay the tax bill.
    B338-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this project had been constructed in accordance with City policy wherein the City pays for the extra width of the pipe required for making water lines larger than what is necessary for a subdivision.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B341-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the Missouri Department of Revenue had changed its procedure for using metering machines and a new procedure had been worked out.  He said this was an attempt to adopt that procedure.  He pointed out that the City collects approximately $630,000 from cigarette tax per year which goes into the general revenue fund.
    B330-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that there were proposals for 18 contracts with 16 art agencies.  He noted that they had been recommended to the Council during the budgeting process with a few exceptions of those the Council added following the budget work sessions.  The amount budgeted for this purpose was $64,695.
    B340-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

                    12-INCH WATER MAINS ACROSS I-70.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that easements were needed on Seventh Street, Commerce Court, and Vandiver Drive.
    B342-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this would implement recommendations made by the attorney working with IRS regulations and our 401(a) plan.  He said the changes would bring us current with IRS regulations and also with the proposed changes the IRS is planning in 1997, 1998, and 1999.
    B345-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said this would amend our plan so that when per cent changes are made they wouldn't have to amend the plan each time.
    B346-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said the staff had been asked to look into what it would take for our City to be designated a Tree City USA.  The criteria was pretty well met already, except we needed to have an ordinance that provides for a tree task force.  In an earlier report sent to the Council it had been thought that the Parks and Recreation Commission could fulfill that role.  It was his understanding that the Council wanted to start this off with a special task force appointed by the Council.
    Referring to the existing ordinances referred to in paragraph three of Section three, Mr. Janku said it was referring to what they passed a few years ago dealing with entryways.  He said they had developed a priority list of entranceways for the community.
    Mayor Hindman said he was also curious about that paragraph.  He asked if it had to do with the size of a tree that could be planted in a particular width area.  Mr. Kruse explained that there was an ordinance that sets out parameters for planting in the right of way, depending on how wide the street yard is and whether the utilities are above ground or below ground.  Mayor Hindman said he would like to get some input from the task force as to some ideas about whether or not some of those things should be changed after they take a look at places.  He said perhaps planting trees should have some priority over whether or not it may have an affect on a sidewalk in particular areas.  He said he would hate to see the task force limited too much by present ordinances.  Ms. Coble pointed out that in the first delineation of duties it says they are charged with an overall plan.  She said that wouldn't necessarily restrict them to adding to what is in existence, but perhaps making recommendations for any changes or improvements to what does exist.  Mayor Hindman read that it shall be guided in its deliberations by those.  He was afraid that could be taken as a restriction on their deliberations.
    Mr. Campbell said he read it as meaning they should at least meet the minimums and that this was establishing some base lines for them.  He said he thought they certainly should make recommendations; however, he said he thought they should have guidelines like the City ordinances that they should work from.
    Referring to paragraph one of Section three, Mr. Janku said it refers to within City-owned rights of way and easements.  He said tonight they would be considering proposals on public property like the schools and they could consider proposals that might include private property.  He wondered if they wanted to limit it to read City-owned.  Mr. Campbell said he was a little reluctant to suggest that they would make plans for private property.  Mr. Kruse said he assumed that would mean in consultation with the property owner.  Mr. Campbell said they weren't saying that.  A discussion ensued.
    Mr. Kruse made the motion to amend B347-96 by amending Section 3, paragraph 1 by adding a last sentence reading Suggestions for planting and maintaining on private property adjacent to public rights of way may be made after consultation with the private property owner involved, and by deleting the words be guided in its deliberations by in paragraph 3 and inserting in lieu thereof the words consider and review.  The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Janku asked if advertising would be done like any other openings on Boards and Commissions.  It was decided it would be advertised in the normal manner.
    B347-96, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

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

                    OF HANOVER PLAZA, PLAT 3.
                    STREET TO WILLIAM STREET.
                    SERVE MEADOWLANDS, PLAT 12.
                    AND CHILD HEALTH SERVICES.
    The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:

    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said this was a revised plan and that at first they talked about reducing the number of signs substantially.  Being proposed now was the installation of 89 three foot by four foot signs and 32 eighteen inch by 3 foot directional signs.  He said about half of them would be on state right of way and about half on City right of way.  He said they were dealing with the approval of those that would be on City right of way.  It was his understanding that the signs had been funded and would be installed by others, and the City would not be doing installation.  He said part of our agreement with this newly formed corporation would be that they would be maintaining the signs also.
    Regarding the directional signs toward the parks, Mr. Harline said it seemed the general idea was signs for the major parks, but not the neighborhood parks.  He thought that was sensible.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if the signs would be put on individual posts or if they would be put on existing posts.  Mr. Watkins said for the most part the corporation would be putting in new posts, but in a few instances where we could share, an attempt would be made to do that.    Mr. Campbell asked what kind of signs they would put along the Interstate besides Welcome to Columbia.  Mr. Watkins said there were no signs in this directional program along the Interstate.  He said there would be no duplication along the Interstate.
    Mr. Kruse said he heard from people concerned about this because of a lot of signs.  He said he had been to a number of cities where these are used and he thought they were an attractive enhancement as well as helpful.  He thought it would be a good program.
    Mr. Janku agreed.  He said he has occasions to direct people to Columbia and felt these signs would be a tremendous help.
    Mr. Campbell pointed out that Columbia has a lot of visitors and for that reason he thought it was important to have good signage.
    Mr. Beck pointed out that Mr. Wright and the Growing with Columbia, Inc. had done a fantastic job of getting the necessary approvals from the Highway Department and actually raising the funds to do the project.  He said the question had come up as to when installation would begin and it was his understanding they were ready to begin upon receiving Council approval.
    Mrs. Crockett said she thought this was a great project even though she was concerned about the number of signs.
    The vote on R166-96 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said when they submitted the report to the Council they thought the species of plants and so forth would be approved by the Highway Department.  He said there had been a change in that and the Council had been given a list of what would be able to be planted, for example, along North Providence on the state right of way.  He pointed out that what was being proposed on North Providence was in accordance with the plan the staff developed a few years ago when we applied for enhancement money.  He said this would implement a part of that overall plan for Providence Road.  He said this would deal with Stadium Boulevard by the shopping center and two schools for the City.    He assumed this was the first of several plans which would be brought to the Council.  He noted this would provide for a three year agreement plan to get the plants growing.
    Regarding Grant School, Mr. Campbell noted the planting would be on the east side of the building.  He said it was really not in the street right of way or the City right of way.  He asked what guidelines were used in determining what projects would be acceptable for funding.    Mr. Watkins said there were two schools involved in the four different pilot projects.  He explained that the Grant School project calls for a line of trees along one property line plus some plantings on the opposite side of the school.  He said that project had been assembled by PTA and folks from Grant School.  He said Mr. Wright suggested, as a pilot project, they ought to look at an urban school and he felt this one was most appropriate.  In terms of Hickman, he said they were continuing the tree line that was started by Hickman students last year around the ballfield.
    Mr. Campbell asked if the Grant School program would have been approved if only plantings would have been done on the east side of the building.  He wanted to know what criteria was used.  Mr. Watkins said he couldn't speak for Mr. Wright, but he thought this was simply what the school had proposed to do to beautify its particular area.  Mr. Campbell said he was planning on voting in favor, but he wanted to see guidelines drawn up so they would have some criteria on which to evaluate these projects.
    Mr. Beck said there was a guideline as to what our participation from the City's standpoint should be on public right of way.  He said he understood Mr. Campbell's question and thought they needed to see how it fits in the overall master planning for beautification/landscaping projects.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if we would be using City funds for this.  Mr. Watkins said the City would be buying just the materials.  He said the schools had arranged volunteers to plant them and had also agreed to provide maintenance funds.  Mrs. Crockett noted that fiscal impact had not been marked either way on the memo.  Mr. Watkins said there would be a one time purchase of materials.  Mrs. Crockett commented that it was helpful when the appropriate boxes were marked as to any fiscal impact.    Mr. Campbell said he was still concerned about where City funds should be spent.  He said part of this was to be spent on an internal courtyard of a school.  Mr. Beck agreed and said it wasn't in accordance with the policy.
    In terms of the fiscal impact, Mr. Janku noted this was coming out of the money approved for landscaping during the ballot issue of $200,000.
    Mr. Beck suggested that they proceed with the projects on street right of way and take another look at the off street right of ways and determine whether or not to address them after receiving Council guidance.  He thought they should have some kind of policy if they were going to do them.
    Mr. Watkins asked if they were to proceed with three of the projects and hold on Grant School.  Mr. Campbell said he would like to see them proceed with the trees.  His question was with the area against the building.  He said he was quite comfortable with beautification as long as it was beautification for the public.  He said an internal planting should be the responsibility of the organization benefitting it.
    There was a discussion about amending the ordinance or possibly tabling it.  Mr. Watkins suggested that they revisit the Grant School people and for right now eliminate that part of the project (courtyard).  He said they could clarify it and bring it back to the next meeting.
    Ms. Coble made the motion that they amend R167-96 by omitting the language which establishes a beautification agreement with Grant Elementary School by deleting Exhibit B.
    Mr. Campbell asked if she would add to her motion that it be brought back at the next meeting.  Ms. Coble agreed.
    The motion made by Ms. Coble, amended by Mr. Campbell, and seconded by Mr. Harline was approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Janku said he thought it was an excellent program and pointed out that the adjoining property owners were actually going to be undertaking the maintenance.  He said the City would really be benefitting by these agreements.  He suggested that the staff contact the Highway Department to see if they would be willing to modify their three year restriction so that our agreements could be longer with the adjoining property owners.
    The vote on R167-97, as amended, was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

                    COLUMBIA, INC.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this would provide for the adoption of the landscaped areas.
    Mayor Hindman noted that these last three resolutions were the result of the hard work of Growing with Columbia, Inc.
    The vote on R168-96 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

                    SECTION OF SCOTT BOULEVARD.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said this was an agreement Public Works had been working on with the County Road engineers.  He said it had been approved by the County Commission.
    Mr. Patterson explained that this was a follow up of the report and Council direction of June 3rd of this year.  He said this agreement would allow them to enter into joint engineering studies to determine feasibility and cost.  At that point they would determine whether or not they want to proceed with any type of construction project.  He said this first phase only obligates the City to doing the joint engineering study on the project.
    Mr. Campbell asked if money had been allocated for the construction.  Mr. Patterson said there was slightly over $700,000 in the last ballot issue for joint City/County projects.  He said at the Retreat they were talking about a Gillespie Bridge/Scott Boulevard project.  He said they broadened that to allow more latitude in entering into joint agreements with the County if the Council should so desire.  Mr. Campbell asked if he had any feeling for what the magnitude of this project would be.  Mr. Patterson said if it is built to City collector standards, excluding any relocation costs of utilities, construction cost was estimated to be about $450,000.  He said if the responsibilities remain the same as they were now, that would be about 40% City and 60% County.  Mr. Campbell said that would be about $165,000 if we proceeded.
    Mr. Janku noted that sidewalks would be a part of the study.  He was hopeful that the eventual plan would include them.  He asked if this would connect with the ongoing project at the bridge currently.  Mr. Patterson said that was correct.  Mr. Janku asked if there were any sidewalks as part of that.  Mr. Patterson said he was not able to answer that at this point, but it would certainly be a consideration in the study.
    The vote on R169-96 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN.  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:

                    GIFTS OF ART.
                    SERVE MEADOWLANDS, PLAT 12.
                    SYLVAN LANE TO CLARK LANE.
                     IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
                    PHASE 2, PROJECT AT THE AIRPORT.
                    UTILITY EASEMENTS.

    Mr. Beck noted that this report had come from the Planning and Zoning Commission who was recommending approval of their proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance.  Mr. Beck said the Council needed to decide if they wanted an ordinance prepared with the proposed amendments before or after having a work session on the issue.
    Mayor Hindman said there were a number of people present who were interested in this issue.  He explained the normal procedure for reports and said they didn't normally have public participation at the time.  He said public comments would be heard following the reports.  He also pointed out that before any action was taken on this matter there would be public hearings as the matter develops.
    It was decided the matter would be discussed at a work session.
    Ms. Coble said her first take on the report was that it was a disingenuous attempt to achieve what the stated goal was.  She said there were those who complained about current situations in different facilities in the city that served people who were without a home at that point.  She said what came from the Planning and Zoning Commission would not apply to those facilities that are in existence now.  By the definitions that were suggested for proposed ordinances dealing with homeless shelters, she said there are other services which receive funding that is federal funding for homeless services that would not be included by this.  She felt the report went a long way toward nothing.  She thought it was discriminatory and said a lot of the debate she found to not have much credibility.  She said the people who were speaking had no experience with what they were talking about, they didn't know how programs are operated, and they didn't know that the state has no requirements on square footage requirements to receive any state monies if one provides services to the homeless.  She said the feds don't have those federal regulations to receive federal funds that flow through the state.  Ms. Coble said she had found that the highest amount of funding per bed space per bed night in this city and in this state was about $30.  She said that wouldn't afford the opportunity to do a lot of the things that are required in the proposal in terms of space requirements.  She didn't think they were necessary to meet health and safety requirements in providing residential services.  She was concerned that the proposals could all be passed in ordinance form and not change a single thing that people were complaining about.  She said if they wanted to adopt several of these measures we have to decide as a community if we are willing to up the amount of funding we provide to make these changes so in terms of square footage requirements or anything else.  She said what the state decided was that it could not afford to price these services out of the market and by putting in these requirements they couldn't staff them, fund them, or do anything.  She said the state opted out of several of the suggestions about square footage requirements because they didn't have enough money to pay for them.  She said nobody has the funding to operate shelters with that large of square footage requirements.  She said if we thought homeless people were "yucky" and didn't want them around our places we should say so instead of saying it only makes sense to have these facilities in R-3 and certainly not in R-1 and R-2.  She didn't think we could have it both ways and she didn't find the report to be an honest piece of work.
    Mr. Hancock asked the Council to understand that when they sent this to the Planning and Zoning Commission it would be addressed from a zoning standpoint.  He said they wouldn't address it from operations, square footage, or any of that kind of thing.  He said they would look at it from area, height, and placement of buildings and uses in those buildings.  He said because it was in the zoning ordinance those uses that are already in place are grandfathered.  He said they tried to make that clear during the process.  He said that was what one gets when addressing things in a zoning fashion and perhaps some other board or group needed to take up the other issues.  He said they tried to address it from the neighbors standpoint who wanted a review of these shelters before new ones open up.
    Ms. Coble said she found it ironic that we were concerned about what might open up at the same time this City's allocation of the Stuart McKinney Act funds, which are the state's homeless grants from the federal as well as the state's emergency shelter grants, both had significant decreases.  She didn't know how all these new programs were able to open up and somehow threaten the R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. She said what they have found in this community was a willingness to support services solely from community dollars and not with federal, state or city grants.  She said that was what was going on at the St. Francis House and also at Lois Bryant.  She said that showed the community was in support of those services, not trying to do things to make them go away.

    Ms. Coble said the intention on the request for this report was to deal with some of the issues involving repeat criminal activity in rental property in the City.  She said she had heard a lot from landlords throughout the City who agree there ought to be a better way to go about some of these issues and they often feel they can't effectively screen to find out all of the information that is needed.  She said what she had talked to some of the folks in different neighborhood organizations about was that perhaps they could take advantage of the planning time between now and the proposed February summit of the Neighborhood Alliance.  She was hopeful there would be an opportunity at that meeting to bring neighborhood organizations and organizations representing landlords and property managers together to see if there is a way in which they could come up with some type of tenant screening or some other forms of communication to alert landlords if they are unaware of activities that are occurring in their properties before it gets to the stage where the Police Department is sending out notices.
  Mr. Campbell said he found that the report did answer the questions he thought had been raised.  He said the concern had been about certain activities in our community, like the abuse of certain properties by certain people, and all he received in response was the message that all is well and there is such a system already working.  He said, from what they hear, it is not working.  He asked why there was a difference in their perception and what was reported.  Mr. Boeckmann said he thought the existing statutes have everything he thought a City ordinance would have if the statutes did not exist.  He said he thought the Criminal Code of the State of Missouri was adequate too in that it has criminalized the things that ought to be criminalized.  He said that didn't mean that there aren't problems out there.  Mr. Campbell asked if those statutes were too difficult to use or too time consuming to use.  He asked why they weren't being used.  Mr. Boeckmann said he thought they were being used.  He said notices do go out from the Police and from the Prosecutor.  He said they were probably difficult to enforce because what they were dealing with was taking property away from a landlord or telling him that he can't use it for a year.  He said that was a rather drastic remedy and meant that they had to give due process.  He said a requirement of the statute was that the landlord know that this is going on.  He said that was the purpose of the notice from the Police and Prosecutor by informing the landlord that criminal activities are occurring on his property.  If he fails to take any action then his property can be subject to forfeiture or subject to not being able to be used as rental property for up to a year.
    Chief Barbee gave an example of a recent case where a search warrant had been served on a house in the neighborhood in question.  He said it had been the third search warrant in six weeks that had been served and each warrant was at a different address because they had moved to three different addresses in six weeks.  He said the only time the existing statutes can be called into play is in the case where a landlord, once they have been notified of the problem, refuses to take action in the form of an eviction or other actions to remove the renter from the property.  He said what most of them do, based on the fact that the search warrant was served and drugs were found or someone there was arrested for selling drugs, they have a basis for eviction so they get them out of the property.  He said the offenders just move to a different property.  Mr. Campbell said the question that was in some of their minds, and probably legally impossible to do, was about a landlord who knowingly rents a property and gets a high rent but says he didn't know.  Chief Barbee said he thought the big abuse was that there wasn't very good screening going on by the private landlords.  He thought that was where the improvements could be made.  He said they had been discussing some ideas in the Department and he and the City Manager had talked.  He thought there were some things they could do through education of the landlords and some tools we could provide them that they haven't had access to in the past to do some more screening.
    Mr. Janku said from what he had read in the memo, the same tenants are causing the problem that gave the Police probable cause.  He asked about a situation where tenants turn over basically and a property is continually being used for a drug house with different tenants in it.  He asked if that was something our statutes deal with when there is a turnover in tenants and the property continues to be used for illegal activities.  Chief Barbee said that kind of thing wasn't typically seen here.  Ms. Coble said it was on her block.  Mr. Janku said he had heard of cases in different cities where private actions had been initiated by neighborhood groups.  He said that was another remedy that might be available.
    Mr. Harline said almost uniformly the places being used for drug sales and the like were run down buildings.  He thought some of this could be addressed under our present rental conservation law and looking at ways to get at landlords who are just not taking care of their properties and have repeat offenses under that law as well.  He thought there was a general problem with just a few landlords who don't care what goes on in their properties as long as they collect their rent.
    Ms. Coble said she thought part of the problem being experienced in a lot of the first and second ward was the result of very successful community policing and work done by the fourth squad.  She said when you couple that type of community policing with changes in who gets to remain in public housing and the one strike you're out rule, we are seeing that a lot of drug trafficking and other related activities are moving out, and yet our resources to have that same intensive type of policing is not large.
    Chief Barbee said one of the things they were doing within the department was looking at a new program to divert some of the resources they used in public housing to the very neighborhoods Ms. Coble was talking about because of the displacement.
    Mayor Hindman suggested that they schedule this topic for a work session.

    Mr. Janku made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed with the project.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Harline and approved unanimously by voice vote.

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

John, Martha K., 3301 Greenridge Rd., Ward 3 - term to expire 11/1/01
Scroggs, Stuart S., 1008 Maplewood Dr., Ward 4 - term to expire 11/1/01

Lackey, Alvin S., 608 Old 63 S., Ward 6 - term to expire 11/1/99
Smith, Jeffrey E., 3316 Woodrail Terrace, Ward 5 - term to expire 11/1/99

Baker, Edward L., 1804 Katy Lane, Ward 4 - term to expire 9/30/98

Wiehagen, Katherine M., 206 Hitt St., #304, Ward 1 - no term

Hutton, Laura E., 2252 Country Lane, Ward 3 - term to expire 10/31/99
    Mr. Campbell reminded the Council that they had not revisited and brought back up the Charter changes regarding gender neutrality.  He asked Mr. Beck, as he was looking at ballot dates, to keep that issue in mind.
    Sixth Street, where the Post Office has drop boxes, and particularly the traffic going out onto Ash Street, Mr. Campbell said he had received several complaints concerning the danger of moving into that traffic, especially during rush hour.  He said it was a dangerous intersection and he questioned whether a stop sign was warranted or some other type of traffic protection in that location.
    Mr. Campbell, referring to the neighborhood commercial zone, said at one time we had a C-1 zone which was supposed to be a neighborhood commercial zone, but over the years it had pretty much disappeared and now Mr. Hancock says there is not very much difference between C-1 and C-3.  Recently, he said he had been involved in some attempt to develop neighborhood commercial areas and it had run into a lot of opposition.  He thought one of the reasons was that we simply don't have a zone that is applicable.  He said when people hear the word "commercial" they see visions of the Broadway Shopping Center and the Mall.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission make recommendations to the Council (report form or ordinance form) concerning the establishment of a neighborhood commercial zone.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Campbell commented that he had been in several meetings lately where the impacts of the Welfare Reform Act had been discussed.  He thought it would have a major impact on all cities in the country.  He said the first impacts would hit January 15 when people would be terminated from the food stamp program.  He said it would hit people on both welfare programs and those amongst the working poor in Columbia.  The statewide estimate was that 8,000 people would be removed from food stamps during the first wave with 25% of them being homeless.  He pointed out that the recently completed Columbia and Boone County social needs survey did not include any changes that will occur from welfare reform.  He said many decisions remain to be made in Missouri, but one thing for certain was that local levels of government would be asked to do more with less.   Mr. Campbell said after the program is fully implemented we were likely to see more homeless and/or more hungry people, both among permanent Columbia residents and migrants from other smaller surrounding communities who will come here looking for support.  He said the impacts would increase significantly during the next fiscal year and now was the time to begin planning and developing innovative programs to address these vital human needs.  He suggested that they begin by establishing a community wide task force to begin developing coordinated programs to address the coming needs.  A copy of Mr. Campbell's paper was made a part of the record (attached to reports).
    Mr. Campbell asked that the staff be asked to obtain information about the implications for Columbia of the Welfare Reform Act and bring back a report on their findings as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Janku said he read a story the other day where the Mayor of St. Louis had appointed a task force for basically the same purpose and was keyed to the fact that the upcoming legislative session in Jefferson City could have strong impacts for the City of St. Louis.  He said he also thought we needed to be prepared in terms of what we pay attention to in Jefferson City for the potential impact of legislation on the City of Columbia and our residents.  He was supportive of the idea of a task force and added that he thought we needed representatives from the business and education communities in addition to what Mr. Campbell suggested groups Mr. Campbell listed in his paper.  Ms. Coble also suggested that someone who deals directly with individuals, on a daily basis, be added to the list.
    Mayor Hindman asked if the staff was in a position to get information like this.  He said there was going to be a change in the welfare law, but there was a wide range of predictions as to what the outcome was going to be.  He said Mr. Campbell's prediction was making the assumption that there would be some rather dramatic, negative impacts while others feel it may not be all bad.  Mr. Campbell said some of his statements were not assumptions.  Mr. Janku pointed out that there were things going on around the country either in anticipation of or in reaction to.  He thought we needed to start developing information.  Ms. Coble agreed, but said nobody was in a position to get all of the information right now but we could convey our concerns about the impact in Columbia.  She said Columbia would always be a center for social services and other types of assistance.  It was agreed that we needed to begin gathering information.
    Mr. Janku said Mr. Hancock, from time to time, had basically invited the Council to take some sort of action with respect to preliminary plats and how they affect the entire area to be developed.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration and recommendation.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Harline and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Janku said they had put money in the budget to provide cable channel 13 to Capital Cable.  He asked where we were and if it was being monitored.
    Mr. Harline said they had received a report regarding bus ridership and that he wanted to recognize the staff's work and the excellent results we were getting back on increased ridership.  He said from this month last year there was a 36% increase.  He thanked the staff for their efforts and wanted them to know they were paying off.
    Mr. Kruse said he had heard comments from restaurant owners who are having difficulty with the smoking ordinance.  He said there was a situation where after 9:00 p.m. and live music was provided they were functioning as a night club.  He said they were having difficulty having to enforce the ordinance as it is written.
    Mr. Kruse made the motion that the smoking ordinance be amended so that restaurants could elect to suspend the smoking ordinance after nine p.m., if there is live music on the premises.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble.
    Mr. Kruse wondered about referring the issue to the Board of Health.  Mayor Hindman said he saw little point to it.  Mr. Kruse agreed.  He said he had talked to a few of the members and they seemed comfortable with it.  It was decided the staff could take care of it.
    The motion made by Mr. Kruse, seconded by Ms. Coble, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Kruse said he had suggested that there be some kind of community group or committee appointed to work with the Department of Transportation on the design of the AC realignment and improvement project.  He said he knew that Mr. Beck had met with the MoDot staff.  He said one idea he had was to direct the staff to draw up the proper legislation to appoint some people to serve on a committee and then have that committee request a meeting with the appropriate people with the department.  He felt they needed to move on it because he said they would be well into their planning process within the next couple of months.
    Mr. Janku agreed and suggested that we, as a City, look at ways to facilitate what we hoped the road would become.  He said there was funding in the ballot issue for the Grindstone improvement and thought perhaps they could allocate some of those funds for some of the planning funds for this.  He said the Highway Department obviously has a tremendous funding crunch.
    Mr. Kruse said he had talked to all of the property owners involved and there was a strong interest in sitting down with the Highway Department and the City to talk about the design issues.
    Mr. Beck said he had talked with the Highway Engineer about the process they were intending to follow.  He said they were appointing an internal committee and had agreed to allow a representative from the City to attend their planning committee meetings.  He said that wasn't really what Mr. Kruse was talking about.  Mr. Kruse said it wasn't.
    Mr. Patterson explained that the project team had not met yet.  He said they were finishing up the archeological walk through surveys on all three alignments before they get their recommendation back to the commission.  He said they were hoping to go to the commission in January to get approval of the alternative alignment.  He said he asked more about the process and they were very definitely going to have citizens committee appointments.  He said the actual format would be developed probably in the next three or four weeks, but they were very sincere about having citizen input into the planning and design of it in the way of a formal committee.
    Mr. Kruse was skeptical and was afraid we would find ourselves in the same boat of responding to their plan which has already been designed.  He said he wanted us to be involved in the design process.
    Mr. Harline agreed and said we would have less trouble with the end product.  He thought the sooner the process involved citizens the better it would be.
    Mr. Janku said he thought we should take them on good faith, that they are willing to work with us, but thought we needed to figure out what resources we could bring to the table because of their limited funding.
    Mr. Kruse said step one was to sit down and talk about it and that was all he was saying.
    Mr. Kruse made the motion that the staff be directed to send a letter to the appropriate Highway Department people formally requesting that the project design team meet with a Columbia citizens committee prior to any design taking place.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Kruse said he would put a committee together.
    Captain Max Grindle, Commanding Officer of the Salvation Army in Columbia, was concerned about any revisions to the ordinance on shelters for the homeless.  He said the people that live at Harbor House have no place to go and no resources to get themselves back on their feet.  He said it used to be that the Salvation Army could barter with people, but because of laws, ordinances, codes and insurance risks they couldn't do that any more.  He wondered if the same thing would happen with our shelters because of insurance risks, codes, and ordinances that are made they would be no longer be in the service of helping the homeless.  He said thus we would have more people sleeping out all over town.  With welfare reform and all of the other things that are happening in our community, he asked if we were going to make it harder for the Salvation Army Harbor House, the St. Francis House, and others who need their help.  He asked the Council to remember they were talking about people, not trees or flowers.
    Mr. Janku asked Captain Grindle what he would suggest the City do.  Captain Grindle said they were working out of a house that was built for four people and they have 40 or 50 people staying there.  Mr. Janku asked if they had every applied for capital improvement type funding.  Captain Grindle said they were looking into that at the present time.  He said they just went through a program study and talked to some of the people with the City.  He said they were looking at improving their home and building where they are, but with the cold coming people may have to find another shelter.  He said when it rains the single men in the basement get flooded out at times.  Mr. Janku encouraged the Captain to look into options.  Captain Grindle said by 1998 they hoped to have their funding ready to go.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if they housed individuals on Ash Street. Captain Grindle said there was only an apartment for the assistant officer at that location.   He said it was used as their administrative offices, day care, social services, community room, chapel and classrooms.  Mrs. Crockett asked if all of that space was utilized.  Captain Grindle said it was.  He invited everyone out to see their operation.
    Tim Rich, Director of Harbor House, said he hadn't been contacted while the report was being put together.  He said he didn't have any problem with them having to meet the inspections that are required, making sure they are safe in terms of fire hazards and making sure they are meeting space requirements, but he said he thought 50 square feet per person was very excessive.  He said that was something they could not afford.  He explained that they run a shelter right now with 44 people in it tonight.  He said it cost them last year on average $10.78 per night to house those people.  He said it was the cheapest place in town and included three square meals, a shower and a bed.  It was for anybody that comes off the street that needs their services.  He said if they had to go to that kind of square footage they would be in a tremendous pinch.  He said one of their goals was to build a new shelter in the next two years.  He said the other issue he had with the report was that if there is a conditional use put on the land they understood it could be revoked.  He said they are talking about investing $1 million of the community's money to build a facility that would house and provide programming and support services to change the lives of the people they serve and if the permit could be taken away that would cause real problems for them and the trust the donors put in them in order to run the shelter.   He said their budget only takes about 2% of federal money and the rest is from donations from people in the community.  He said they have seen their MESG money split in half this year while they have seen their night load rise by about 15 people per night.  He said he appreciated the fact that they have a good working relationship with the Police and Fire Departments.  He asked that they be given the opportunity to be involved in the process.
    Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Rich, if space allows, if they would take in anyone off the streets.  He responded that they take anyone that is homeless who is not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of entering.  He explained that they do a nightly breathalizer on everyone that comes in and anyone that is under the influence is turned away.  Hopefully, he said those people can be referred to the St. Francis House or some other shelter in town.  He noted that the paper had reported that there are nine shelters.  He said he didn't know what they would be because he only knew of three emergency shelters -- Salvation Army, St. Francis House, and the Lois Bryant House.
    Mayor Hindman asked if it was true that they require a police check.  Mr. Rich said that they do and further stated that they began that ten years ago at the request of the Police Department.  He said they didn't want to be harboring anyone who was running away from the law.
    Mr. Rich said Columbia's Consolidated Plan indicates that homelessness is rising here, but the resources are disappearing.  He felt they needed a shelter that would house at least 75 people per night, if not more.  He said if they were going to plan for what happens with welfare reform they would have to increase it and work together with the other agencies.
    Other than the problem with the 50 square feet, Mr. Janku asked if they had any problem with the Fire Department regarding the Health/safety codes.  Mr. Rich said part of the problem the Fire Department has is that they don't fit any of the categories.  He added that they had been exempt from the codes because they are a church, but if they build a new building the new zoning and other codes would apply to them.  He said that would cause some problems.  He explained that the Salvation Army has standards for residential centers that are nationwide that they would have to meet and he had been assured that if they meet those standards they would far exceed both state and city standards for the building codes.  He said he wasn't worried about that like he was about the conditional use permit.  He said right now they were not accessible for people with disabilities and they have to put them in a hotel that costs $30 per night and provide transportation back and forth in order to feed them and receive case work services.  He said it creates a problem for them with ADA.
    Regarding their reliance on other services, Ms. Coble asked if it was true that they had the luxury in a way of meeting their national standards in their own operating code of saying "If you aren't willing to go to the Police Station and get a record check, I am not going to help you".  She asked if they depended every day on another place that doesn't have those same rules to refer those people to.  Mr. Rich responded, absolutely, no question about it.
    Mr. Janku asked if Salvation Army organizations around the country were eligible for CDBG monies.  Mr. Rich said it depended upon the project and what it was going to be used for.  He said Senator Ashcroft was working on the Charitable Choice clause presently and part of their hope was that it would free them up to partake of a lot more of those funds that they have not be able to in the past because of the religious affiliation.
    Andy Trible, a worker for the St. Francis House, was concerned about the many untruths in the report.  He said it was reported that they make money from their guests and that they are a money making agency.  He said they have never taken money from their guests and never would.  He said both the St. Francis House and the Lois Bryant House were funded by private donations from churches, individuals, and groups that believe in what they do.  He said all of the workers were volunteer and if they had to pay someone to do something they couldn't because that money would come out of the donations people contribute in order for them to continue their work.  Regarding the harboring of criminals, he said they don't do that.  If they know someone is having trouble with the law he said they don't let them stay there until they deal with their problem.  Mr. Trible noted that the report made reference to the Police being at their house often.  He said that may be, but often it was because they themselves have called the Police because they have told someone they can't stay because of their behavior and the Police have to be called because they won't leave.  He said most often when their address appears in the paper under arrests it is because that address is used when the individual doesn't actually live there.  He said they were never contacted to find out if the person was actually living there at the present time.  He said the reason there were two shelters for homeless people so close together was because the same group of people run both the St. Francis House and the Lois Bryant House, one for men and one for women and children.  He said it would make it difficult to move away from each other.  He said they wanted nothing from the City, but only to be left to go about their work of caring about their brothers and sisters in need.
    Mr. Harline pointed out that the Council had merely accepted the report.  He said that didn't mean they agreed with the conclusions.
    Mrs. Crockett asked how many people they would have on a night like this.  Mr. Trible said they had between 25 and 30 last night.  She asked if they ever had to turn anyone away.  He said they hadn't had to because of space, but have because of their behavior.  Mrs. Crockett asked if the time came when they would have to turn them away because of certain restrictions on space where those individuals would go.  Mr. Trible said he would have no idea where they might go and because of that it would be very hard for him to turn anybody away.  Mrs. Crockett asked if some of the people that stay there are employed.  Mr. Trible said some of them are.  He said they tried to fit what they do to each person's needs.  He said if people are capable of working they expect them to do that and to save their money and get themselves back on their feet.  He said not everyone that stays with them is in that situation.  He said they have a lot of people with chronic physical illnesses and they have ended up doing hospice care for folks with aids and cancer.  He said they have people with chronic mental illnesses who aren't dangerous, but are just unable to function in society.
    Paul Albert, 2703 Parker, suggested that the St. Francis House go by the same rules as the Salvation Army.
    Steve Jacobs, one of the founders of the St. Francis House, said there was a reason why they didn't send people downtown to the Police Station.  He said that was because there are a lot of homeless people who are schizophrenics and a lot that have learning disabilities.  He said they also have a lot of guys who seem pretty normal, but they just don't have a lot of common sense and they end up losing things.  He said some of these people go from place to place and are too disorganized mentally or they are not smart enough to figure out how to get an ID once they have lost it.  He said these people that show up at his house could be criminals, but he doesn't make that assumption.  He said he invites them in, talks to them, finds out their situation, and then tries to figure out what their needs are.  He said they work something out with each individual that shows up at St. Francis House so they can find out whether or not they have any major problems that need to be dealt with.  He said they live with these people so it becomes clear very quickly as to what their needs are.  Mr. Jacobs said they were a religious community and they tried to act out their faith by sharing their lives and property with poor people.  He said acting out the gospel was part of their faith.
    Sylvia Trible, a staff member for nine years, said they wanted to be available to clarify any misinformation that had been included in the report.  She explained that they run on an extremely low budget, approximately $65,000 for both houses.   She said they work with the Salvation Army and if they have someone they know has a drug or alcohol problem they are not equipped to handle that.  She said the Salvation Army was more equipped to handle people with those kinds of problems.  She said they do end up with a lot of people who were drinking and driving when they were younger and now have head injuries.  She said they would be brain damaged the rest of their lives and were not able to have jobs.  She said they spend a lot of time directing people into services that they need.
    Lana Jacobs explained that she lives at the Lois Bryant House.  She said all of the vendetta against the shelters was against them, but she said it would affect their friends at the Salvation Army.  She said these changes would affect them and the services to people, not the St. Francis House or the Lois Bryant House.
    Michael MacNamara, a resident of the St. Francis House, explained that he lives in a home, not a shelter.  He said he was proud to be there and proud to work with the people that run the facility.  He said those people were his family.
    The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.

                                                                                  Respectfully submitted,
                                                                                  Launa H. Daniel
                                                                                  City Clerk