MARCH 17, 1997

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, March 17, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri.  The roll was taken with the following results:  Council Members CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, and JANKU were present.  The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of March 3, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Ms. Coble.

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

A.     Presentation by consultant on solid waste resource recovery facility.
    Mayor Hindman noted that this would be the first of two scheduled presentations by the consultant.  There will be an opportunity for public input at a later date.
    Mr. Beck noted that copies of the report were available in the Public Works Department as well as a report on file at the public library.
    Mr. Patterson introduced Tom Knox, a consultant with the firm of Black & Veatch; Dennie Pendergrass, Chief Engineer of Operations for Columbia Public Works; and the prime presenter Chris Brockway, also with the firm of Black and Veatch.
    Mr. Brockway gave a brief slide presentation and entertained questions from the Council.  He spoke about the feasibility of the material recovery facility, densification (the actual production of fuel pellets from paper products that could be used in lieu of coal), and sites considered for evaluation.  Mr. Brockway noted that there were three types of facilities that had been examined; a source separated facility, a commingled recyclable facility, and a mixed waste facility.  A densified fuel facility could be added to either a commingled recyclable facility or mixed waste facility.  A chart was displayed comparing dollars per household per month using the different facilities.  He showed the sites that had been looked at along with rankings of them.  Mr. Brockway pointed out that all of the sites would require some sort of zoning modification.  Mr. Brockway noted that two public meetings had been held; one in August and one in October.  At the August meeting, a survey was distributed allowing citizens to provide input on the study.
    Mr. Brockway stated there is a considerable cost involved in construction of this type of facility and it is likely that revenue or general obligation bonds would be required for financing.  He noted that there is some grant money available.
    Mayor Hindman noted a positive factor of a recovery facility would be the savings at the landfill.  Mr. Brockway said this aspect had been considered in the cost of the facility.  Mayor Hindman asked if this would be a cash savings.  Mr. Brockway said it was not a "cash in the pocket" type savings, but more of a future savings.  Mayor Hindman asked how it was that some items were included in the mixed waste facility that could not be in the commingled facility.  Mr. Patterson said if it was a complete mixed waste system, all of the waste would be expected to go through the facility.  He said city residents would pay the processing cost, around $26 per ton.  It would not be appropriate to charge the entire $2 million per year operating cost to the residential waste stream if all of the waste stream was used through the facility.  Mr. Patterson said a dollar per ton cost to process the waste was figured, it was determined how much of that was residential waste, and then that cost was divided by the number of households.  The rest of the cost was based per ton and whether the waste was commercial or industrial.
    Mr. Janku asked if there was any sense as to what would happen to the commercial waste if the rates were increased by $26 per ton.  Mr. Patterson said it did not mean that the rates would increase by $26 per ton.  Mr. Janku asked how many truck loads of waste were in a ton.  Mr. Beck said that would depend on the kind of trash.  Mr. Brockway said if it was based on a mixed waste facility at 385 tons per day, it would be approximately 30 to 40 trucks per day.
    Mr. Kruse said the City had a goal that 40% of the solid waste would be diverted from the landfill.  He asked how the three options compared in terms of meeting that goal.  Mr. Kruse noted according to the chart, the City has direct control of about 83,000 tons of waste per year.  He said if the source separated option was used, the 2,000 tons of waste received is roughly in the three to four percent range of the total amount.  The commingled option would be six to seven percent, and the mixed waste option was around 25 percent of the total waste.  Even with the mixed waste facility, Mr. Kruse said the City still would not reach the goal.  Mr. Janku pointed out that there had been earlier steps established, such as the diversion of grass clippings from the landfill.
    Mr. Harline asked if the report anticipated any commercial recycling in the commingled option.  Mr. Brockway believed that all of the commingled waste was residential.  In the mixed waste, Mr. Harline said some of it was commercial.  Mr. Brockway said that was correct.  Mr. Harline said the number could be improved if some sort of commercial plan was established.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that staff be asked to prepare a summary and report back to the Council in April or May.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.


B59-97     Authorizing City staff to repair and restore University Avenue from William Street to College
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this was one of several brick streets in Columbia that have been preserved over the years.  He said there had been some curb and gutter deterioration similar to that on Bouchelle.  Approximately $57,000 worth of rehabilitation work with curbs and gutters as well as some brick work is being proposed.  He said some of the concrete patches would be removed.  The cost would be borne by Community Development Block Grant money because the area is in a historic district, which allows for this type of funding.  Mr. Beck said if the Council decides to proceed with the project, City forces would be used.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Bonnie Bourne, 1506 University Avenue, spoke in support of the repair and restoration as both a resident and representative of the East Campus Neighborhood Association.  She has lived in this area for 17 years and did not recall any previous work on the curbs or gutters.  The brick streets in this area were an integral part of the history and character of the neighborhood.
    David Bacon, 4735 Brandon Wood, spoke on behalf of a street contractor in Columbia.  He said they were not opposed to the restoration of the street, but they had a problem with the use of City forces versus putting the project out for bid.  He asked why it was not going out for competitive bid and what kind of accounting system would be used.
    Mrs. Crockett asked that the staff respond to the speaker.  Mr. Patterson said typically the City tries to evaluate projects and decide whether it would be more beneficial to use City staff, or if it would be most conducive for contracting.  Essentially, a project such as this is very labor intensive and staff have had experience with the work and know what is required.  Mr. Patterson said the project would not require any additional equipment.  He pointed out that the City would simply remove the existing curb and replace it with curb and gutter sections, there is some hand work of the brick, and patches would be replaced and/or fixed.  Mr. Patterson reported that workers were not rebuilding, or tearing out and putting in new sand beds on the entire street.  Staff was comfortable with the cost of the project and had done four streets with street department personnel.
    Mr. Patterson noted that labor is charged, equipment is accounted for, and there is a full accounting system within the City.  He said this is done on all projects so costs are known.  Mr. Patterson said one factor to consider is that when the City opens a project for competitive bids, the prevailing wage is required, which is not done when using City staff.  Mr. Patterson said the City did not try to get into jobs they felt contractors could do better, quicker, and more efficiently than the staff.  Competition between the two is not intended.  Mr. Patterson stated that the records show the City contracts out substantially more work than is attempted in-house.
    Mr. Harline pointed out that staff primarily does repair work such as this.  Mr. Beck said that was correct.  The City primarily does maintenance and repair work.
    Mariel Stephenson, 2111 Rock Quarry Road, spoke on behalf of the Scenic Road Committee.  She said it was wonderful to see the City taking a street like this and repairing it back to its original character.  Mrs. Stephenson said it would do nothing but improve the whole aspect of the area.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B59-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B69-97     Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code to establish regulations pertaining to scenic
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that in March of 1996 the Council adopted a Scenic Road Policy and asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to work up an ordinance that would address the guidelines that had been laid out for an overlay zoning district.  He said this amendment had been reviewed by the Commission and they had unanimously recommended approval.  The overlay district meant that the City has permanent zoning in place, unless an area is in the process of being rezoned.  The scenic roadway district would be an overlay over the existing zoning, and would provide for an additional set of guidelines that would have to be followed by anyone developing along a scenic road designated so by the Council.  A drawing was displayed on the overhead indicating what the guidelines would require.
    Mr. Janku pointed out an error in the maximum building height.  It should read that no building should exceed 28 feet.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Jan Pritchard, 3505 Rock Quarry Road, spoke on behalf of the Scenic Road Committee of the Grindstone/Rock Quarry Neighborhood Association.  She emphasized that this was an ordinance for all of Columbia and said there were a limited number of roads in Columbia at the present time that would apply for scenic road designation.  For the preservation of those roads, she recommended passage of the ordinance.  Ms. Pritchard added that there are a number of very beautiful scenic roads on the outskirts of Columbia in areas that will probably be annexed within the next 10 to 20 years.  She said those roads would also benefit from having a scenic road ordinance so that they may be designated and preserved as Columbia continues to grow.  Ms. Pritchard thanked the Council for all of their work and consideration, and also the staff for working with their organization and others who have been interested.
    Mariel Stephenson, 2111 Rock Quarry Road, spoke as vice-president of the Greenbelt Coalition of Mid-Missouri.  She said they had worked extensively with the City on the greenbelt.  She said they felt very strongly that the scenic road ordinance was a major part of the City of Columbia and its future.  Ms. Stephenson thanked everyone for all of their work on the issue.
    Bonnie Bourne, 1506 University Avenue, said she was bringing support for the ordinance from the East Campus Neighborhood Association.  She said it was an excellent example of good planning and it would fit in well with the historic work this Association had been doing.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Referring to the definition of a scenic roadway being a street designated as such by the City Council, Mr. Kruse asked if the word "street" could include a state highway.  Mr. Hancock said the amendment would regulate the development of private property along a road.  He guessed that a road which was not state owned or under some state control could be.  Mr. Kruse said he saw nothing that would preclude a state highway from being a scenic roadway.  Mayor Hindman thought that was reasonable.
    Mr. Harline noted that the Grindstone/Rock Quarry Neighborhood had made this one of their projects about five years ago.  He said this was a real testament to what a focused neighborhood organization could do.
    B69-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B71-97     Amending the Major Thoroughfare Plan by adding the Ballenger Lane extension.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said this extension was being proposed for inclusion in the Thoroughfare Plan for the purpose of creating an alignment that will be reviewed as an alternative during the MIS (major investment study) that is being conducted by the Missouri Department of Transportation.  He said the MIS will examine the planned route 740 extension, the overall circulation and traffic problems in the I-70/US 63 area, and evaluate a series of alternative solutions.  He noted that the Ballenger extension is a "place holder roadway", which is meant to preserve a future roadway corridor during the 12 to 24 month time period in which the MIS will be completed.  He said this plan had been adopted by the Area Transportation Technical Coordinating Committee.
    Mr. Campbell asked if it would be cost prohibitive to put in an intersection (ramps) with the Interstate.  Mr. Beck did not think there were preliminary costs on doing that.  Mr. Campbell asked if that was a feasible part of the development.  Mr. Hancock said in their discussions with the Highway engineers that possibility had not been dismissed.  He said all the engineers had done at this point was give the City a location where the extension might cross.  Mr. Hancock said they have not ruled out any kind of direct connection with it, but they have not indicated it would meet their standard either.
    Mr. Kruse said the report to the Commission referred to this as an alternative for the future extension of 740.  He asked whether that meant it would be built if the 740 extension was not done.  He also asked if it would be an extension to 740 or in addition to it.  Mr. Beck said it could be either.  He was not sure it would remove the idea of taking a major roadway eastward.
    Mr. Janku assumed since this would be a City street, all costs would be borne by the City.  Mr. Beck said he would like to think there would be some sharing of costs, but was not sure from whom.  He said it would be an expensive project.  Mr. Janku asked if funds were set aside in the budget for it.  Mr. Beck said there were not, only for the study.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B71-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B73-97     Rezoning from O-1 to C-2 property on the southwest corner of Elm Street and Watson
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this less than half acre tract had been used for a parking lot, primarily for University purposes.  He said there was a very large parking garage being built adjacent to the area which makes it less feasible to continue the use as a parking lot.  He noted that the request had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on a 9-0 vote.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Jack Waters, property owner, noted that the City's Land Use Plan calls for commercial zoning in this area.  He said all of the adjacent and surrounding property was already zoned C-2.  He pointed out that this was an 87.5 foot by 200 foot parcel of land and said the 87.5 foot dimension would be tough to work with considering the O-1 setback requirements.  He said C-2 zoning would be a good solution.
    Mr. Janku asked if there was a planned purchase.  Mr. Waters said he had an interested party, but did not have a contract yet.  He thought it was something that should be resolved soon, but said it was too soon to say it was a done deal.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B73-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B74-97     Rezoning to C-P and O-P property at the southwest corner of Forum Boulevard and Chapel
                  Hill Road, and approving O-P/C-P development plan.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman noted that an amendment sheet had been prepared that would change Exhibit A.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that B74-97 be amended per the amendment sheet.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Harline and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Hancock pointed out that this was a proposal to rezone two seven acre tracts at the southwest corner of Chapel Hill and Forum Boulevard.  He noted that tract A was proposed to be rezoned to planned commercial (C-P), and tract B to planned office (O-P).  One of the conditions placed on the plan were that all grading plans for the entire site must be approved by the Public Works Department, along with a final plat for any portion of the property.  In addition, any changes to the landscape screening that has been planned for the west side of the site will require a public hearing before the Commission.  There would be no occupancy permits granted for any building on lots 1, 2, 3, or 4 along the back side of the property until the land screening is in place and approved by the City Arborist.  Dana Court must be built, along with a connector, to channel traffic in a right in/right out fashion.  This road will have to be built, dedicated, and inspected prior to an occupancy permit for any building on the site.  There would also have to be an agreement executed for off-site improvements along Forum Boulevard.
    Mr. Hancock said the land uses were the subject of considerable discussion between the staff, the proponent, and the neighbors.  He described the uses for tract A, which is the commercial tract.  He said the neighbors were all in agreement with the uses.  Tract B was to be used for office activities only, or those allowed in O-1 zoning.  Mr. Hancock reported some prohibited uses had been identified such as gas stations, convenience stores, and other similar businesses the neighborhood felt were not appropriate for that corner.  Design parameters were included as part of the ordinance.  Mr. Hancock said staff was recommending approval of the request as was the Planning and Zoning Commission.
    Mr. Patterson reminded the Council that the City originally intended to have four lanes on Forum at the intersection of Chapel Hill, coming through the Chapel Hill intersection approximately 300 feet, and then tapering back into a one lane going southbound.  With the proposed development, an entrance was requested onto Forum, which is a limited access roadway.  He said the City paid to restrict access onto it.  Prior to considering the break in the access, staff required the developer to have a very thorough traffic study performed to determine options and what would be appropriate for the development of the area.
    Mr. Patterson said there was an agreement reached with the developer that, if the Council approves, the City would extend the second driving lane past the right in/right out entrance.  The developer would construct a right turn lane at Chapel Hill Road, and the City would move the signal standard and do all the associated work in order to get the improvements completed at one time.  In return, the developer would construct a third lane from Chapel Hill southward to the right in/right out break in access.  Mr. Patterson said the developer would do all of the work required to construct the right in/right out access, plus the merging back into the traffic lane south, and would construct a right turn lane from Chapel Hill to Forum Boulevard.
    Mr. Patterson said staff felt these improvements were essential due to the potential increase in traffic at that intersection.  It was felt with any break in the access on Forum, a third lane would be necessary in order to provide adequate time for merging of traffic and to allow for recirculation of any traffic within the development itself.  The developer agreed to the terms and, in order to see that it is completed, staff agreed to include it in the Forum contract and would provide plans and specifications that would be designed by the developer and put in the contract.  Mr. Patterson said staff would administer the contract to be reimbursed by the developer.
    Mayor Hindman asked what was meant by the City paying for limited access onto Forum.  He asked if the City would be getting that back in any way.  Mr. Patterson said staff felt that the off-site improvements would go toward reimbursing the City.  He said a break in access was not initially supported and staff was not saying there should be breaks in the access.  If there were breaks in the access, these extractions were in the public interest and would reimburse the public by the amount that has been paid for it.  Mr. Campbell said there had been considerable concern on the part of the neighborhood that all of the traffic would be concentrated on Chapel Hill.  This was a way of distributing some of the traffic out of the neighborhoods.
    Mr. Janku asked if there would eventually be four lanes and how right-of-way would be acquired.  Mr. Patterson said the City is getting a full 100 foot right-of-way, 50 feet on each side.  He said a curb and gutter section is expected when going to four lanes.  This will also occur to the south, there will be a curb section where shoulders presently exist.  Mr. Janku asked about the right in/right out and how people coming from the south would have to go up into Chapel Hill and make a left at the light.  He wondered how this traffic might increase the delay at the light.  Mr. Janku was specifically referring to turning in left at the right in/right out.  Mr. Patterson said there would be a real problem adding a left turn at this location and would be very hesitant to recommend approval of any turning movement across the four lanes, other than a signalized intersection.  Mr. Campbell said that was the reason for the raised island, it would prevent turning movements.
    Mr. Janku asked who was responsible for the long-term maintenance of the dam.  Mr. Campbell said there was a homeowners association.  Mr. Hancock said it was a private lake and, as far as he knew, maintenance of it was the responsibility of the homeowners.
    Mayor Hindman asked about the shaded area on the map.  Mr. Campbell said it was residential and a PUD.  He said it was not part of this plan.  Mayor Hindman asked if it was owned by the same person.  Mr. Campbell said it was.  Mayor Hindman said the City was interested in getting a pedestrian way down to the MKT Trail.  Mr. Campbell said the property was a PUD and was currently for sale.  He said since it was a PUD, the City would have oversight of what happens in this area.  Mayor Hindman asked whether there were still plans for a temporary sidewalk and if the City could get the right-of-way to do that.  Mr. Campbell had asked the staff to look at the possibility of taking it as a park, or what some other alternative uses might be.  He said the terrain was very rugged.  Mr. Campbell said sidewalks could be built as part of this project, but the PUD was not part of this discussion.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Craig VanMatre, an attorney with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He said the neighborhood association had an agreement with the applicant giving them additional protection on top of what was seen in the plan.  He said Mr. Campbell had been kind enough to arbitrate over a period of several months.
    Mr. Janku asked if it would be a problem to put in a gravel path or sidewalk on the R-1 property while waiting for sale or development.  Mr. VanMatre said he could not speak for his client, but it seemed like a reasonable request.  He would discuss it with the developer tomorrow.
    Tim Casick, 1805 Crystal Point and President of Chapel Hill Lake Homeowners Association, said this group provided an incredible amount of input into the development of this plan over the past three years.  He did not think there was anything about the plan that the Association was not consulted about.  Mr. Casick said they also felt the private agreement was fair, equitable, and it would serve both sides to their advantage.  The Chapel Hill Lake Homeowners Association were in support of the applicant's request.
    Mr. Kruse congratulated the neighborhood association on a job well done.  He asked if there was any discussion about the possible use of neon lighting on the buildings.  Mr. Casick believed there was a provision in the agreement regarding the direction of the lighting and the brightness at the border of the development.  Mr. Kruse thought that was for the street lighting.  Mr. Casick said that was correct.  Mr. Kruse said he did not see anything that would preclude a store from wrapping itself in neon lights.  Mr. Casick agreed.  Mr. Kruse said he would not like to see a lot of bright, neon lights on buildings.  Mr. Campbell reminded Mr. Kruse that the Council only had the City agreement in front of them.  Mr. Campbell remembered some discussion regarding the brightness and the direction of lighting.  Mr. Casick read from their agreement the stipulations regarding signage within the development.
    Dr. George Gibb, owner of the office building to the north of the subject property, said he was pleased with the plan.  He said it was a good plan and something they could be proud of.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Campbell noted that both sides had been very willing to negotiate.  He said this may not be ideal from anyone's perspective, but it was something everybody could live with.  He complimented both sides.
    Mrs. Crockett said she was grateful that Mr. Campbell had volunteered to work with both sides as it made the Council's job a lot easier.
    B74-97 as amended was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A)     Construction of sanitary sewers in Sewer District No. 136 (Olive Street area).
    Item A was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this project was being proposed to be paid for with tax bills and monies from the sewer utility.  He asked Mr. Patterson to explain the project.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Mr. Patterson noted that this tax bill district had been previously before the Council in the form of a report.  He said staff have had meetings with the property owners in the development of the District, and reminded the Council that this district was a compromise from the original proposed area.
    Mr. Patterson reported Sewer District 136 would serve 15 lots and the estimated cost was $48,500, with a not to exceed tax bill rate established at 14.5 cents per square foot.  He said the proposed funding would be from the sewer utility and tax bills assessed against properties.  Mr. Patterson pointed out that the sewer district was initiated by petition.  He said questions had been raised at the time of the formation of the district regarding relief for properties contained in the district that appear to have rather large assessments proposed.  He said the benefits accrued to the properties would be determined at the time of the tax bill hearing.
    Mr. Patterson said benefits of the District is that on-site treatments that are recognized as potential health hazards would be eliminated, the cost of maintaining these on-site systems would no longer be necessary, and the availability of a public sewer line is an enhancement of property values.  Of the 15 lots shown to be served, Mr. Patterson pointed out that four of them were currently being served by a private common collector and, in accordance with City policy, the four properties would only be charged one half of the tax bill rate.  In this case, that would be 7.3 cents for the maximum rate and the sewer utility would pay the rest of the balance.  Mr. Patterson expected the work to be completed this summer.
    Roland Walker, an attorney with offices at 1401 Locust Street, spoke on behalf of his client, O. C. Nichols.  Mr. Nichols is the owner of the lot at 2703 Brown Station Road.  Mr. Walker said he was not present to object to the formation of the sewer district because, in order for Mr. Nichols to have a sellable piece of property, he has to have a sewer.  His purpose for attendance had been set forth in a letter sent to the Council dated February 3, 1997.  He said the letter had been answered by Mr. Patterson's memo.  Mr. Walker said when the tax bills were set, he wanted to come back to the Council to ask for relief for his client.
    Beverly Matthews, 2612 E. Olive, said the Health Department told her that the sewage system on this property was not proper and should not be used any longer.  She said they planned on doing the corrective work themselves, but found out that the cost would be prohibitive because their private sewer line was failing also.  Ms. Matthews would appreciate anything the City could do to help her.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Beck pointed out that this was a perfect example of where development occurred without subdivision requirements.  He said it had been developed many years ago prior to coming into the City.
    Mr. Campbell made a motion that staff be directed to proceed with the final plans and specifications.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Harline and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B56-97     Approving Change Order No. 1 to the contract for the Downtown Fire Station Project.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this was approximately a $17,000 change order, a major part of it being for materials that were found underground during the time of excavation for the footings and foundation.  There was a list of other changes that had been negotiated with the contractor, Crawford Construction Company.  He pointed out that the project was basically on schedule and would hopefully be almost complete by the end of April.  Considering the size of the project, Mr. Beck said the change order amount was not very large.  Staff recommended approval.
    B56-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B57-97     Calling for bids for storm drainage and sanitary sewer construction on William Street and
                  Anthony Street.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said they hoped to open bids on this estimated $103,000 project on April 15.
    B57-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B58-97     Authorizing a contract with the Federal Transit Administration for FY 95-96 transit operating
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that it was an annual requirement to have the grant approved for operating buses.  The amount was approximately $613,000.
    B58-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B61-97     Authorizing a utility maintenance agreement with the Department of Transportation for the
                  Route B water main relocation.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this agreement is associated with the Route B widening project in northeast Columbia.  Staff hoped to see the project bid this spring.  He said the City's initial request had been to do quite a bit more work than what is shown in this agreement, probably $300,000 more work.  Mr. Beck reported with quite a bit of negotiation, it was felt the right procedure had been laid out.  The cost to the water utility fund will be about $400,000.
    B61-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B62-97     Authorizing an amendment to the territorial agreement with the Boone County Fire
                  Protection District.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck presented a brief history as to how the overall discussions started.  There had been opposition to annexation by various special districts in and around the City of Columbia during the 70's and 80's.  The last major area of land annexed into the City was in 1968-69, with the court ruling coming in the spring of 1970.  The Council asked staff several years ago to begin working with the special districts and agencies around the City to try to develop agreements to ensure that everyone could be treated as fairly as possible, regardless of being in or outside of the City.  The first agreement had been worked out in 1988 with Boone Electric where a territorial arrangement was agreed upon.  There had been an agreement with Water District No. 9 in 1992.
    In 1994, Mr. Beck reported staff had been directed to step-up negotiations.  In November of that year, the City adopted an agreement with the Boone County Fire Protection District, which is the subject of discussion this evening.  Staff proposed amending the agreement adopted by the Council in 1994.
    Mr. Beck explained that in 1996, the City completed a merger with Prathersville Water District No. 1, after some period of time spent on negotiations.  The City is continuing to work toward an agreement with Water District No. 2, even though there has been a law suit filed.  Just this past week, Mr. Beck felt a very good arrangement had been worked out with District No. 2.  It was an agreement similar to the merger with the Prathersville water district.  The City is also working on an agreement with Water District No. 4 and Consolidated No. 1.  Mr. Beck reported there is an agreement with Consolidated No. 1 at the airport, where the City has contributed about $600,000 toward bringing a major water line from the overhead elevated tower to provide the necessary fire flows and pressures needed to adequately protect the property.  Mr. Beck said the City was also working on a financing plan with the Boone County Regional Sewer District.  He said negotiations would have to be stepped-up if something is to be brought to the voters in November of 1997.
    Mr. Beck said staff has been working toward some visions and goals toward the orderly expansion of the City of Columbia.  Related to fire service, the City is attempting to minimize expense and duplication.  This would provide better long-term planning to avoid the City being circled with facilities from other agencies that might be in close proximity to existing facilities.  Mr. Beck said in the last several years, there had been quite a bit of discussion about annexation and utilities in and around the City of Columbia.  He wanted to see those issues resolved without having to ask legislators to step in.
    The fire territorial agreement of 1994 was a 15-year agreement and provided that a fire district furnishes service in areas annexed after the date of the agreement, pending adoption of Phase 2.  The only annexations occurring since the early 70's have been voluntary annexations where people have signed petitions to come into the City, particularly for the use of City facilities (mainly sanitary sewer).  The existing agreement provides for payments for services and provides that code enforcement will be based on City limits, not service area.  The bottom line is that the City would continue to provide code enforcement as it relates to building plans and that sort of thing.  The agreement also provides that the District will not oppose annexation and the City will not oppose a District tax levy by the proposals.  It provides guidelines for the Phase 2 amendment.  Mr. Beck said that Mr. Hargrove had been working with issues dealing with Phase 2, the amendment being discussed this evening.
    Mr. Hargrove displayed a map that is an integral part of the explanation of the amendment.  It authorizes that the City Fire Department would provide the primary service in the City limit areas as have existed prior to November 22, 1994.  It also provides areas shown on the map, outside the City, to be in the City service area.  The City would be reimbursed by the Fire District for protection in those areas.  Mr. Hargrove explained that the City would provide primary service to the Georgetown area only until County Station 14 is built.  After that time, it would revert back to a County service area.
    The map defined the areas that were annexed since November 22, 1994, that would remain in the City service area.  The predominant area was along Smiley Lane.  It also defined the areas annexed since November of 1994 that would be in a County service area.  In developing this phase of the agreement, an additional issue examined was where future City fire stations should be and potential County sites.  A map was displayed of current fire stations indicating what response times were to various areas of the City.  The areas with longer response times were noted.
    Mr. Hargrove said the plan developed was for construction of three future City fire stations; one in the northwest area, another in the southeast area, and the third in the northeast area.  He pointed out the areas that would be defined as City service areas, regardless of whether or not they had been annexed into the City at that point.  The City would be reimbursed by the Fire District for protection in those areas.  Other provisions in this phase of the agreement were that the District would not construct any new stations within 3 miles of the City limits, except for any of the stations shown on the exhibit, and the agreement could be terminated should it become a legal impediment to annexation.
    As to the present status regarding the economics of the agreement, Mr. Hargrove said the current Fire District operating levee was $.69 per $100 of assessed valuation.  This is what the City pays for service areas that are served by the County Fire Protection District, and the amount from the County that is paid to the City for areas that are in the District that we serve.  The current valuation of the approximate 800 acres annexed since November of 1994 was basically one and one quarter million dollars.  He said $490,000 of this would remain in the City service area.  The basic agreement calls for payments to begin after the $10,000 threshold is reached so current taxes on the assessed valuation are a little over $5,000.  Mr. Hargrove said it would be awhile before the City would begin any payments to the District under this agreement.
    Mr. Hargrove reported the fire insurance rating in annexed areas are under the same ISO rating.  Columbia has a Class 3 rating, and all areas annexed into the City would also have a similar rating.  This means for those areas outside the City with a Class 5 rating, when annexed into the City's Class 3 rating, it would be a savings of approximately $50 per year on a $100,000 dwelling.  He said the ISO rating was based about 50% on the evaluation of the fire department, 40% on the water availability, and 10% on such things as street systems and communications.
    Mr. Beck pointed out that if the amendment was enacted this evening by the Council, the Fire District Board would take up the issue at their March 19 meeting.  He reiterated that no area within the City of Columbia would be affected by this agreement unless it was annexed after November of 1994  He said property owners requesting annexation are being informed that they will be in the Fire District service area unless shown differently on the territorial map.
    Mayor Hindman read a prepared amendment sheet that would renumber paragraph 4 to paragraph 5 and adding a new paragraph 4 which would read, "The City shall have the option of requiring the Fire District to provide staffing at Fire District stations serving areas within the City limits.  The City shall compensate the Fire District for all extra costs incurred by the Fire District as a result of City exercising this option."
    Regarding the map showing three future City fire stations, Mr. Janku asked what the projected costs would be in terms of construction and personnel.  Mr. Hargrove said the total cost currently estimated for buying a site, building and fully equipping a fire station was about $1,200,000.  For a company staffed by three employees, it would cost between $500,000 and $600,000 per year in operating costs per station.
    Fire Chief Margraf agreed with the City Manager that in order to continue the orderly growth of this City, annexation is needed.  He felt the agreement would facilitate the annexation in a better and more cooperative manner.  Chief Margraf pointed out that the City had not built or staffed an additional fire station in 14 years.  He said even if there is never any further annexation, there is still at least three areas in the City that need to have fire stations.  In addition to the three stations, the Chief felt two additional companies, another squad and another ladder truck were needed.  This would again require more personnel.  The Chief said those things were of much greater concern to him than the areas that may or may not come into the City and may or may not be populated.  For that reason, he thought this agreement amendment was the way to go so the City would have control over the areas of growth for the fire service.  He was not hearing a response from anyone regarding the addition of three fire stations.
    Mr. Beck pointed out, even though the City has not added stations, substantial budget support had been given to the Fire Department.  He noted that in the 1995 budget $6.1 million was allocated for the Fire Department.  In 1997 the amount was increased to $6.9 million, without adding any new stations.  He said there was a need to keep our equipment current and also to keep the staff well-trained.  Mr. Beck said that was true with any department if a change is made in the scope of operations.
    District Fire Chief Steve Paulsell said this was a monumental meeting as it was the culmination of many years of work.  He said that decades of effort have brought the two entities to this milestone.  Chief Paulsell said he had seen many changes in the 27 years he has been with the District, but unfortunately the issue of City growth and its affect on fire protection in the community had not been one that he has seen resolved.  The territorial agreement signed in November of 1994, and the subsequent amendment before the Council this evening, would serve as a benchmark in the evolution of fire protection in the community and would significantly reduce the duplication and waste created by constantly shifting service areas.  The agreement would provide an excellent planning platform for two very fine fire service organizations to plan individually and collectively.  Chief Paulsell said the District continues to support the original agreement and intended to ratify the amendment Wednesday evening.  He thanked and commended the City staff for their diligence in this effort and said the District firmly believed the City negotiated in good faith for the betterment of the community.  The work that had been accomplished would serve as testimony to people doing the right thing for the right reasons.
    Mayor Hindman asked Chief Paulsell to summarize a letter that had been sent to the Council from the Fire Protection District.  Chief Paulsell said the question had been raised in discussions regarding the future plans of the Fire District in terms related to career staffing issues.  He said the District understood for many years that work load demands would necessitate evolvement to that level.  The District feels very strongly in the volunteer system and realize they have a group of excellent people that provide a great deal of service to the community.  But as areas develop, call volumes and expectations increase, there will be a need to augment the volunteer system with career positions.  Mr. Paulsell said the letter was simply a confirmation on their part that the District will ultimately work toward an augmentation of their system with some career staffing in the urban stations around the City limits of Columbia.  He said that was not a new philosophy.  Mayor Hindman asked Mr. Paulsell if he had any objections to the prepared amendment sheet that was read earlier.  Mr. Paulsell said it had been read to him this afternoon over the phone and he did not believe there was a problem with it.
    Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Paulsell whether he had a time estimate as to when additional people would be put on staff.  Mr. Paulsell said it would be difficult to put an exact time line on when additional people would be put on staff because this would be determined by demands and funds.  The District is concerned about providing a level of service that is acceptable and will also meet the needs of the future.  He anticipated that to occur probably within five years.
    Karen Miller, Associate Commissioner for Boone County, read the following letter from the County Commission submitted to Mr. Beck and Chief Paulsell on February 26th and asked that it be made part of the record.

    Ms. Miller said this kind of effort is necessary to help stretch tax dollars further and give citizens the type of service needed.  She urged the Council to ratify the agreement and proceed with joint planning.
    Ted Cadawell, 806 Crystal Point, said Columbia has already very defined neighborhoods within the city limits that need fire assistance and, by the Fire Chief's own admission, could use more help.  He had never believed in expanding beyond the capabilities of your own business or entity without first cleaning house.  That would include staffing in locations that need the help, rather than attempting to open up or franchise some other location.  He believed the level of service offered by the Boone County Fire Protection District was exceeded by none and said they were known locally, statewide, and nationally.
    Steve Sapp, spoke on behalf of the Columbia Professional Firefighters Association.  He said tonight the Council would determine the quality of life the future citizens of Columbia will receive.  He said this group was not opposed to future growth and were in favor of orderly City growth.  They felt the agreement could become a hindrance to annexation.  From a union standpoint, Mr. Sapp said they had nothing to gain by their position.
    The main issue was about providing full and equal levels of service to all citizens of the City of Columbia.  As taxpayers, all citizens expected and had the right to the services being provided to current residents.  In agreements struck with the rural electric cooperative and several water districts, the City addressed the issues of the levels of service.  In the rural City fire agreement, levels of standards have not been addressed.
    This organization recognizes that the Boone County Fire Protection District is a fine volunteer organization, but there is a difference in the level of service.  Mr. Sapp said in 1993, the Council at that time voted to adopt R75-93, which fought against passage of HB683 that would have required newly annexed areas of cities to continue to receive primary fire service from fire districts.  When the Council adopted that resolution, it was believed in.  The level of service provided by the District has not changed in any great fashion to make the intent of that resolution any weaker.  Mr. Sapp requested the Council to take time to consider what this amendment would mean and how it would affect annexation and newly annexed citizens.  Mr. Sapp suggested that the Council delay a decision for 30 to 90 days.  The union is hopeful the Council will bring all of the concerned parties to the table for an open, constructive review of how to best handle the issue.  Mr. Sapp said the formation of a citizens committee was part of the resolution in 1993, and a part that needed to be evolved now.
    Ms. Coble asked Mr. Sapp if he thought there was substantial change that a time delay would allow for.  Mr. Sapp stated citizens should be allowed involvement in determining what type of fire protection was acceptable to them.  He did not believe that citizen input had been received on the level it needed to be to provide this service.  He understood from City Administration that future annexed citizens will be told that they will be receiving their fire protection from the Boone County Fire District, which is a volunteer service.  Mr. Sapp stated they were not sure it had gone to the depth it needed to in order to inform the citizens as to the complete change in the level of service.
    Mr. Campbell said his ward was known for speaking out, but he had not received any comments and only one question.  Mr. Sapp said they believed that was exactly part of the issue that needed to be addressed.  Mr. Campbell said in the past his constituents have not hesitated to speak out on issues.  Mr. Sapp said some services people question very little, like water and electric, because they are taken for granted.  The Fire Department is a service that is taken for granted.  It is hard to get citizen input and citizen awareness on a service that could affect them some day, but hopefully never will.  Mr. Campbell asked what another 30 or 60 days would do in that case.  Mr. Sapp would like the Council to form a citizens committee that was discussed in R75-93, and let the citizens decide for themselves what level of service that is expected.
    Mrs. Crockett said she was under the impression Mr. Sapp was concerned about safety as it relates to response time.  Mr. Sapp said that was correct.  Mrs. Crockett asked how many fire employees the City employed.  Mr. Sapp said front line fire personnel was 103.  Out of that number, Mrs. Crockett asked how many of the individuals live outside the City limits.  Mr. Sapp said he thought it was 71.  Referring to response time, Mrs. Crockett had a concern about the number of people living outside the City.  Mr. Sapp said what Mrs. Crockett was addressing was response time to calls within the City limits of Columbia.  He said that was completely different from calling in off duty personnel.  He said when referring to response times inside the City of Columbia by the Fire Department, this involves seven fully staffed stations and 10 fully staffed pieces of equipment that are ready to roll at the time of the alarm.  In 1996, the response time figure he had been given was 1.77 minutes from the time the alarm was received at the fire station until the time the truck was actually rolling.
    Mr. Sapp reported a volunteer organization relies on persons who do not have the duty to respond, nor is there the staffing at the stations that allow for rapid, organized, responses such as the Columbia Fire Department.  There are mechanisms in place that allow for call back of City fire fighters if multiple alarms are received, and those fire fighters are returned to service in an orderly fashion.  At the same time, mutual aid agreements are enacted that have been in place for years between the Columbia Fire Department and the Boone County Fire Protection District to assist in providing staffing at City stations.  Those agreements had worked very well in the past.  Mrs. Crockett pointed out that 71 of their firefighters were living in the areas being protected by the Boone County Fire District.  Mr. Sapp said that was correct.
    Mr. Campbell said he was having trouble understanding that while 90% of the Columbia Firefighters signed a statement indicating their concerns with the amendment, two-thirds of the group live outside the city limits where they are not covered by the service.  Mr. Sapp said a large number of those people are also members of the Boone County Fire Protection District and they serve their communities through the services that they have available to them.  It was typical in small municipalities, such as Hallsville and Sturgeon, that the funding mechanisms are not in place for full time staffed fire departments.  Mr. Campbell said his question was that if they consider this to be of major importance, why do these people not live in an area which has full time fire protection.  Mr. Sapp said that reverted back to what had been discussed in meetings with Mr. Hargrove and Mr. Beck.  Mr. Sapp said the union advocated that if the City wants to annex and bring citizens into Columbia, it must act like a business and sell itself to the citizens.  It must offer all the services that a city is capable of offering and not just a select few.  The union felt if the City were to offer those services and ensure they were available to all residents, the City would not only increase the areas of property that could be annexed, but may well increase the population of people moving from rural settings into urban settings.
    Mrs. Crockett said with this agreement, residents who are annexed would know up front what type of fire service they would be receiving.  Mr. Sapp said that was what the staff had indicated.  Mrs. Crockett said as long as people know what they are getting up front, she did not have a problem with the amendment.  Mr. Sapp said a lot of this had not been proven yet.  Many areas that have been annexed which are currently being served, the developer was probably the one who is informed of the agreement.  Mr. Sapp said as properties are subdivided and houses and businesses are built, he wondered if the City would go to the extent to ensure that each new resident would be informed of the agreement.
    Mr. Kruse said much of the land annexed into the City is in a vacant state and unoccupied.  He said that was probably why the Council had not heard any opposition, because people were not living in these areas yet.  Mr. Sapp said that was correct.  He wondered if the amendment is passed and as residents come into the City to build on these properties, if the Realtors would be asked those questions as to what type of services one might be receiving.
    Mr. Harline asked Mr. Sapp if he would agree that the Boone County Fire Protection District provides, at the very least, adequate and probably excellent volunteer protection.  Mr. Sapp said the Columbia Firefighters and the Columbia Fire Department have always maintained that, as a whole, the Boone County Fire Protection District can stand up against any fire protection district, not only in the State of Missouri, but in the United States.  Mr. Harline asked if it was the Columbia Firefighters position that every inch of City property should be City served, or if there was some middle ground they were working on in terms of service areas and logic.  Mr. Sapp said that was part of it and there is a middle ground to be met.  The Columbia Professional Firefighters Association professes in no way to have the answers to this problem.  Mr. Sapp said they wanted to work with everyone involved toward the best possible solution to the problem.  Mr. Harline asked how they felt about the proposed amendment on City involvement and staffing, and the comments made by Chief Paulsell.  Mr. Sapp said those comments were encouraging to them, but because the amendment was produced just a few minutes ago, it would take some time to digest it.  It does pose new questions, some of which have already been addressed by the City staff.  He said the amendment was encouraging and they would like nothing better than to work with the Council and staff to come up with a solution.
    Mr. Campbell asked if the bottom line was that they had not been at the table.  Mr. Sapp thought that was part of it.  In the past, their organization had probably not proceeded with a levelheadedness that should have been.  The group has taken a brand new approach in the way problems are handled.  Mr. Campbell asked if it would be safe to assume that the quotation in the Sunday paper had been incorrect (referring to the mention of a law suit).  Mr. Sapp would not say that was incorrect.  He said their attorney was present and he thought she could best answer this question.  He believed there were state laws that would prohibit this agreement from going through.
    Dana Apple, attorney for Local 1055, said in looking at Phase 2 of the agreement, she had found what she believed to be problems in the state law.  She did not believe that fire protection districts in first class non-charter counties had the right, under state law, to enter into an agreement with contiguous cities such as what is in this agreement.  There is a provision in state law that says if a city with a population in excess of 40,000 annexes an area protected by a fire protection district, this area shall be excluded from the fire protection district.  She said this did not follow the territorial agreement.  There is a provision that if one tries to annex an area and someone issues a challenge to it, there would have to be a public hearing and the entity would perhaps have to be ready to state in court how equivalent levels of services would be provided, including fire protection, to the annexed area within three years.   Ms. Apple thought a reason had been found to think about this amendment a little longer and do more investigation.  She noted that Chief Paulsell said it was difficult to discuss response times or to compare the response times between the fire protection district and the City of Columbia Fire Department.  She said it may be difficult, but absolutely necessary.  When talking about fire and emergency medical service protection, there is nothing more important than response time.  Ms. Apple had one basic question for the Council to contemplate if they chose to take the time to further examine the issue.  She questioned why the City should pay to staff county fire stations.
    Mr. Boeckmann said that Ms. Apple was referring the Chapter 321, which is divided into different sections, part of it applying to St. Louis County and part of it to the rest of the state.  He said there were two questions; one was the validity of the agreement, whether the City could enter into it, and the other was the affect on annexation.  In terms of the validity of the agreement, Mr. Boeckmann said he thought there was authority in Chapter 70, which authorized cooperative agreements between different political subdivisions, and specifically mentions fire protection districts.  He said when the City annexes territory, the fire district automatically loses that territory.  This is not inconsistent with the agreement.  The agreement recognizes and authorizes for one party to pay the other party when service is provided for that entity.  Mr. Boeckmann thought the City had the authority to enter into the agreement.  The other question was the affect the amendment has on annexation.  The level of service to be provided and the area to be annexed will have to be examined as it occurs.  Mr. Boeckmann said it was a problem the City would have to face at the time of annexation.  The City would have to know what level of service the fire protection district would provide in the area to be annexed.
    Regarding the amendment, Mr. Campbell asked if the City proposed to annex an area and as part of the annexation agreed to provide staffing, whether that would meet some of the tests Mr. Boeckmann was suggesting.  Mr. Boeckmann thought it certainly would.  Ms. Apple said that might depend on the level of staffing.
    Betsy Horst, 712 Timberhill Road, said she was interested in how an amended agreement would reduce fire fighting expense.  Mayor Hindman said he did not think it purported to save expense.  Mr. Harline thought a proponent speaking earlier may have given that impression.  He said the point was that it could possibly extend the need to expand services, build fire stations and that sort of thing in areas which are still basically rural but are located in the City.  Mr. Beck said it would avoid the duplication of facilities, equipment, and people.  As a City resident, Ms. Horst said annexation indicated to her full City service.  Ms. Horst stated if she was in one of those areas affected by the amendment, she would want to be served by City firefighters, not by a fire district on a volunteer basis.
    Mary Angela Johnson, 503 Edgewood, said she had been talking about this issue for two years, and nobody seems to know anything about it.  She said it was a black hole of no information.  She described three separate occasions in which she had personally witnessed City fire personnel in action.  Each time the scene had been quietly calm with no wasted motion or time.  Ms. Johnson reported in addition to the flow of water, there was also a flow of information that came to those involved.  She thought volunteers were wonderful, but could not match professionals.  Volunteerism was a different order of business and these persons may not always show up.  Ms. Johnson asked about the level of public input on this decision and how the decision would affect her current level of service living close to downtown, and how it would affect those residents living further out.  She asked if a volunteer fire department, no matter how competently run, can meet the same standards as a professional department.  She wondered if the equipment of the Boone County Fire Department meet the same standards as the equipment within the City.  Ms. Johnson questioned whether the volunteers met the same training and continuing education standards as the City, and if the County has regularly trained fire fighters or if they used college students.  She asked if there were standards that would guarantee that the volunteers would always show up.  Mrs. Johnson asked the Council to make sure that the City stays as well protected as it is now.
    Debbie Taylor, a resident of Mill Creek Crossing, believed she was in one of the areas annexed since 1994.  She agreed with what Mrs. Johnson said about this issue being a black hole and people not knowing what was going on.  If someone had not left a flyer in her mailbox, she would not have known that she would be affected by the amendment.  Ms. Taylor purchased a home two years ago and the Realtor nor the builder had informed her of the agreement.  She said as a member of the City of Columbia, she felt strongly that she deserved professional services and when she picked up the phone in an emergency situation, she could depend on those people to come and help her.  She said with a volunteer situation she would not know for sure that those people would show up to help her.  Ms. Taylor asked the Council to rethink the amendment.
    Norma Spurgeon, 404 Edgewood, explained that she had experienced an electrical fire five weeks ago in her home.  She explained the sequence of events and said with the professional coordination and organization, the Columbia Firefighters had expertly done a tremendous job.
    Lynn Sullivan, a resident of southwest Columbia, said her concern stemmed from the fact that there had been two fires in her neighborhood within the last several years.  She felt much safer as a citizen having professional fire fighters attending to her needs.  She did not understand why this decision needed to be made right now.  Ms. Sullivan urged the Council to think further about the issue.  She thought people were very interested in this issue, but just did not know enough about it.
    Milo Spurgeon, 404 Edgewood, echoed his wife's previous sentiments.
    Alan Davison, 210 Russell Boulevard, was a 20 year veteran of the Columbia Fire Department who retired five years ago.  He said his wife is a Division Chief with the department.  Mr. Davison stayed clear of this issue in hopes that it would resolve itself in an equitable manner.  He thanked the Mayor and Council for their recognition of the job the professional firefighters perform in Columbia by introducing the amendment.  Mr. Davison said it was inevitable that career staffing would occur in metropolitan Columbia, whether it is inside city limits or outside of them.  He said it was a function of ability to respond.  A person cannot work a day job and respond for free all night, and then get up and start the day job over again.  He said it cannot be done, not forever.  Mr. Davison cautioned the Council not to be struck by all of the glitter they saw on the overheads earlier.  Many of the incidence responses that had been shown in the peaks were nothing but false alarms that should be ticketed.  There were self-protected sprinkler alarm system warehouses in many cases.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Harline said one of the things in the past resolution mentioned some type of citizens committee.  He asked Chief Paulsell if he thought a continuing committee looking at staffing levels would be a good idea.  Chief Paulsell said he could not speak for the Board, but he did not see that as a problem.
    Mayor Hindman said they had heard a lot of comments about training.  He asked Chief Paulsell to comment.
    Chief Paulsell said the fire district's basic training for firefighters received certification from the Division of Fire Safety compliant with Firefighter I and II, following the NFPA guidelines.  He explained that the National Fire Protection Association establishes standards.  These are voluntary standards, but essentially standards that fire departments operate by in the industry all across the country.  It sets standards for training and the performance of certain tasks at firefighter I and II levels.
    Chief Paulsell said the Division of Fire Safety of the State of Missouri has a State Fire Marshal's Office.  He said this was the accrediting agency for training programs that certify the different entities to those standards that attest that they have been successfully completed by a firefighter.
    Mr. Campbell asked how the two groups would differ in that respect.  Mr. Paulsell said the technique used is different.  He uses a format called contextual training.  This is a relatively new concept that the District, along with several others in the country, are piloting primarily in concert with Montana State University.  This is a condensed program that is designed around a contextual format.  Instead of teaching four hours of putting ladders up and down and then moving on to another evolution, the ladder sequences are taught in context with an entire evolution. These are called tactical sequences.  This allows everyone involved in the training activity to participate all of the time in some facet of the tactical sequence.  The program takes a lot of people to support it and has a three to one (3 trainees to 1 teacher) ratio.  It takes a lot of staff and their system was able to produce that.  He said it was a good program as was Columbia's.  Chief Paulsell said they were both recognized as certifiable programs by the Division of Fire Safety.  Mr. Campbell asked if the Chief could compare the results of the two different programs.  Chief Paulsell said he thought the end result was the same, and so did the Fire Marshal's office.
    Mrs. Crockett asked Chief Paulsell to explain their response time.  Chief Paulsell said the drive time would basically be the same.  It takes both organizations the same time to travel the roads.  He said the variable was in the preparation time, the time between the receipt of the alarm and the time the fire truck rolls out the door.  He reported comparative numbers were run in December of 1996 and the difference, on an average, was the fire district took approximately 22 seconds more in response time than Columbia.  Chief Paulsell attibuted that to the fact that in some cases with a volunteer system, there would not be a fire fighter at the station and someone would have to go and get the truck.  He said 85% of the fire departments in the country operate that way.  Mrs. Crockett asked Chief Paulsell if he ever had trouble getting volunteers.  Chief Paulsell said there was a waiting list of people that have applied.  Presently they have 220 volunteers.
    Mr. Campbell had personal experiences with both departments.  He said both had been highly competent, very professional, and had done an excellent job of working with the situation.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that they amend B62-97 per the amendment sheet he read earlier.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Janku noted that the original agreement had set an 18 month time frame.
    Mr. Campbell pointed out that this agreement would not change the reciprocal agreement between the City and the Fire District.  He thought it seemed highly unlikely that this agreement would change the pattern of urban sprawl.  He said if the Council does not approve this amendment, people who are now residing outside the City boundaries would continue to have Fire District protection.  He said if the Council approves it, these same people will continue to have Fire District protection, even if annexed into the City.  He said there would be no change in the fire protection services for the people who decided to make their homes in areas protected by the Boone County Fire Protection District.  He said there would be one important difference.  These people were likely to have better opportunities to come into the City and thus receive other City services.  Under the best of circumstances, Mr. Campbell said that Missouri laws make it very difficult to annex land.  Mr. Campbell said the Boone County Firefighters have shown themselves to be well organized and highly motivated in several elections.  He said if they were to actively oppose future annexations, he doubted there would be very many areas around the City where such an election would pass.  Mr. Campbell said if the City was to have any opportunity to annex areas in which people reside, it was necessary to resolve the territorial issues with the District.  He concluded by saying that he strongly believed that, in most instances, full time fire protection personnel provide better fire protection services than volunteers, no matter how well they are trained.  He hoped that Chief Paulsell would move very quickly to provide professional full time personnel at stations serving Columbia.  Mr. Campbell said it would be most useful and reassuring if Chief Paulsell and the District would quickly develop a plan, which included response times, for the addition of the professional personnel.
    Regarding the provision in the existing agreement about the District not opposing annexation or the City not opposing tax increases, Mr. Harline asked if future Council members would be bound by these conditions.  He asked how that could be enforceable.  Mr. Boeckmann said the agreement was between two entities so any individual was free to say what they want.  He also said neither the City or District could legally spend any money opposing or supporting any ballot measure.  He thought it had been included as a show of good faith that there would not be any opposition on either side.  Mr. Harline thought it had been established that the Boone County Fire Protection District provides dependable, excellent service in a volunteer manner and that, in the long run, a professional full time staff would be the answer to an urbanizing area in transition.  He thought the one thing missing was citizen input.  This input should be obtained from City staff, the Boone County Fire District and their Board, a representative of Local 1055, and a couple of citizens.  He wanted to see this body provide on-going comments regarding staffing and service provision issues in the urbanizing area in and around the City of Columbia.
    Mr. Harline made the motion that B62-97 be further amended to say that the City Manager and the Boone County Fire Protection District shall appoint three members each, one of the City Manager's appointments being a representative of Local 1055.  Further, the Mayor shall appoint one member and the County Commission one member.  This board will be directed to periodically, during the term of this agreement, review staffing and service provision issues in the urbanizing area in and around the City of Columbia and provide reports to the City, County, and Fire District.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
    Mr. Janku said he had raised the idea of some sort of input committee, similar to what is done with the water districts, and was advised that the City was not required to have this as part of the agreement.  A committee could be established through the normal Council process.
    Mayor Hindman said there was a lot to be said for such a committee because it would be another step toward cooperation, but thought it was going beyond the original agreement.  For the Council to try to unilaterally put this in as an amendment to the agreement, it would be beyond what had been agreed on.  He thought the possibility of establishing such an arrangement should be examined, but he did not think it should be a part of the territorial agreement.  Mr. Campbell asked if the Mayor was suggesting that it be brought back as a separate ordinance.  Mayor Hindman thought the Council could ask for a resolution proposing it.
    Mr. Janku thought it was important that it be a citizens committee as opposed to representatives of particular interests.
    Mayor Hindman reported he would rather initiate discussions with the Fire District before forming a committee.  For that reason, he opposes the amendment.
    The motion to further amend, made by Mr. Harline, seconded by Mr. Kruse, failed.
    Mr. Janku said the real problem in this community was the City does not have planned annexation, and it is not known what the boundaries of the City of Columbia will be in the next one to three years.  This agreement outlines where stations can be placed to serve our existing citizens.  He said one of the areas with the greatest need was in his ward, and he felt the agreement would provide some degree of confidence as to where the city would be providing service.  Mr. Janku said the City put money in the ballot issue of 1995 to buy two fire station sites, and this plan would commit them to providing a total of three fully staffed stations.  It will be a significant cost to the City and the Council will have to figure out how to pay for it, but this amendment would commit toward the provision of improved fire service within the City of Columbia.  Mr. Janku thought everyone had to realize that the context of this amendment is the first step in trying to improve a working relationship with the County government and the Fire District.  If this agreement was not enacted, Mr. Janku reported the City would basically be throwing the original agreement out the window.
    Mrs. Crockett said both entities had fine departments.  She said if people were told up front what kind of fire protection would be provided and these residents were satisfied with it, they would allow annexation to occur.  She said since the meeting in February, nothing new had taken place so she did not understand what waiting any longer would prove.  Mrs. Crockett was concerned that the agreement could be lost if they waited.
    Ms. Coble said the bottom line was that the City does not have enough money to build three stations, let alone staff and equip them.  She said the Fire District did not have enough money to do what they want to do either.  She thought it was a good time for a cooperative agreement.  Ms. Coble did not think this was a perfect agreement, but a good one given about three years ago no one would have believed that an agreement such as this could exist.
    Mr. Kruse said he was going to support the amendment, but was troubled by the possibility of a scenario 25 or 50 years down the road where the City continues to grow in terms of its physical boundaries, and the potential of fire service being provided by two different departments.
    Mayor Hindman said with this agreement, the City would be able to protect the territory of the Fire District.  The District's financial base could increase to the point where service can be provided as needed in the urban area, and the City will be able to develop services needed within our boundaries.  As these things go, territorial agreements seem to be the way to resolve these types of issues.  Mayor Hindman said he was looking forward to the amendment, in the long run, being the most beneficial arrangement for the community.  Given the practicalities of it, he thought it was the best way of providing the highest level of fire protection to the most people.
    B62-97, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B63-97     Granting a variance allowing First Christian Church to build a canopy in a public alley
                  right-of-way, and authorizing a right of use permit.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said the staff was recommending approval of the request.   David Rogers, an attorney with offices at 813 E. Walnut, spoke on behalf of the First Christian Church.  He explained that the Church was in the midst of a large renovation project.  They plan to put one of the major entrances to the Church in the area of the right-of-way, and the canopy would provide protection in inclement weather.  Mr. Rogers said they were not asking for a vacation of the alley, just permission to cross the City's air space.  If the City ever has a reason that the canopy has to be moved or removed, the Church would do it at their expense.
    Mr. Kruse asked how far it would extend.  Mr. Rogers said it would extend all the way across the alley.
    B63-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B64-97     Appropriating funds for the Cosmo Park Playground and Shelter Project.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the Cosmo Luncheon Club had provided funding for the new recreation area at the park.  He said a tremendous number of compliments had been received about this park, and this additional funding will be used for even more work.
    B64-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B72-97     Annexing City-owned property south of the MKT Parkway and east of Scott Boulevard.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this was 101.5 acres in southwest Columbia, plus 2.1 acres of the existing MKT Trail.  He said it was property owned by the City.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion to amend B72-97 per the amendment sheet.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    B72-97 as amended was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

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

B60-97     Accepting water utility conveyances.
B65-97     Approving the final plat of Country Club Fairways, Plat 1-B, a replat of Lot 1, Country Club
                  Fairways, Plat 1.
B66-97     Approving the final plat of Dwight Bingham Subdivision, a replat of Lot 56 of Mikel
B67-97     Approving the final plat of the Meadowlands, Plat 13.
B68-97     Approving the final plat of the Meadowlands, Plat 14.
B70-97     Vacating a sanitary sewer easement in the Meadowlands.
R33-97     Setting a public hearing regarding 1996 CDBG and HOME Performance Report.

    The bills were given third reading and the resolution read with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bills declared enacted and resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R34-97     Approving the Preliminary Plat of Thessalia, Phase 2.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this 14.5 acre tract of land would have 32 lots on it.
    Mr. Janku asked if this tract was adjoining the property in which the owner indicated it would be dedicated to the City.  Mr. Hancock said that was correct.  Mr. Janku asked if there was access from this plat.  Mr. Hancock said the final plat was on for introduction, but it did not extend all the way to the proposed tract of land to be dedicated and deeded to the City.
    The vote on R34-97 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R35-97     Authorizing a petition for annexation of a portion of Nifong Park.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this land had been purchased by the City some time ago.  He said this property is now in a position to be annexed because it is contiguous to the City.
    The vote on R35-97 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R36-97     Authorizing an amendment to contracts with home health care vendors.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this would change the reimbursement rate to these vendors from $10.36 to $10.86 per hour.
    Ms. Coble asked if there was a reason why home health services were being provided by the Northeast Community Action Agency and not by the Mid-Missouri Agency, Central Missouri HDC.  Mr. Beck said he did not know, but would get an answer for her.
    The vote on R36-97 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R37-97     Urging state officials to encourage Amtrak to allow transportation of unboxed bicycles on
                  its route between St. Louis and Kansas City.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the Council requested this resolution.
    Mr. Beck noted that he had seen the enhancement application from the State Bicycle Coordinator, Mr. Scott.  He said they were applying for money to put bike racks in the train.
    Mayor Hindman said he was very much in favor of this resolution and had written letters and talked to Amtrak personally to try to get this taken care of.  He was concerned about the Council passing a resolution because he did not see where it was directly related to Columbia.  He asked Mr. Hancock if he saw a connection.  Mr. Hancock said it was a statewide route and because of the people that would want to get off near Columbia and use the Trail, he felt it would be beneficial to the City.
    Jan Pritchard, 3505 Rock Quarry Road, said she could see a very good reason for Columbia to endorse this.  She said the City has just spent an awful lot of money connecting to the cross state trail.  If people can get on the cross state trail in Jefferson City, we want to encourage them to come to Columbia.  She said people should be able to put their bicycles on the train in St. Louis, come to Jefferson City, ride up the trail, visit Columbia, get back on the train and go wherever they want.
    Mr. Janku said he felt there was enough of a logical link to support it.
    The vote on R37-97 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R38-97     Authorizing a contract of obligation with the Department of Natural Resources as the
                  landfill financial assurance instrument.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the state raised the landfill financial assurance to $16,278,803.  He noted that $8 million is for post-closure and approximately $8 million is for closure.  Mr. Beck reported the idea was to assure that landfills across the state are not abandoned and left as a problem.
    Mr. Janku asked if money was being set aside to fund this.  Mr. Patterson said post-closure funds were being set aside.  He said the closure costs were in the operating budget during the years of operation.  The post-closure costs were for the 30 years after the City has finished with the landfill.
    Mrs. Crockett asked how long the current landfill would be used.  Mr. Patterson said the calculation was on what the City has permitted now, which is about 20 years.  He said that did not include the southern part which gives an additional 40 to 50 years.
    The vote on R38-97 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  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:

B75-97     Approving the final plat of Thessalia, Plat 1.
B76-97     Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code relating to family day care homes.  Introduced by
B77-97     Authorizing an agreement with the Highway and Transportation Commission for sidewalk
                  construction on Route B from Route 63 to Business Loop 70.
B78-97     Authorizing land acquisition for the Route PP improvement project.
B79-97     Calling for bids for street construction on Silvey Street from West Broadway to Worley
B80-97     Confirming the contract for storm drainage construction and improvements in the Jackson
                  Street area, and appropriating funds.
B81-97     Confirming the contract for construction of the 4th and Cherry Streets parking lot, and
                  appropriating funds.
B82-97     Confirming the contract for construction of the 6th and Cherry Streets parking structure,
                  and appropriating funds.
B83-97     Appropriating funds to purchase phone equipment for the new fire station.
B84-97     Appropriating funds to develop a City web site on the internet.

(A)     Revision to the zoning ordinance regarding bed and breakfast regulations.
    Mr. Janku felt the City needed to recognize a distinction between a traditional bed and breakfast and that of something larger, which is more in the nature of a hotel.  He said the neighborhood impact of an establishment that can host receptions for large numbers of people and contained a number of rooms would be different from a small, traditional bed and breakfast.  Retaining the residency requirement would be appropriate in some cases, but not in others.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the report be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(B)     Proposed neighborhood commercial zoning district.
    Mr. Campbell said he did not care what the name of the zoning district was, so long as it permitted a neighborhood commercial district.
    Mr. Harline asked how this would interact with the urban conservation district.  He thought that was where neighborhood commercial might be most appropriate.  Mr. Campbell said in areas like Chapel Hill and Scott Boulevard, the urban overlay was not really appropriate.  He said the City needed a classification with a relatively tight zone where there is all new development.
    Mr. Janku said the question was raised about the new zoning, in effect, creating some non-conforming uses.  He asked if there was a way the Council could pass something that did not do that for the existing buildings in C-1, in other words, amend the existing C-1 zoning ordinance.  Mr. Boeckmann said if the Council changes the rules, people could continue doing what they are doing.  That is what is meant by legal non-conforming uses.  Mr. Janku asked if that could be waived.  Mr. Boeckmann said that would be inconsistent with zoning.
    Mr. Campbell questioned if a vacant piece of property is currently zoned C-1 and the Council makes the zoning more restrictive, whether rights would be taken away from those people who have that zoning.  Mr. Boeckmann said it would be to the extent that any zoning takes away rights.  He said if a piece of land is vacant and is not being used, then it would be governed by all of the new rules.
    Mr. Kruse said he liked the C-N concept and that he would rather have a separate district.  He thought there would be resistance from the development community if C-1 and C-3 zonings are tightened any further.
    Ms. Coble made the motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission be asked to hold a public hearing on the C-N draft.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C)     Old House Day.
    Mr. Beck explained that the steering committee was requesting $600.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the request be approved.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D)     Street closure requests.
    Ms. Coble made the motion that the closures be approved as requested.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Harline and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(E)     Community skateboard park.
    Ms. Coble said it was late and there were several people who wanted to talk about this issue.  She asked that it be put on another agenda at an earlier point in the meeting.  Mr. Beck said the item could be put under Special Reports at the beginning of the meeting.  The Council agreed with this alternative.

(F)     Small requests category for arts funding.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that staff be directed to develop the appropriate legislation.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(G)     Eugene, Oregon tree trimming policy.
    Mr. Harline said the current tree trimming policy is not community acceptable and either the City needed to convince people it was acceptable, or change what is being done.
    Mr. Janku said the community may not agree with the standard, but at least it could be said the City is complying with the standard.  He said whether or not the standard is appropriate was a second issue.

(H)     Beautification project update.
    Report accepted.

(I)     Sales tax revenues and budget forecasts.
    Mr. Beck noted that City sales tax revenues were down.  He said the report indicated that this would probably not create a major problem this budget year, although it could possibly take the fund balance down below 16%.  This would provide less revenues to deal with the next budget year unless there is a turnaround of the sales tax.  Mr. Beck said it constitutes about 30% of the general fund revenue and funds such divisions as Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, etc.  Mr. Beck was not sure why this was happening.  He talked to the City of Springfield and they felt it might be because of shopping areas that had opened toward Branson.
    Mr. Campbell said there were two or three things going on that might have affected revenue.  The City has had tremendous growth in commercial development for more than ten years, but now smaller communities are getting super stores.  He said this was eliminating some of the revenues that normally would have come into Columbia.  He said there was also some evidence that discretionary income was being affected by gambling.  Mr. Campbell also mentioned that Columbia is not growing as fast as it was.
    Mr. Beck said he would have some follow-up information for the Council Retreat.

(J)     Proposed sponsorship of Adventure Club.
    Mr. Beck explained that the University Extension would no longer sponsor this program and were accepting proposals on it.  He wanted the Council to be aware of it before submitting an application.
    Mr. Campbell said he was getting very mixed signals from his constituents as to who is served by this group.  He said it was originally set up to serve low income, central city children.  It apparently is not serving that population as much as it is serving the suburban, middle class students.  Mr. Campbell was not against the program, but wanted to know who would be served.
    Mr. Janku received a call about the program and concern was expressed that Adventure Club does not serve Field, Benton, or Blue Ridge schools.  He said if the City was going to step in, he thought they should serve the entire community.
    Mr. Beck said the report eluded to that and suggested that the City may want to change the scope to some degree if it was decided to become involved.
    Mr. Ristow explained that Adventure Club was organized by 4-H and started as a pilot program.  Currently, fourteen out of eighteen elementary schools are being served.  He said the four schools without a program were associated with the central Columbia area.  In talking with the Director, Mr. Ristow said there had been some concern with the area and attempts had been made to bring in some programs.  These programs were met with mixed success.  Mr. Ristow said if the City was interested in the program, he thought the central Columbia area should be looked at closely.  One approach might be to work with different agencies to attempt to provide some before and after school programs in the four schools currently not represented.
    Mr. Campbell was still hesitant to move forward without more information because of the possibility that this program could be a sizable budgetary item.  He wanted a report back.
    Mr. Janku said he would like to see the City proceed with the proposal.  He asked about the time deadline.  Mr. Green said proposals were due the 26th of March and if the City was going to submit a proposal, staff needed Council approval tonight.  Mr. Janku said the report indicated that the City would make it a self-sufficient program.
    Mr. Campbell asked how the City could make a proposal without making an obligation.  Mr. Green said their intention is to make a proposal to the Extension and if they accept it, a resolution would be brought to the Council accepting the program.  He said the proposal would indicate the intentions of the City if the proposal was accepted.
    Mr. Green reported some schools were not being served because of financial reasons.  He thought someone needed to work very closely with the four schools and, through welfare funding or some other mechanism, get them involved.  Mr. Green said the the lack of programs in these schools could not be attributed entirely to financial concerns and there were other issues to consider.  Transportation was one of the problems.
    Ms. Coble said someone needed to shake loose some of the Caring Communities dollars and find somebody to tell the City how to get the funds and explain the grant application guidelines.  Mr. Green said they were using Caring Communities, but it was limited at the present time.
    Mayor Hindman asked what kind of financial obligation would be expected.  Mr. Green said if the program is operated as is, there would be no financial commitment from the City.  He said revenues for the program exceed expenses at the present time.  Over the last four years, a fund balance has been accumulated.
    Mrs. Crockett asked why the University wanted to cease sponsorship.  Mr. Green said the University Extension is a pilot program type of organization and they are down-sizing.  They want to turn their attention to something else.  He said this has been done in several counties throughout the state.
    Mr. Campbell said there was another reason why the University did not want to participate in the program.  He said the University was being criticized for not meeting their target groups because the program was supposed to reach minority and other groups.  He said it had not been successful at doing that.  He said if the City takes it on as is, we would be criticized as well for not reaching the groups intended.
    Mr. Janku said he was not suggesting that the City take it on as is.  He suggested that the City show our willingness to work with them.  He said this was an opportunity to work with the schools and share facilities.
    Mr. Campbell thought if the Council authorized a proposal, they would be making an obligation.  Mr. Janku said the City needed to make sure not to over-commit.  Mr. Kruse asked if the proposal could be authorized contingent upon further budget review and approval by the Council.
    Mayor Hindman asked if proposals were being sought from other groups.  Mr. Ristow said there were, but the only other agency he had heard express an interest was the University Y.
    Mr. Harline said the worst case scenario was that the City would win the contract and operate the program for a year with a fund balance.
    Mr. Beck suggested that the City state its position in the proposal and have a condition included regarding the Council concerns.  He said the proposal could be submitted to meet the deadline and then some of the other alternatives could be pursued.  It may be found the proposal will have to be withdrawn.  Mr. Beck asked when the proposals would be evaluated.  Mr. Ristow said the University indicated that would be done within two weeks after the deadline.  He said their funding was set to expire June 30, 1997.
    Mayor Hindman could see both sides of the argument, but pointed out that one of the criticisms the City was getting was that we are not utilizing the schools for recreation programs.  He said the program would be set-up in all but four of the schools.  He said the question would be whether or not the City could get the program set-up in these schools and make it work.  He was inclined to go forward with it, keeping in mind Mr. Campbell's concerns.  Mayor Hindman wanted to make it clear that the City was not looking at committing to a large budget item.
    Mr. Campbell pointed out that getting the other four schools involved would be labor intensive.  He said it would take a lot of good resources and would be expensive.
    Mayor Hindman asked Mr. Ristow how he felt about Mr. Campbell's statement.  Mr. Ristow said in working with some of the other agencies, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, taking advantage of some of the personal and financial resources offered through the Caring Communities Program, it would be labor intensive to set-up, and perhaps may require some more resources than the other schools might, but it could be done.  He said after school programs was an area that was number two in the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.  Mr. Ristow said it was an area that he thought was important enough for the City to examine, but with eyes wide open.
    Mr. Janku made a motion that the staff be authorized to proceed, keeping in mind the concerns expressed.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council the following individuals were appointed to the following commission:

Cultural Affairs Commission
Grimes, Paulette, 760 Southampton, Ward 5 - term to expire 4/1/00
Morrison, K. C., 1312 Overhill, Ward 4 - term to expire 4/1/00
Mustard, Cynthia S., 600 S. Greenwood, Ward 4 - term to expire 4/1/00
Schulz, Jolene M., 1021 Hulen, Ward 4 - term to expire 4/1/00

    Mr. Janku asked about turn lanes on Bernadette Drive.  Mr. Campbell said he had asked for a report on that very issue a few months ago.  He was hopeful it would be coming back shortly.  Mr. Janku said he would like to suggest that the City look at adding Bernadette to the Sidewalk Master Plan since there is a school there.
    Mr. Janku noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission would be holding a hearing on the issue of a free run area for dogs.  He suggested that the ordinance the Commission recommends be written in such a way to give the Parks and Recreation Director the authority to designate areas as such, and not have the Council debating each and every suggested area.
    Mr. Janku said earlier in the evening a question was raised regarding the issue of how much construction for street projects was done in-house versus how much was bid out.  He asked for a report on it.  He pointed out that the crews doing the street work in the summer were the same people doing the snow removal in the winter.
    Mr. Kruse asked for a staff report on the advantages, disadvantages, costs, and so forth of allowing unboxed bicycles on buses, or having bike racks on buses for bicycles.
    Paul Albert, 2703 Parker, talked about Vandiver Park Village and Holly Park.  He also spoke about Council Retreats being unnecessary.
    Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, spoke about the April 1, 1997 bond issue election.  He said there was no need for an increase in water rates at this time and there was no need to issue the revenue bonds.
    Jan Pritchard, 3505 Rock Quarry Road, displayed an application for Rock Quarry Road to be designated as a scenic roadway.  She thanked Mr. Kruse and Mr. Harline for all of the work and help they have given over the years.
    The meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m.
                                                                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                             Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                             City Clerk