The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, November 17, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, and HINDMAN were present. Member COBLE was absent. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of November 3, 1997, as well as the minutes of the special meeting of November 10, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mr. Janku.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
Mayor Hindman explained that three reports would be added under Reports and Petitions.
Upon his request, Mr. Kruse made the motion that Mr. Coffman be allowed to abstain from voting on B325-97. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mr. Janku.
1. Missouri Treescape "Citation of Merit Award" - Parks and Recreation Department.
Mayor Hindman reported the City had received an award for improving Missouri communities through tree planting. He noted the plaque was received for planting approximately 400 trees along Forum Boulevard and Providence Road. The projects had been funded by an ISTEA grant, private contributions and matching City funds. Mayor Hindman further explained that the projects had been designed and the contract administered by the Public Works Department. The Parks and Recreation Department maintains the plantings and had submitted the application for the award on behalf of the City. Mayor Hindman also thanked Councilmember Kruse who had initiated the City's involvement in the program.
2. Final Report
of the U.S. Hot Air Balloon Championships - Vicki Russell.
Vicki Russell, Missouri Balloon Corporation executive board member, introduced her fellow board members and the former employees of the Corporation. She thanked the Council for their support and also for the City's initial investment of $30,000.
Ms. Russell explained and summarized the Corporation's goals for the Championships and its valuable economic impact in the community for providing new tourism and national attention for Columbia and Boone County, it brought resources together to demonstrate the major achievements this community can accomplish, it was a fun, exciting, and enjoyable event for the community, and it had been financially successful.
As one of the sponsor partners, Ms. Russell reported Gerke and Associates had conducted a random survey of those people who had attended the event. The Gerke study estimated the extended economic impact for all three years of the Championships at $19.8 million. She noted that this figure only took into account the spending of spectators and pilots. She said the spending by the Balloon Corporation, volunteers, and sponsors were just as important for estimating the overall impact. This amounts to at least $6.9 million, with an overall impact of almost $27 million for the entire three years. Ms. Russell presented a check in the amount of $30,000 to the City.
Mayor Hindman pointed out that this was truly representative of the partnership involved with the Championship. The event involved the participation of the City, the County, the Balloon Corporation, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and numerous volunteers.
3. Percent for
Arts Program Recommendations.
Ed Vought, Chair of the Cultural Affairs Commission, spoke on behalf of the Standing Committee for Public Art. He thanked the Council for their continued support of the arts and said it had been a great benefit. He noted that the Council had a copy of the Committee's recommendations, and added that these had been unanimously supported by the Commission. In a couple of instances, the Committee had recommended that funds be pooled. This is felt to be in the best interest of creating a project which is of sufficient size and scope to provide a meaningful contribution to the community, and to the capital improvement project as a whole. Mr. Vought reported the Council also received the Committee's recommendations pertaining to the procedures for administration, artistic selection, and implementation.
Sid Larson, 1408 Whitburn Drive, is a member on the Standing Committee for Public Art. Mr. Larson explained that these types of projects occur all over the world in major cities and small communities.
Mr. Campbell asked what type of art might be contemplated for such activities. Mr. Larson said the art should be appropriate to the site, can be maintained without excessive cost and replacement, and representative of the entire community -- not targeted in its content or design for special groups. Mr. Larson reported the project should be something that will brighten the lives of people, causing them to think and feel the humanity of this community. Mr. Larson said the projects should be executed in a way that is consistent with the most efficient way of cooperating with the city institutions for which these projects will be built.
Mr. Janku explained that there are two options and, in view of the fact that one of the street projects may be delayed, the question is whether the Council should go with the lower amount or the higher amount, and possibly look to future projects to cover the higher amount. His suggestion was for the latter.
Mr. Beck said he had met with the Committee and had suggested that a funding range be presented so should construction not occur on one of the street projects, the Council would have a second alternative on other venues of funding. He said in some cases, like the Oakland Pool, the art aspect may be included as part of the project. What is being proposed would give the Council the most flexibility, and yet would be something workable.
Mr. Janku asked if this would preclude private donations. Mr. Beck said it would not, and that is why he thought the higher number was being suggested.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the Council allocate up to $16,179 in funding, and not preclude going beyond that if funds were to come from other sources. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Campbell said this would make a significant addition to the community over time, and is very pleased to see this first project move forward.
Mr. Beck asked if Mr. Campbell was including in his motion the establishment of the projects recommended by the Cultural Affairs Commission that had been outlined in their report. Mr. Campbell said that was his intention.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
B312-97 Authorizing construction of 8-inch water main serving Heritage Meadows and payment of
differential costs between an 8-inch and 6-inch water main.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this is a fairly routine project and in accordance with City policies.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B312-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: COBLE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
Change Order, assessing special assessments and approving Engineer's
Final Report for improvements to Eastwood Drive from Sylvan Lane to Clark Lane.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said he had asked the staff to review the potential benefits of the improvements due to lots that front on two streets, and because of public comments that had been made at an earlier hearing.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Patterson explained that the purpose of the hearing is to examine special benefits, and determine if those benefits accrued to property abutting Eastwood Drive. If this is found to be the case, special assessments will be levied against those properties.
Mr. Patterson explained Eastwood Drive had recently been reconstructed to improved standards, essentially as a result of a petition that was presented to the Council. He said the public hearing had been held on November 20, 1995, and Council authorized the staff to proceed with the project at that time. Prior to reconstruction, Mr. Patterson reported that the street had been an unimproved asphalt surface roadway, approximately 20 feet in width, located within an existing 40-foot right-of-way with open ditches, driveway pipes, and no sidewalks or curbs and gutters. Mr. Patterson noted that the improvement included a 28-foot wide roadway with concrete curb and gutter. Due to the narrowness of the corridor and the impact improvements would have on abutting properties, the Council had approved the construction without sidewalks.
The final total cost of the project is $112,035.70, with funding being proposed to include $37,179.99 from tax bills to adjacent property owners at the rate of $26.12 per abutting foot, $4,020.00 from the sanitary sewer utility, and $70,835.71 from the general fund capital improvement program. Mr. Patterson explained that the tax bill rate of $26.12 per abutting foot is set by ordinance and was 90% of the local pavement portion of the cost. He noted the local pavement portion of the street cost was much less than one-half of the total construction costs. He said the street was primarily being paid for from City sales tax revenues.
At the public hearing, Mr. Patterson reported that questions were raised about relief for through lots as a result of City ordinances that provide for accommodating lots which front two streets. He displayed on the overhead the properties affected by the project, and pointed out two of those staff felt the Council might want to consider for some reduction in assessments based on the through lots concept. City ordinances allow up to a 50% tax reduction for a through lot which has no access on the rear lot when it is improved. If the property maintains an access on it, Mr. Patterson said the ordinance would allow a 30% reduction in the assessment. However, the ordinance specifies R-1 lots, and the properties in question are zoned R-2 and, technically, would not be in that category. He said the Council may make a determination of reduced benefits that would be comparable to the R-1 reduction in assessments if they chose to do so.
Mr. Patterson stated if the Council wished to make that determination in benefits, an amendment sheet had been prepared that would reduce the tax bill assessment for part of Lot 19 by 50%, and part of Lot 18 by 30%. In order to make any assessments, it is necessary for the Council to determine there have been special benefits accrued that are at least equal to the proposed assessments. In making that determination, Mr. Patterson suggested the Council consider that the curb and guttering, along with the storm drainage piping and drop inlets, have improved overall storm water management in the area, as well as improving the appearance and the maintainability of the properties. For those properties that access the street, new driveway approaches had been constructed, improving access to area properties, and the new street surface enables improved street maintenance -- particularly for cleaning and snow removal. Under current City policies, Mr. Patterson explained that the abutting properties would no longer be subject to tax bill maintenance, which could be as much as $2.00 per foot per year.
Mayor Hindman wondered if it is required that the access to the street be limited in order for the amendments to be appropriate. Mr. Patterson said that was what would be required if the lots were under the provisions of an R-1 lot.
Mr. Janku asked if the Council should consider the two lots separately. Mayor Hindman said this could be done.
There being no public comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Beck said the reason the amendment sheet had been prepared was to enable the Council to have alternatives based on comments made earlier. He asked Mr. Patterson if the amendments had been discussed with the property owners. Mr. Patterson said there had been no commitments of any change from the original public hearing.
Mayor Hindman asked if the neighbors were aware of the amendment. Mr. Patterson said residents had been notified of the hearing on the ordinance as it was first presented to the Council. He said there was no notification given regarding the amendment because it was presumptuous for staff to assume the Council would consider it. The amendment is being brought to the Council simply as an option. He said staff is recommending approval of the amendment due to the configuration of the lots. Mr. Patterson said even though the lots in question are not zoned R-1, they are set-up for single family use.
Mayor Hindman suggested that the amendment carry with it the restriction on access. He assumed the property owners would have to agree to the limitation in access before being entitled to the discount. Mr. Patterson explained that there is a form the property owners would need to sign if that restriction is included.
Mr. Boeckmann explained the Council would be saying that the properties have not been benefitted to the full amount in order for the tax bills to be reduced. He understood that the properties would have to give up access to Eastwood Drive. Mr. Janku felt that Lot 18 clearly fronts on Eastwood Drive. It has an improved driveway and he did not see the reason for an exception to this particular property. Mr. Janku thought the other lot appeared to have its access to Clark Lane and might merit the 50% reduction.
Mr. Patterson distributed photographs of the two properties. He said Lot 19 has no access on the back (suggested for a 50% reduction), and Lot 18 has access on both the front and back (suggested for a 30% reduction).
Mr. Beck explained that the policy had initially been designed for the project on Fairview Road. Many of those homes had yards that backed onto Fairview, yet had no connection to the street. As a compromise when the Fairview project was tax billed, the property owners agreed to never use Fairview as an access to their garages. He said residents were still benefitting from the project because the dust and noise problems had been eliminated.
Mr. Janku argued that this project is the exact opposite of the one Mr. Beck just mentioned. The City would want residents to use the improved street, and the one house has direct access to it. Mayor Hindman said it would be preferable for residents to exit in and out from Eastwood. Mr. Campbell said that was correct, so the Council should not pass an ordinance limiting access to Eastwood. Mr. Janku said he wanted to see access restricted on Clark Lane.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that B322-97 be amended per the amendment sheet regarding Lot 18 (reducing the tax bill from $2,481.40 to $1,736.98). The motion was seconded by Kruse.
Mayor Hindman asked if the Council would want to add to the amendment that Clark Lane access be restricted. Mr. Campbell asked whether the entrance to the garage opened onto Eastwood. Mr. Patterson said access to the garage is on Eastwood. He suggested that the Council consider the benefits on Eastwood Drive because if there was a question on the tax bill, that would be the issue -- did the property owner benefit by the improvements to Eastwood Drive. Mr. Patterson felt by tying Clark Lane into this, the Council could be getting away from the real issues of their tax bill authority. Mr. Campbell said his motion would remain as stated.
The motion made by Mr. Campbell, the 30% reduction on Lot 18, seconded by Mr. Kruse, was approved by voice vote.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that B322-97 be further amended per the amendment sheet regarding Lot 19 and the 50% reduction. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B322-97, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: COBLE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
of traffic signals at the intersection of 10th & Rogers.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this public hearing had been continued from previous meetings. Staff suggests that the hearing be closed, and the City continues to work with the College staff looking for alternatives to a traffic signal. He said the College was supportive of this approach. He said if the Council concurred with that suggestion, the staff would work with the College and then come back with another public hearing for a project probably occurring during the next construction season.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hindman said he was very supportive of the development of innovative pedestrian crossings, and this involves a significant location. He had met with the President and staff members of Columbia College, who were very enthusiastic about a crossing. Mayor Hindman also met with the City staff and felt this was an opportunity to develop a demonstration project that could be utilized throughout the community.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that staff be directed to not proceed with plans and specifications for the traffic signal, and instead meet with college representatives to examine alternatives to installing a traffic signal at this location. The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(B) Storm water
drainage improvements in the Mill Creek/Rockbridge Subdivision area.
Mr. Beck explained that this fairly large project was located in south central Columbia involving approximately $780,000.
Mr. Patterson explained that the purpose of the public hearing was for the Council to determine the necessity for proceeding with the project. He reminded the Council that this project had been identified as a very high priority need in the ballot issue that established the storm water utility. It is currently in the storm water utility capital improvement program.
Mr. Patterson reported planning for the project had taken two years. In November of 1995, a questionnaire was sent to 125 residents of the Rockbridge Subdivision and property owners that were affected by this proposed project. He reported that staff received 97 responses to the questionnaire, which had asked people to identify what problems had been observed in the subdivision related to storm water drainage. After receiving the questionnaires and tabulating the results, Mr. Patterson explained that staff held a public meeting with the neighborhood in March of 1996, which was attended by more than 40 persons from the neighborhood. At that time, the problems in response to the questionnaires had been discussed in more detail. This had been followed with one-on-one meetings in the neighborhood to be certain the staff understood what was perceived to be the problems with drainage in the subdivision. Mr. Patterson stated staff found that the problems ranged from backwater ponding of water, to structural flooding of residences. As a result of the surveys, inventories, and discussions, staff prepared preliminary plans and had a second neighborhood meeting in September of this year. Again, there was a large number of people in attendance. The proposed preliminary plans had been presented, specific concerns were discussed, and staff followed up with subsequent one-on-one meetings with those who still had questions.
Mr. Patterson explained that the proposed improvements for the drainage problems in Rockbridge Subdivision include replacing undersized drainage pipes, constructing new drainage drop inlets, new segments of pipes, grading in the hardening of some sections of the open channel, and reinforcement of channel embankments with different types of treatment. He said staff proposes to do some diversion of existing drainage patterns and, where velocities and space permit, it is the intent to retain the natural characteristics of the channel. This will not be possible in all segments. It has also been proposed to purchase an existing vacant lot in the subdivision to be used for an overflow area, to convert an existing wet well retention structure (north of the subdivision) into a dry cell, and to improve the detention capabilities of the structure. He said these improvements would involve the removal of several trees and quite a bit of brush and shrubbery. Mr. Patterson said the staff would be working with individual property owners on the replacement of the landscaping that is to be removed, as well as developing a plan for placement of additional landscaping at locations that would accommodate it. The project is to be funded entirely from the storm water utility, and this phase is estimated to be $780,000. Mr. Patterson stated staff is recommending that the City proceed with the project as described.
Regarding the waterway that parallels Alhambra, Mr. Campbell said he had some concern about the additional water, or higher rate of water, possibly causing erosion in the waterway. Mr. Patterson said that had been considered. The pipe from El Cortez Drive will be extended approximately two lots deep between the houses. When it makes the angle corner turn, the pipes will go into an open channel. This is one of the locations where the velocity will require channel hardening. Mr. Patterson said rip rap, versalock, or something of that nature will be used. It is the intent to work with the property owners within each given segment to come up with the particular channel treatment that is felt to be most appropriate for each section. In addition, Mr. Patterson stated further down stream staff thought enough area was available for channel grading. The open channel could possibly be maintained using geotechnical fabric. Staff also believed this procedure could be used between existing structures located below Valencia Drive. This is also the area in which it is proposed that an additional lot be purchased to work on slowing down, spreading, and retaining a natural channel. Mr. Patterson said there may be some fabric hardening, but staff did not think a paved channel would be necessary in that location.
Mr. Campbell asked about fabric hardening. Mr. Patterson explained that it is the use of geotechnicals that can be placed underneath, with the grass and root structure coming up. He said it helps retain the root mass without subjecting it to erosion.
Mr. Janku asked about the versalock bricks and hardening. Mr. Patterson said versalock bricks would be used in some places, which would be augmented with rip rap, or rip rap would be used instead of versalock. Mr. Janku asked if any traditional channels were anticipated. Mr. Patterson said none were expected, but if there are any, they would certainly be inconspicuous.
Mayor Hindman said a group had been formed in connection with the Again Street project. He asked if that group had ever been contacted regarding this project. Mr. Patterson said staff had been working closely with that group for over a year, and Mr. Barrow, a representative of the group, had been involved in their meetings.
Mayor Hindman understood one of the aspects of this project was replanting. Mr. Patterson said that was correct. Mayor Hindman asked if any savings could be possible through some kind of volunteer arrangement where the City provided the plants and worked with the neighbors to do the planting, rather than contracting it out. Mr. Patterson said that was a possibility, and generally staff tries to work with the individual property owners.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Tony Holland, 306 W. El Cortez, spoke in support of the project and said it was much needed because of the severe stormwater problems in the area. He commended Mr. Patterson for the manner in which he went about notifying the neighborhood and gathering the information.
Dale Smith Overt, 101 E. El Cortez, said she had been living out of state and had just come back in October. She was worried about possibly losing a lot of trees. She indicated that she would be unable to plant trees, and asked that this be done for her.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hindman was appreciative of the comments regarding the staff and their willingness to work with the neighborhood.
Mr. Kruse thanked Mr. Patterson and his staff for a great job. He had been present at the first neighborhood meeting, and had not received many calls regarding this situation since the process had been initiated. Mr. Kruse reported this improvement was much needed and long-awaited.
Mr. Campbell noted that the neighborhood does have some residents getting up in years, and tree planting may be challenging for them.
Mayor Hindman said volunteer tree planting is done in many communities, and volunteers should be used whenever possible. He reminded those present that every dime spent on this project, would leave that much less for other neighborhoods with stormwater problems.
Mr. Kruse made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed with plans and specifications. The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
annexation of property located 200 feet east of Rock Quarry and 700
feet south of
Nifong, Abernathie property.
Item C was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this 27 1/2 acre tract of land is located in southeast Columbia. He said the developers have been discussing preparations for a planned unit retirement community.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hindman explained that no action was required on this item.
B253-97 Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code to make LaSalle Place a one-way street.
The bill was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the Police Department had received some feedback asking that this adjustment not be made. The recommendation is to defeat this bill.
Mr. Campbell noted that Ms. Coble could not be present this evening, but had passed along her wishes that this be defeated.
B253-97 was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. ABSENT: COBLE. Bill defeated.
final report and authorizing change order No.'s 1 and 2 to the contract
Don Schneiders Excavating Company for Again Street Drainage Project.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that a dry cell stormwater detention basin, and the enlargement of some of the pipes under Gary and Ash streets had been completed in the area. The total cost of the project is $383,575.00. A stormwater grant had been received for $72,000.00, and the remainder of the project will be paid from the stormwater utility and sanitary sewer funds.
B321-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: COBLE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
an agreement with Aquila Power Corporation for electric power service.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this agreement is primarily the result of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission opening competition among the electric industry on the wholesale and retail levels.
Mr. Malon explained that Aquila Power Corporation is a company that is a marketer, which happens to be a solely owned subsidiary of Utilicorp, dealing only in wholesale transactions. Aquila is not a utility, and does not own any assets other than a trading floor in the Kansas City area where energy futures and transmission contracts are bought and sold. Mr. Malon said it is a new entity typical of what might be seen not only in the wholesale business, but in the retail business. Staff would like to begin working with some of these companies to find out how the trading floors work and so on. This particular contract, does not obligate either Aquila or the City to any specific transaction. He said anything the City does under this agreement would primarily be in the nature of economy transactions, similar to what is done with other utilities. Mr. Malon explained an enabling agreement is necessary to provide a legal basis to buy and sell energy, and make collections if there is a default. This ordinance would accomplish that.
Mr. Janku asked if the City would be the intermediary. Mr. Malon said this was strictly for the City Water and Light Department dispatchers as they are setting up, hour by hour, looking for economy energy sales on a daily basis. He said this would be another source that would be called.
B325-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: COFFMAN. ABSENT: COBLE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
agreement with Crawford, Murphy & Tilly for engineering services
for work at
Columbia Regional Airport.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this agreement would provide engineering services for the rehabilitation work on the north cargo apron at the Regional Airport, primarily used by Airborne Express. The total cost is estimated at $925,000. Mr. Beck added that 90% would be a federal match. The engineering contract is approximately $120,000, and had been budgeted for this fiscal year.
B326-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: COBLE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
conveyance for utility purposes from GKC Investments and Flat Branch
B314-97 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes from Robert and Jan Hulett and Paris Road
B317-97 Vacating sewer and utility easements located within Liberty Square Subdivision, Block 1.
B319-97 Approving final plat of Belmont Park, Plat 3, a major subdivision.
B320-97 Authorizing right of use permit to allow Godas Development to install electrical conduit
underneath Lillian Drive right-of-way.
B342-97 Authorizing an agreement with Missouri Department of Health for postponing sexual
involvement education; appropriating funds.
R184-97 Setting a public hearing on special assessments against properties specially benefiting
by public improvements to Arbor Drive and Arbor Court.
R185-97 Setting a public hearing on voluntary annexation of property located east of Bearfield
Road and south of Nifong Boulevard.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: COBLE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
R186-97 Renewal agreement with Columbia Online Information Network to provide Internet service
to Columbia residents.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this is commonly referred to as the COIN Program, with the City's annual share being $22,500. He said that amount had been budgeted for this fiscal year.
In view of the rapid changes that have been made in Internet and Internet access, Mr. Campbell asked if COIN still played the same role it did five years ago, and wondered whether it was needed. Mr. Beck said he was told that it was needed. Before an agreement is prepared for next year, Mr. Campbell said he would like to have that question raised.
Marilyn McCleod, head of COIN Administrative Services, thanked the City for their past support. She said it was still a very heavily used service that provided service to thousands of people, both text-based and graphics access. Ms. McCleod thanked the City's Finance Department for taking care of COIN's books for several years. She said the COIN staff was now able to do this, but the Finance Department had been very generous in the past.
Mr. Coffman felt that COIN was a wonderful asset to our community, and said he personally knew many people who either cannot afford commercial services or find that it is very convenient to use COIN. He was hopeful that the program could be continued for a few more years.
Mayor Hindman commented that he was attending a meeting of the Economic Development Finance Board in Southern Missouri, and one of the most important points made was that the City must be absolutely sure it is able to provide the services needed in connection with communications access.
The vote on R186-97 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: COBLE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor, unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
an agreement with MO Department of Health for inspections of day care
facilities; appropriating funds.
B328-97 Variance to the subdivision regulations regarding the requirement for sidewalk
construction - Dwight Bingham Subdivision.
B329-97 Rezoning property located on the north side of Southland Drive, west of Rock Quarry
Road, from A-1 to R-1.
B330-97 Final plat of Forum Chapel Plaza, a major subdivision.
B331-97 Replat of Lot B of Taylors Subdivision.
B332-97 Final plat of Ewing Industrial Park, a minor subdivision.
B333-97 Accepting conveyances from Hulett, Ferellgas, JJS Partnership, Jeffrey E. Smith
Partnership, and Godas Development.
B334-97 Amending Chapter 13 of the City Code to occupations licenses; eliminating requirement
for the issuance of a license insignia.
B335-97 Authorizing right of use permit which allows the University to install chilled water lines
underneath Rollins Road.
B336-97 Approving engineer's final report for sidewalk construction on Arbor Drive and Arbor
Court; levying and assessing special assessments for properties benefiting from
B337-97 Defining management of trees within the City.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Volunteer Quarterly Report.
Mr. Campbell noted that the volunteer hourly figures were very impressive.
Mr. Beck said the program had been very successful thus far. He explained that the Office of Volunteer Services would be doing more work this next year on a community trust and city trust program to include possible funding for some projects. He said the City had already received some gifts of land.
Mr. Campbell suggested that the Council be presented with a little more detail as to what some of the activities volunteers are contributing their time for.
(B) Proposed Revision to Chapter 29 - Communications Antennas and Towers.
Mr. Beck explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the staff had been working on a draft ordinance as requested by the Council. He said the ordinance has been prepared, and inquired whether the Council would like to have the issue placed on the agenda for public input, or whether a work session should be scheduled first.
Mr. Janku said if it would not delay the process, he would prefer to have a work session. He said the Council is trying to move quickly because of a perceived need for such regulation within the community.
It was decided the issue might be discussed at the next pre-Council dinner meeting.
(C) Leasing Space
on Walnut Water Tower for Cell Antennas.
Mr. Beck said the City had received inquiries from various companies regarding this lease arrangement. He had also been attending some meetings with the Missouri Municipal League as it relates to telecommunications in communities. One of the goals discussed had been to keep the number of towers to a minimum, particularly in the Central Business District area. He said quite a few of the companies are trying to recognize requests of local governmental agencies to do just that. Mr. Beck reported the City had received two requests to utilize the Walnut Street water tower. The staff had been asked to gather as many leases that are known around the state to see how other cities handled this issue, and also to see what financial benefits might accrue from this lease agreement. He said the most important aspect was reducing the number of towers, although there had been some discussion as to what the companies would pay the City. Mr. Beck pointed out that the City has to repaint the towers from time to time, in addition to other types of work. It is thought that perhaps a portion of the money that would be paid to the City for the lease would offset some of the regular maintenance costs. The big question is whether or not to pursue the lease of City towers. The Law Department has been looking at some possible agreements, and thought one should be drafted specifically for Columbia. He explained that one of the companies had been very interested in utilizing towers in Columbia, and staff had been advising them of the status of such an arrangement.
Mr. Janku thought it was a good idea and reiterated that the goal was to try to minimize the number of towers in our community. He noted that the City would not be trying to make an exorbitant amount of money off of the lease, just recover costs and possibly do some other good things. Mr. Janku said when an ordinance is adopted on communication towers, it would be appropriate to have an accompanying resolution expressing the Council's policy.
If the Council would like for the staff to proceed, Mr. Beck suggested that a motion be made. He said the Council could request proposals from the potential users of the towers.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the staff be directed to formally present a lease to the Council and also to request proposals from potential users of the towers. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(D) Proposed Revision
to Zoning Ordinance - Institutional Zoning District.
Mr. Beck said at the request of the Council, the Planning and Development Department had put together a potential definition for this type of zoning district that would involve private colleges, possibly hospitals, and some R-1 uses. He said the next step, if the Council wants to proceed with establishing this special district, would be to refer it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Hancock said staff had included example ordinances from other cities to ensure the Council understood where the material had been obtained from.
Mrs. Crockett asked how hospitals are presently zoned. Mr. Hancock thought hospitals are zoned office, or maybe higher.
Mr. Campbell said the primary issue is that some colleges have no zoning, except whatever the underlying zone might have been in the 60's.
Mr. Hancock asked if staff should limit the proposed ordinance to private colleges and the like, and include hospitals. Mr. Campbell said hospitals are very different as far as he was concerned -- it is a commercial use. He was more concerned with the not-for-profit institutions and where there is no underlying zone. He wanted to know what would happen if these institutions were to dispose of their property.
Mr. Janku asked if the ordinance would be limited to colleges, or whether it would also apply to other educational institutions -- like high schools or churches. Mr. Campbell said it should apply to not-for-profit organizations.
There was a discussion about whether or not hospitals were not-for-profits. It was decided some were and some were not. Mr. Hancock said that distinction could be clarified in the ordinance. Mr. Campbell suggested that the Council refer the issue to Planning and Zoning and let them sort it out.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Beck explained that this issue pertained to federal legislation regarding local land use. The bill is in the process of being acted upon by Congress, after having passed the House. Mr. Beck said the Council had asked that a letter be sent to the two Senators, and that had been done. He pointed out that this legislation has been opposed by the National League of Cities and the National Governor's Conference. It is felt that it takes away a lot of the local discretion in land use decisions and turns it over to the federal courts. Mr. Beck said the current system is thought to be adequate by many people who have worked in this area for years.
Mr. Janku thought the phrase used to describe the legislation, "taking legislation", was noteworthy. He said it could have a lot of impact on the traditional decisions local governments make, particularly involving zoning issues.
Mr. Campbell found it interesting that the Congress had been saying for the last several years that they wanted to return more power to the local government, and this legislation would definitely reduce the power of local government. He said Congress had also indicated they wanted to reduce the number of lawsuits. Mr. Campbell said this bill would probably increase the number.
Mr. Coffman agreed and said it was a massive centralization of federal power.
Mr. Kruse said there was also the suggestion that the Council request a resolution, that would be forwarded to the Senators and Congressman Hulshoff should the legislation be brought back to the House, and he thought this should be done.
Mr. Kruse made the motion that staff be directed to prepare a resolution stating the intent of the Council, and that it be forwarded to the relevant political representatives. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(F) Video Cameras
Surveillance at Signal Lights.
Mr. Beck said the Police Department had been asked to review video surveillance in other cities, and to determine if this alternative would work for our community.
Chief Botsford said in the review process, staff could find very few areas that have used this method long enough for any judgment to be made on its success. He thought, if advertised highly enough, there would be a deterrent affect to it. Although, Chief Botsford thought the actual prosecution of people was problematic. He noted that the cities utilizing the system have special laws passed through the legislature enabling them to ticket the owner of a car as opposed to the driver -- similar to parking violations. He assumed that would have to be done here also. Chief Botsford reported the camera surveillance would require a lot of staff time to process the video tape, in an attempt to identify particular cars in violation, and to identify tag numbers so that notices could be sent out. Chief Botsford said the cameras were very expensive, as was the staff time. Staff has been unable to identify any community that could give the system a high enough recommendation for the Police Department to recommend it to the Council.
Mr. Campbell thanked Chief Botsford for the report.
Mayor Hindman said he receives numerous calls about the number of red lights and stop sign violations, especially in neighborhoods. He thought this raised the issue as to whether or not there are alternative ways to deal with the problem. He urged people in neighborhoods who feel there is a problem with motorists not obeying stop signs or speeding to contact the City.
Mr. Janku said some communities have volunteers involved in traffic monitoring.
Mr. Campbell thought this was a severe enough problem that while he appreciated the idea of having people report violations, although often times this evolves into neighborhood disputes, he wanted something done.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff pick one location in the City in which this appears to be a relatively common problem, and to come back with a recommendation as to what could be done in terms of traffic circles or other traffic calming devices. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Transfer of Funds Request.
(H) Skateboard Park.
Mr. Beck said staff wanted to get this issue back on the table, and had discussed the possibility of setting a public hearing for the second meeting in December. He said any work on this project would probably occur in the spring, but said final decisions and paperwork should be taken care of during the winter months.
Mr. Kruse asked if this would be a public hearing before the Council. Mr. Beck said that was the intention.
Regarding the concern about the loss of tennis courts, Mr. Janku suggested using the old abandoned volleyball court on the east side of the park. He said it was somewhat smaller than the tennis courts, although, the tennis courts are actually dual courts not triple courts. He said it would be a good starting point, and added there is room for expansion if needed. In addition, utilizing the volleyball courts will not remove the two existing tennis courts from potential use. Mr. Janku reported Oakland School does use the courts for gym classes.
Mr. Beck asked if there would be a problem with setting the public hearing for alternative areas within Oakland park. Mr. Janku thought that would be fine, but felt more information would be needed because cost estimates were not available regarding possible use of the volleyball court.
Mr. Green said the volleyball court would not be as economical because it is not fenced and there is no lighting. Mr. Janku said he was not certain why the park needed to be fenced. Mr. Green said that was almost a necessity for such an activity, and it is something the skaters had requested. The skateboard committee also requested lighting so the park could be used until it closes for the day. Mr. Janku responded that there is lighting not too far from that location. It was estimated that a fence would cost about $4,000, and it would cost approximately $10,000 for lighting. Mr. Green said the skateboarders prefer to have the park fenced to keep people from running or riding a bike across the obstacle course. Mr. Janku asked whether the fence would be used to keep people out. Mr. Green said the park would not be locked at night. Mr. Janku understood that a six or eight foot fence would not be necessary, and its purpose is just to keep moving people or vehicles from interfering with the activities. Mr. Green said that was correct.
Mr. Green understood the Council wanted the public hearing held on all options that had been submitted. Mr. Beck reported that would include the two locations in Oakland Park.
Mr. Janku made the motion that a resolution be prepared setting a public hearing on the 15th of December. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(I) Wheelchair Traffic
Mr. Beck explained that a few months ago the Mayor had appointed the Disabilities Commission. The Commission is working on several issues at this point, one of which is the wheelchair traffic safety issue. He said there is no action required at this time, but the Commission's recommendation had suggested co-sponsoring a safety campaign and the distribution of reflective materials.
Mrs. Crockett said she had originally brought the issue up about wheelchairs traveling at night. She had safety concerns and felt the wheelchairs needed to be lighted. However, she would accept the Commission's recommendation that they did not feel lighting was necessary.
Mr. Campbell thanked the Commission for their work on the issue.
(J) Street Closure
Mr. Beck explained that this request was from the moving company who would be assisting a University office in relocating. The request is to close Locust Street, between 6th and 7th Streets, on November 24, 25, and 26 from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. Staff recommends approval.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the request be granted as presented. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(K) Parking Meter
Mr. Beck explained that when the parking rates had been changed several months ago, staff began reviewing various other ordinances related to parking. He said it was noted that the rates for the issuance of hoods for various utilities had not been increased. The suggestion is that adjustments be made to these rates, consistent to what was done with the other rates downtown. Mr. Beck pointed out that currently, utilities are probably paying a slightly higher rate than what is normally collected in meters by having it used all day, but on the other hand, it is a privilege to have the meter available. It is thought that a percentage increase would be appropriate. Mr. Beck said when the issue had been discussed at the staff level, a question was raised whether the Special Business District should be asked to review some alternatives put together by staff. He said staff would like to see the District bring a recommendation back to the Council.
Mr. Campbell asked if the Central Columbia Association could also review the alternatives. Mr. Beck said both the Special Business District and the Central Columbia Association could be involved.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff be directed to prepare an ordinance for review by the Special Business District and the Central Columbia Association for their comments to the Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(L) The Hamlet Stormwater.
Mr. Beck said the Public Works Department had prepared a fairly detailed report after having worked with the neighborhood. This is a fairly large project, and it is felt the Council may want to discuss it as to the future policy of who is going to pay for what, and how it will be handled with developers. Mr. Beck inquired whether the Council wanted to have a work session on the issue. Mr. Campbell said he would like to have it put on the Council's work session list for discussion in the relatively near future to ensure the work could be done during the next building season.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff be directed to schedule a work session to discuss the issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council, the following individuals were appointed to the following Commissions:
BOONE COUNTY MU EXTENSION COUNCIL
Clark, John G., 403 N. Ninth Street, Ward 1, term to expire 3/1/99
Weinschenk, Kathleen, 1504 Sylvan, Ward 3 - term to expire 6/15/00
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODES COMMISSION
Weber, David C., 2604 Cardinal, Ward 6 - term to expire 8/1/99
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
Mr. Coffman said the Council had received some good news at dinner regarding the intersection of Broadway and Old 63. He had previously requested that the City look into a turn signal at both the east and west intersections on Broadway. It had been reported the signals could be installed for the relatively small cost of $450.
Mr. Janku said the vagrant problem at Tenth and Hitt may have been resolved with the temporary fence. He felt the fence needed to be upgraded in some way, and asked that the staff work on a proposal which could potentially involve the new neighborhood association formed in the area, to possibly adopt the area and assist in its upkeep.
Mr. Campbell said about a month ago the Council received a letter from the Board of Adjustment suggesting that the definition of "non-conforming" use be revised or reviewed.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation and a report back to the Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Campbell explained that when he had been on the Planning and Zoning Commission several years ago, they systematically reviewed all statutes of the City in regard to zoning, and all of the subdivision ordinances. Mr. Campbell had recently inquired whether the Commission had continued with this review process, and Mr. Hancock indicated it had not. Mr. Campbell noted there have been numerous additions to the statutes in the meantime. He strongly suspected there are parts of ordinances that had holes in them and needed updating. He questioned whether some of the permitted uses in the various commercial zones were appropriate for today. Mr. Campbell asked for the opinion of the staff and the Commission as to whether or not it was felt there should be a thorough, comprehensive review initiated. He realized it would be a long-term project that would require a large amount of work. Mr. Campbell asked for a staff report.
Mr. Janku said he had recently heard a discussion about how the zoning ordinance sometimes has items included that really are not zoning related, but are perhaps public safety issues. He said the thrust of the discussion was that zoning ordinances are subject to quite a bit of challenge. The suggestion had been to separate public safety related issues from the zoning regulations, basically isolating them from the type of challenge zoning ordinances often get. He said if it is thought the undertaking of a massive review is necessary, this might be the time to look at separating the issues.
Mr. Campbell said the reason he brought the issue up at this time is because there is an agenda item coming up at the next meeting (on Lindell), in which there is a large lot on the back side of a house that fronts on Broadway, and it is being proposed to divide this tract into two very small lots. He thought one of the questions that should be addressed is the appropriate size of a residential lot. He questioned if it should take the surrounding neighborhood into account. He said two small lots would not fit at all into the character of that particular neighborhood. Mr. Campbell said as land prices have gotten higher, the Council has been seeing increasing numbers of requests for undersized lots.
Mr. Beck said when the definition of tier lot was set up, it was to prevent many of the larger lots on the north side of Broadway from becoming tier lots. He said in the case Mr. Campbell is referring to, there is a street involved. He said this will be a new challenge.
Jan Pritchard, 3505 Rock Quarry Road, said that she is present at the request of Richard Simpson, the new President of the Grindstone Rock Quarry Neighborhood Association. She spoke in regards to the McKnight rezoning request scheduled for discussion at the next meeting. Ms. Pritchard read a letter from Mr. Simpson on behalf of the Neighborhood Association. The letter noted that only six of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners had been present the evening the Commission voted on the issue. Because the vote resulted in a split, there will be no recommendation. The neighborhood said they realized the Council was only dealing with a rezoning at this point, but wanted them to know there was more at stake. In anticipation of the zoning change, the letter said that a preliminary plat had been filed for the property by Mastermark Builders. The plat calls for a residential development of 18 houses on 7,000 square foot lots, the maximum this acreage will allow under R-1 zoning. The point is that if the Council were to approve the R-1 zoning, they would be hard-pressed to deny the preliminary plat based on that zoning. There are concerns that the subdivision's entrance would exit in the middle of the block through a residential lot onto Southland Drive; that it would double the number of homes and traffic in the Southland neighborhood; it would leave the current homeowners paying for probable street improvements because only one of the new homes would front Southland Drive; and that the density, character, and value of the new homes would be totally out of character with the rest of this well-established neighborhood. The Association said residents could not support another high density development in this already over-developed neighborhood. The letter also said that the proposed rezoning and plat plan were unanimously rejected by the 20 voting members present at a meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Penny St. Romaine
© 2016 City of Columbia