The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Tuesday, January 19, 1999, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council members CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, and JANKU were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of January 4, 1999, 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 noted that B25-99 would be added to Introduction and that two reports would be added as well.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mayor Hindman and a second by Ms. Coble.
Mayor Hindman recognized the attendance of the fifth grade classes from Grant Elementary School.
1. Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting and Distinguished Budget
Preparation Award - City Finance Department.
Mayor Hindman asked Ms. Fleming and Mr. Beck to join him at the podium to receive the two awards from the Government Finance Officers Association. He explained that the Certificate of Excellence is given for achieving the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting.
Ms. Fleming remarked that the award would not be possible without the dedication and professional work of the Finance Department, as well as all of the City Departments. She pointed out that this is the 19th consecutive year the City has received this award on its financial statement.
Mayor Hindman presented Mr. Beck with the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award and said since he has been on the Council, he has noted continual improvement in the way the budget is presented.
Mr. Beck explained that this is the second year the City has received this award. He thanked the staff for their hard work and the Council for their overall guidance in budget preparation.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
B377-98 Rezoning property located on the southeast corner of I-70 Drive Southeast and
Woodridge Drive from R-2 and C-1 to C-P.
The bill was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this bill had been tabled from the December 21, 1998, meeting and that the Council had asked for additional information, which has been provided. He understood that discussions had taken place between the neighborhood association and the developer.
Mayor Hindman reopened the public hearing.
Tom Schneider, an attorney with offices at 11 N. Seventh Street, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Schneider explained that currently, the front two and one-half acres of the subject site is open C-1 zoning, which meant at any time Mr. Ousley could obtain a building permit to construct a fast food franchise on one side and a liquor store on the other side, without submitting a development plan. The back three and one-half acres is platted and zoned for seven duplex lots. He noted that Mr. Ousley could also break ground on this portion of the property without submitting any kind of a plan, he would only need to pay the building permit fee. Mr. Schneider explained the proposal is to bring the entire 4.8 acres on the front portion of the property under C-P zoning, with the specified uses being all C-1 plus hotels and medical; and the rear one acre would be dedicated under the C-P zoning plan as a natural tree buffer. He said it would not be used for accessory uses of any kind. The thought is that it would offer two significant advantages; the natural buffer would be preferable to seven duplexes being constructed between the neighborhood and the commercial in front, and secondly, it would bring the entire tract under the requirements of planned commercial development. Mr. Schneider stated that meant a development plan would have to be submitted which would give the Council an opportunity to regulate many of the development aspects. He noted the Council could regulate building location, sizes, heights, landscaping, lighting, underground utilities, etc. Currently, the rear portion zoned for duplexes is exempt from the landscaping ordinance.
Mr. Schneider said the applicant felt the highest and best use of this site is for a hotel. He reported that the Staybridge Inn is no longer a probability, but is still a possibility. He said it is only natural for the neighbors to be interested in what type of development is going to occur on the property, but on the other hand, it is very difficult to market commercial property until the zoning is in place. Mr. Schneider explained that is why the ordinances allow it to be done in two steps; first the rezoning to C-P, and at a later date a development plan is submitted. If there is concern about the quality of development that will occur, he pointed out that Mr. Ousley has a several million dollar investment immediately to the west and it is important to protect that investment by seeing to it that there is appropriate development of the subject site.
When a development plan is submitted by either Mr. Ousley or by someone else in the future, Mr. Schneider said they felt it is entirely appropriate for the following to be addressed: the rear exteriors be compatible with the front and sides of the buildings, that no loud speakers which are audible off-site be allowed, that dumpsters be screened, that no alcohol sales be allowed -- except incidental to a restaurant and hotel, that there be no massage parlors, that there be a lighting plan submitted so that there is no off-site glare, and that provisions be made to minimize the impact to the neighborhood of deliveries or loading and unloading. Mr. Schneider stated those are issues they would expect to be addressed in the development plan.
Mr. Janku asked why a height restriction had not been mentioned. Mr. Schneider said they felt it was premature to address height at this time because, depending on what is constructed and where on the 4.8 acres it is built, it is rather difficult to address that issue. He said they understand that the ordinance specifically allows that to be regulated in the development plan. He thought the rule was that the height of a building must be compatible with the surrounding premises. Mr. Janku asked if they had any problem with other restrictions being part of the approval this evening -- liquor sales, massage parlors, etc. Mr. Schneider said that was not a problem.
Mr. Campbell asked if those items had been discussed with the neighborhood association. Mr. Schneider noted that they have met with the neighborhood association four times since March of 1998, with the most recent occurring about five nights ago. At that time, it was their belief the Staybridge deal was still firm, but now it is not. He thought the neighbors probably have some concern about the unknown.
Mrs. Crockett asked if they had met with the neighborhood since Staybridge pulled out of the project. Mr. Schneider said they discussed it with representatives of the neighborhood, but they have not met with the association. Mr. Schneider had asked Mr. Ousley if he would be interested in tabling the issue further, and Mr. Ousley had said he would prefer not to.
George Ousley, owner of the subject site, explained that he has hopes for an upscale motel/hotel, the caliber of Staybridge, being constructed and is not interested in something that would not enhance the neighborhood.
Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Ousely if he would rather vote on the issue tonight rather than trying to work with the neighbors for a few more weeks. Mr. Ousley said he would rather the Council vote on the rezoning request tonight. Mr. Ousley understood it could be defeated, but said he did not understand what meeting further with the neighborhood would accomplish. Mrs. Crockett said the neighborhood understood what the R-2 is because that is what is there now. When they left the meeting the other night, they were under the impression Staybridge would be there. She said now they have no idea what could be there. Mr. Ousley said he knew what he wanted to see there, but he did not know either what would be going in. Mr. Ousley felt the fact that the zoning was not in place played a large part in the problems with Staybridge. He thought the City's process was to get the zoning in place first and then come in with a plan.
Del Finley, 3804 Cedar Lane, a member of the homeowners association, explained that he had attended the meeting Thursday evening and said the residents were pleasantly surprised when they were presented with two options. The first option was a 100 foot buffer with Staybridge in the middle and a few lots in front for commercial development, which he said the residents accepted. The second plan was nine duplexes adjoining the neighborhood with Staybridge basically taking the whole front. He said they did not reject plan two; but merely preferred plan one. The day after the meeting, Mr. Finley said he had received a call saying that Staybridge had rejected plan one, and was told a few days later that plan two was what they had agreed to all along. Mr. Finley explained the residents are not endorsing rezoning, they are endorsing a plan.
Mr. Kruse pointed out that the zoning has to come before the plan. Mr. Finley said the residents are not endorsing a rezoning without a plan. He said there is a big difference between having a Staybridge there and having a lot of other businesses there. Mr. Finley said he would like to see this issue tabled for two more weeks in order for the two parties to work things out.
Mr. Janku asked if plan two was back on the table, but no deal had been struck between the property owner and Staybridge, what recommendation would the neighborhood give then. He wondered if it would be the deal that was the necessity or the zoning. Mr. Finley said he could not speak for the association if the applicant is to come back with plan two. His point is that the residents really did not have the option they thought they had.
Ben Battson, 100 Arbor Drive, President of the neighborhood association, said they were back to square one on the issue. He noted at one time the Planning and Zoning had recommended O-P zoning as opposed to C-P. He said those discussions never took place. He said the history of the neighborhood is that these people bought their homes with R-2 adjacent to them. Mr. Battson said that is what the residents prefer to see developed behind their homes. At this point, nothing has come forward to change that basic view of the neighbors living in the area. He said residents are not in favor of C-P zoning just for the sake of getting the tract rezoned for development. Mr. Battson reported the neighborhood is more content with the zoning as it stands now.
Mrs. Crockett asked if she understood the residents are in favor of keeping the R-2 zoning as is next to the neighborhood. Mr. Battson said that was correct -- without a plan they could discuss and have some input on ahead of time. He said that is what they have been dealing with each time they have been dismissed. Mr. Battson stated residents have gone back to talk to the developer, but at this point nothing has come forward. Mrs. Crockett asked if two weeks would be long enough to get something worked out with the property owner. Mr. Battson said he did not know, but they would be willing to meet with them.
Under the present arrangement, Mayor Hindman understood the applicant could build R-2 duplexes and then put commercial out on the highway without any concessions. Mr. Battson said they are aware of that. Mayor Hindman asked if they considered that to be a more desirable situation for the neighborhood than the 100 foot buffer and the self-imposed restrictions mentioned earlier. Mr. Battson said that was his understanding.
George Dodge, 3637 Evergreen Lane, spoke on behalf of the residents that abut the R-2 zoning. He said they were sorry to hear that the plans with the motel did not work out. He said they have great concerns with what C-P would allow at that location. He said Mr. Ousley's investment to the west is a commercial investment, not a residential investment, and what would fit next to a commercial property versus what would fit next to the residences would be considerably different. Mr. Dodge did not see how it would affect Mr. Ousley's marketing to not have the C-P at this point because he knows the neighbors and the Council are both willing to work with him. He said even if Mr. Ousley had the zoning, he would still have to come back before the Council to get a plan approved.
Joe Heyers, 3709 Evergreen, explained that his lot is adjacent to the property in question, and said whatever happens on the tract would directly affect him. He said if the property is zoned C-P, he did not know what would be there or what would be outside his bedroom window every night. He is not comfortable with the uncertainty.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Crockett made the motion that B377-98 be tabled to the February 1, 1999, meeting in order for both sides to get together to work out any differences. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.
Mr. Campbell thought what the Council needed to decide was what the zoning should be and what the uses should be in any planned area. He did not think they should worry about whether it was a specific developer or firm that would be coming in. He said there are limits as to how far the applicant can go in working on a plan. Mr. Campbell said the plan they were talking about had a considerable amount of appeal as well as having a considerable advantage over what is potentially there now.
Mr. Janku said if there is no buyer in sight in the next two weeks, they may want to suggest working with the neighbors to develop an acceptable list of conditions that might alleviate some of the uncertainty. Mr. Campbell said the lights and other such things could be addressed as part of a plan -- and should be addressed as part of it.
The motion to table, made by Mrs. Crockett, seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
water main upgrade along the north side of Mexico Gravel Road, utilizing
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this is a 1,400 foot water line that would replace a three inch water main with a twelve inch main. He noted that it was built some years ago as part of Water District No. 2, and since merging with them, there has been a program outlined that is agreeable with the staff, the Water and Light Advisory Board, and the District committee. The estimated cost is $42,000, which would be paid from the fund balance monies that were brought to the Water and Light Department from the Water District when the merger occurred.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B1-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
sidewalk, curbing and parking area construction south of the new downtown
fire station to be performed by City employees.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Some time ago, Mr. Beck said the staff indicated to the Council the need to provide storm water control between the Wabash Station and the new Fire Station. He said the intent is to build a curb and gutter with some storm water drainage facilities. He said it would be a walkway between Tenth Street and Orr. He pointed out that the Council had requested that the staff look into finding an additional parking area north of Broadway, particularly in the northeast sector where there is a deficit of parking spaces. He noted a vacant lot adjacent to Orr Street, southeast of the fire station, that could be converted without removing any buildings at this point in time. They could pick up 18 to 20 spaces, depending on which alternative plan was used. He said the Council needed to decide this evening which alternative to move forward with. Mr. Beck noted that in the budget process, $45,000 of Community Development Block Grant money had been set aside for this particular project.
Mr. Beck reported the plans were presented to the Fire Department, and Chief Markgraf was not supportive of option one, which would allow a second access onto Orr Street. He explained that option two shows a connection through the area, and option three does not connect directly onto Orr Street. He pointed out that option two would be better for circulation of the lot, but on the other hand, it would be between a lot of buses.
Mr. Montgomery explained the options using overheads. Mr. Kruse asked where the trees and landscaping would be. Mr. Montgomery explained that it would vary from plan to plan. Mayor Hindman asked why the curb was being pushed over for automobile maneuvering room. Mr. Montgomery said it was primarily for the buses. Mayor Hindman asked if the curb is extended out a little further, whether there would be more room for landscaping. Mr. Montgomery said there would be a little room to do that. With option two, he showed where they would lose three metered parking spaces on Orr Street, but would pick up 20 which would net 17 total. He said there would be no connection between the lot and the fire station. He showed two areas for landscaping on this option. The third option was much like option two with the exception that there is no connection onto Orr Street.
Mr. Janku asked if there is an access point to the alley located behind the office buildings on Walnut. Mr. Montgomery explained that the alley runs south of the brick warehouse building and he showed where he believed the connection would be. Mr. Janku asked whether motorists could access the parking area off of Orr Street. Mr. Montgomery said they could when it is not blocked by trucks loading and unloading in the alley. Mayor Hindman said that happens often because of the storage building on the corner.
Mr. Janku asked when the landscaping would occur in the Armory lot. He assumed a few spaces would be lost. Mr. Montgomery said he did not recall those numbers. Mr. Janku said this plan should be thought of in conjunction with that lot because of the loss of spaces and the need to shift some of the parkers.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Glen Rice, 114 Hubbel, spoke to his neighbors about this plan with regard to traffic, and particularly about people cutting through. He said they are in favor of the connecting sidewalk between Orr Street and Tenth Street. He said they all felt that was a good idea and something that has been needed for a while. He said they also favor the landscaping because the area has been an eyesore for a long time. Mr. Rice said they would like to see something that would eliminate the possibility of people using the lot as a short cut to get from one part of Ash Street to the other. He said the two parts of Ash Street do not connect unless you jog through the alley. Mr. Rice said the neighbors are in strong support of option three with no connection on Orr Street. He said if there are trucks in the alley, there are other entrances to the parking lot -- one being next to the bus station and another at the other end of the alley. He said residents are firmly opposed to option two with the direct connection between this new parking area and Orr Street. Residents felt it would really encourage people to cut straight through. With regard to option one, he said the neighborhood was there first. He said option one would be their distant second choice with option three being their first choice.
Greg Arends, 1504 Sylvan Lane, explained that he used to live downtown at Ninth and Park. He thought it was a good idea to have a sidewalk through the area, especially for those using wheelchairs. He noted the existing driveways at either end of the bus station are in bad shape. Mr. Arends is in favor of the third option.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
When it comes time to upgrade the bus station, Mr. Janku is hopeful staff could address the access within the bus parking areas so that people coming through, either from the sidewalk or using the buses, would know how to maneuver around. He was talking about a designated pedestrian area directly to the bus terminal. Mr. Montgomery said pedestrians could come out to Tenth Street and cross at the narrowest point of the driveway into the bus depot. He said the layout of the depot and the parking is far from ideal, and they have looked at alternate plans for rearranging the parking to make it a little better for bus maneuverability, pedestrians, and automobile parking. Although, every plan they look at results in lost parking. With landscaping they lose parking, as with more maneuverability they lose parking. Mr. Montgomery said the whole exercise of trying to make the area work got well beyond the scope of the project (trying to get a sidewalk from point A to point B), which is what they are trying to do right now -- provide a needed pedestrian corridor. He said they are holding it far enough north that they do not think it will impact negatively those plans which may evolve for the remainder of the bus station and its parking area.
Mayor Hindman asked whether there are plans to move the curb north from its present location so more landscaping could be put in. He said it is not a very attractive area, and there should be some nice landscaping along the south side of the sidewalk. He noted additional landscaping is possible if the curb is not moved quite so far north. Mr. Montgomery said they could do that. He said one thing they looked at as a design parameter is the fact that there are large buses running through the area, and if trees are planted between the curb and the sidewalk, the branches could extend out into what would be the driving lane for the buses. He said a suggestion might be to move the sidewalk and curb to the south, and put the trees on the north side of the sidewalk. He said larger trees that would have crowns of 30 feet would be best to shade the sidewalk rather than impede the flow of buses and that sort of thing.
Mr. Campbell thought that was a good idea because there would be people stepping off the sidewalk to access the buses and parking areas. He thought that would make it difficult to maintain an attractive landscaped area.
Mr. Kruse asked how much space there would be between the sidewalk and the curb. Mr. Montgomery said it is roughly five feet. Mr. Kruse said five feet was adequate space, especially since there is already green space to the north of the sidewalk, to put in trees. He said the City Arborist could select some trees and landscaping that would not grow to a point that would impede buses. Mayor Hindman said he would like to see it landscaped. Mr. Kruse preferred to have the trees between the sidewalk and the parking area. Mayor Hindman agreed.
Ms. Coble made the motion that the Council choose option three. The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku asked if the motion should include additional landscaping between the sidewalk and the parking area. Mayor Hindman thought the landscaping went without saying. Mr. Kruse said the staff would do it.
B4-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
of Sanitary Sewer Wetlands Treatment Unit No. 4.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this project was in accordance with the City's overall wetland plan. Previously there have been three units constructed in the river bottoms. Being proposed in this case is a 40 acre water service treatment area located in the Perche Creek Flood Plain, adjacent to a 72 inch outfall sewer line. The design has been done by Burns & McDonnell and would increase the treatment capacity from 16.5 million gallons per day to 20.6 million gallons per day. The estimated cost of the project is $5,240,000, and Mr. Beck said it was included in the $18.9 million revenue bond issue. The staff is proposing the City proceed by working through the Missouri State Revolving Fund for wastewater purposes. It was felt a better loan amount would be recognized that way. Mr. Beck said the actual loan would be paid off from the revenue bonds as they are sold. Mr. Beck explained the site was purchased about two years ago for this purpose.
Mr. Campbell asked how long this particular unit would last. Mr. Montgomery said it was projected to the year 2010.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Bruce Florea, 4316 S. Coats Lane, explained that the site for this treatment unit was purchased from him. He had not anticipated it would have a wetlands project on it, although he acknowledged he took a calculated risk. At the time he thought the Bailey property bottom was a more logical place for such a project, and he assumed this property would be largely used for sludge disposal. Mr. Florea displayed slides of his property consisting of 430 acres.
Mr. Florea reported when his home was constructed 18 years ago, the abandoned rail line that ran from McBaine to Columbia was within 100 feet of the house, but had reverted back to the adjoining property owners so they felt secure in their privacy. However, when the main line from St. Louis to Kansas City was abandoned and converted into a biking and hiking trail, they pressured Columbia to extend their portion trail, which at that time only extended to Scott Boulevard in McBaine. Having fought the state trail and losing, Mr. Florea said they decided their best strategy was to cooperate with the Trail supporters by trying to find a way to McBaine without going through their back yard. With that thought in mind, he proposed to give to the County Commission a 100 foot strip of land bordering Perche Creek, in addition to an easement to his half of the abandoned right-of-way from where the proposed trail route rejoined the old railbed and intersected the main line near McBaine. Mr. Florea noted this consisted of a distance of about one mile. The Commission accepted his offer and the trail was subsequently built to the satisfaction of everyone concerned. Soon after that, he explained that the City proposed to build a large wetlands for wastewater treatment on land they had recently purchased which bordered their farm and was located only about one quarter of a mile from their house. The initial plan included a pipe line that would sacrifice a half mile of good barbed wire fence and a number of trees. After discussions, the City agreed to move the pipe line by 25 feet which left the fence and trees intact.
Regarding the project this evening, Mr. Florea said this wetlands project would come within approximately 100 yards of his house. He felt very strongly that was too close. Mr. Florea stated Public Works and their consultants do not see much possibility about anything being done about it. He asked if the entire unit could be moved northward. He said there is room to gain some space, but unfortunately, the archeologists have discovered some sort of site they feel should not be disturbed. Mr. Florea said the entire project has been designed without consideration to their home. He said the first they knew of the design was in a letter they received from Public Works dated December 24, 1998. Mr. Florea said he did not know how much of a nuisance to their lives this wetlands will make, and he did not know how much it would lower the market value of their home -- but was fairly certain it would become a nuisance and would lower the value of the property. As far as he could see, it was simply a matter of how much. Mr. Florea thought consideration should be given to the elimination of the bottom cell.
Mr. Campbell asked if the wetlands produce any smell. Mr. Montgomery said the number of times he has been down there, probably 95% of the time, there has been no odor. During certain times, the inflow can produce an odor. He said Mr. Florea has said he occasionally smells an odor from the existing wetland unit number one. Mr. Campbell asked about mosquitos or anything else that might be considered objectionable. Mr. Montgomery said there were mosquitos down there before, and there are mosquitos there now. He said they had not done a mosquito population count. Mr. Campbell said a lot of water would be added, which would be an ideal breeding area. Mr. Montgomery said the difference is that water in the wetlands are continuously flowing. Mr. Campbell asked if there are pools of water around the edges. Mr. Montgomery said if pools exist, an odor would be created. He reported the water is moving from one side to the other at all times -- it is a constant gravity fed force flow.
Mr. Janku asked what other options had been evaluated as part of the process before this one was developed. Mr. Montgomery replied on December 7, when the plan was discussed, the fourth and final wetland unit was shown in the Missouri River bottoms adjacent to units two and three. He said it was determined that was not a good place to build it due to the hostile environs of the Missouri River and some drinking water wells that have since been drilled in the area. He said the site was shown on preliminary plans back in the late eighties and early nineties as being upstream, which had actually been located on the Bailey property. About that time, Mr. Montgomery explained that Mr. Florea had approached the City and they discussed the purchase of what is referred to as the Florea property, consisting of about 100 acres, by the City. At that time, it was felt that the property would probably be used for sludge injection.
Mr. Montgomery reported that Burns & McDonnell had been hired to do the design work and were asked to consider the Bailey property and the Florea property, as an option, for the wetland unit to see whether one would be better suited than the other. Initially, it was felt that the Bailey property might be a little bit too low to make the whole system work by gravity, and a pump station would have to be installed. He said survey crews were sent out to both sites, and on the Bailey property it was determined that a pump station would be needed if they were to construct the wetlands on that site. The cost of a pump station large enough to accommodate the wetlands would cost between $1 million and $1.5 million. He said the Florea site did not need a pump station and it also has better access. Mr. Montgomery added that the Bailey site suffered from lack of access and they would either need to run their vehicles down the trail quite a distance, or build another low water crossing across Perche Creek to get to the Bailey site, costing at least $250,000 to construct a low water crossing across the creek. Mr. Montgomery said they had talked to Mr. Florea early on and indicated that they were looking at options and that sort of thing. Over the past 18 months, he explained that there have been a number of surveyors, archeologists and geologists on the site trying to determine where they could best locate a wetlands, what the physical limitations would be and that sort of thing. The constraints of the site are primarily the floodway from Perche Creek that extends through the eastern third of the site. He showed the pipeline on the west side, which he said they would not be digging up. Mr. Montgomery pointed out a significant archeological site which he said they chose not to disturb.
Mayor Hindman asked about the future of the Bailey tract. Under the facility plan, Mr. Montgomery replied in the year 2010 they would look at expansion of the mechanical plant with another set of treatment trains. He said they would then discharge into the four wetland units. Mayor Hindman said it sounded as though the Bailey tract would never be used as a wetland cell. Mr. Montgomery said he would stop short of saying never, but currently the plan would be to continue to use it for farming, and then eventually use it for sludge injection. Mayor Hindman asked about the site down by the other cells being used for cell development. Mr. Montgomery replied its proximity to some recently drilled water wells would preclude it from being developed as a wetlands. Mayor Hindman asked if that had been taken into consideration when the water wells were located. Mr. Montgomery said it was, and that was why as far back as the late eighties the initial discussion for moving wetland unit four from down in the bottoms, which was on the official facilities plan, some sketch drawings indicated that it may have to be moved up into the Bailey area. He said that was the whole reason behind the need for the facility plan amendment that was considered in December, and was all tied together nine years ago. Mayor Hindman asked about removing the southernmost cell from the plan or at least building it later. Mr. Montgomery said if it is not built, the whole facility plan process would have to recommence and the project would have to be redesigned. He said it would postpone the project by one year. Mr. Montgomery noted another option, which was discussed with Mr. Florea, would be to construct it and not run water through it for some period of time. He said they had also talked to Mr. Florea about some screening in the area, but the elevations are not conducive to doing much berming there. He said they are still looking at that.
Mr. Campbell asked about the City's policy on damages and buying property off-site for purposes such as this. Mr. Beck said he thought a monetary arrangement was a possibility.
Bill Florea, 4310 S. Coats Lane, explained how long the property has been in the Florea family and that he is the third generation to be involved in the operation. He said he and his wife sold their home in 1997 and moved to Columbia from Washington State. At that time, he and his wife built a small home on the farm, with their ultimate intention being to purchase the home shown on the overhead when his parents are ready to quit farming and move into town. He said an impact they expect to feel was a lingering odor. Regarding the Bailey property, which is located upstream from them, Mr. Florea explained there are no homes adjacent to this tract, and while they have no quarrel with saving the tax payers money, he said they do not feel the savings should come at the expense of a single property owner. He said it was not their intent nor their expectation that the project should be scrapped, but they do feel that compensation for the loss of economic value to their property should be made. He asked that action be withheld on the project and, further, that the staff be directed to negotiate some equitable solution with the family. He said when negotiations are complete, the proposal could be brought back to the Council for final action.
Don Stamper, Presiding Commissioner for Boone County, said the Florea's had talked to the Commission about the project and the impact it has on their quality of life, and the lack of standing on their behalf in the decision. They do not feel they have representation at the table. He said several years ago when the County bought the Florea loop, it was sold at a discounted price with part of the issue being the Florea's quality of life -- to keep the hundreds of thousands of people that annually use the MKT extension away from their home. When this wetlands project was brought to the Commission's attention, Mr. Stamper said it appeared as though, again, it would significantly impact the Florea's property values and quality of life. He said there was some question as to whether or not the Florea's could even continue to live in the home.
Mr. Stamper explained that the Commission has an additional concern because the borrow area, adjacent to the Florea loop, has the potential for creating a tremendous pool of stagnant water (four to five feet deep), and could render it unusable. Currently, it is designed and built to backfill and does not necessarily have a lot of water flowing across the trail. In doing so, if a lower portion is created adjacent to the wetlands, water will flow over the trail down into the area and back out of the area in the future. Mr. Stamper pointed out that there is very significant flooding in the area and that Perche Creek has become more of a storm drain than a creek. He reported it rises significantly with rains that occur within that area of the community.
Mr. Kruse asked when the Florea loop was purchased for the use as a trail extension, if there had been some agreement about eventually having the trail follow along the old railroad bed at some point in the future. Mr. Stamper said his recollection is that if the land is sold outside of the Florea family, the County would receive an option to buy the old rail bed. If it were, however, passed to a family member, that option would not necessarily be available to them.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Campbell asked how much money the City has spent thus far in the planning of this project. With the design and the package up to this point, Mr. Montgomery said it was roughly in the vicinity of $130,000 to $145,000. Mr. Campbell said he did not like any of the options, and felt as though the Florea's have an excellent point. He did not think he would want his own house to be within 150 feet of the wetlands.
Mayor Hindman thought there were a lot of equities on the Florea's part, and that needed to be dealt with. He said purchasing their home or financial remuneration might be the very best way.
Mr. Kruse asked if this issue has been in front of the Council before. Mr. Campbell said it was before them about a month ago.
Mayor Hindman asked about deadlines and what affect tabling the issue would have. Mr. Montgomery said they were under a deadline of bidding the project in late March. He noted the bid call ordinance was under introduction this evening. Mr. Montgomery reported the bond closing with the state is around the first of April, and if things are postponed beyond that, the project would have to wait another year. He explained that if the bid call ordinance is introduced this evening, it could be voted on at the next meeting and then they could still have their minimum 30 days advertising, which is required on projects of this sort. Mr. Montgomery stated direction to the staff could be postponed by two weeks and the project would remain on schedule. If the goal is to have an appraisal finalized in two weeks with agreements and all, he doubted that would happen.
Mr. Campbell said he objected to having such a time line placed on the Council to the point that they do not have any flexibility in their actions.
Mr. Beck noted that there are not too many places in which a wetland could be built. He said that does not preclude the City from working out an equitable agreement with the property owners involved, similar to what occurred when the airport was built. He believed the right and fair thing to do was to work something out with the property owner.
Mr. Montgomery felt there was an impression given that there had been no communication with Mr. Florea prior to November 24, 1998. He said that was not the case. Early on, approximately 18 months ago, Mr. Montgomery said a letter had been sent indicating the City was proceeding with the design of this project, and the staff would keep the Florea's posted. Mr. Montgomery acknowledged they had not done a very good job of that. On the other hand, he noted there have been quite a few surveyors, archeologists, and geologists that have been pouring over the site to the tune of over $130,000 this past year. He admitted the City had not done a good job of contacting him, but said Mr. Florea perhaps did not do a very good job of contacting the City. Had they proceeded with the design with full communication between the property owner and the City all along, every step of the way, Mr. Montgomery said they may probably well have ended up with the same design with the issue of what monetary compensation, if any, is due the property owner. Mr. Montgomery stated the only other option would be to determine if it would be economically viable to build a much smaller unit.
Mr. Kruse said the City has been told there are no other sites immediately available to expand the wetlands treatment system. He said they all think its a good system, and he felt the community probably supported it when it was on the ballot. He said if this unit were to be installed, it would get the City through 2010, or maybe a few years longer. Mr. Kruse pointed out that if Columbia continues to grow at the rate we are, the population of the City will double in 43 years. He asked what would be done in that case, and said they needed to really think about it way beyond this minor irritation. He asked if the staff has thought about that. Mr. Beck said staff has thought about it, and added that he did not want to leave the impression that there are no other sites available. He said there are others available, but the costs would be considerably higher, like the costs involved with the Bailey property.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that the public hearing be continued to the February 1, 1999, meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman said he would like to hear about the outcome of any conferences with the Florea's. He would also be interested in knowing about such things as collected water in the area and its affect on the trail.
B3-99 Authorizing an agreement with Boone County concerning road improvements to Scott
Boulevard between Bellview Drive and Brookview Terrace.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that a public hearing had previously been held on this project, and that this would authorize the staff to proceed with the City handling the design and right-of-way acquisition.
B3-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
Chapter 14 of the City Code to change the speed limit to 40 mph on
Boulevard from Glen Eagle to west City limits.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the Council memo indicates that Public Works did a study in the area, and they are recommending a 40 mph speed limit as it would then be made consistent throughout the area, except in the school zone where it is posted at 20 mph.
Leslie Chalfont, President of the Mill Creek Elementary School PTA, explained that it was unanimously voted at their board meeting this past week to oppose the recommendation. Ms. Chalfont reported that she drives this road several times a day and is fully aware of the road and the situation. She pointed out that this segment of roadway is only eight-tenths of a mile, and of that, five-tenths of it is dedicated to the school zone. She said the police had advised them that the students have no other options but to ride on the sidewalk in order to be safe while traveling to school. She noted that currently the speed limit is 30 mph, but it is not adhered to. Her concern was that if the limit is bumped up to 40, what would people be driving at that point and how would they make an appropriate deceleration going into the speed zone.
Bonnie Griffing, a PTA member on the Health and Safety Committee, added that over the past few years the area has become very congested with Mill Creek Crossing, Woods Edge, and The Pines. She said the school speed limit should actually be maintained at all times of the day because there are kids who are constantly crossing the road to go to the playground. Ms. Griffing stated kids are going to the school for a variety of activities, and there is not always a school crossing guard on duty at those times.
Mr. Campbell asked Chief Botsford how much difference he thought changing the speed limit would make on driving behavior. Chief Botsford thought drivers are already driving 40 mph. He believed there is some truth to the notion that increasing the speed limit makes drivers go faster, but he thought this was one of those classic cases where there is a high speed highway intersecting with interests of a school. He said there is no good way to balance the interests, and he thought the Council would have to make a decision based on that. Chief Botsford stated they would have to slow traffic down drastically on a high speed, high volume highway and/or take extra measures to protect the safety of the children. Chief Botsford did not think there was a good way to do both in this case.
Mrs. Crockett thought she was in favor of increasing the speed limit, but after hearing from the mothers she decided it was not worth it for three-tenths of a mile. She said young children do ride bicycles to and from school and it should be left at 30 mph. Mayor Hindman said he was not in favor of changing it, but thought the Chief made a very important point. He would like to see a report on what could be done to make it safer for the kids in the area. He said if it requires slowing the traffic more with bulb-outs or raised surfaces, those possibilities should be investigated.
Mr. Kruse said he has reluctantly accepted the reality that speed limits do not do much at all in terms of determining what the traffic speed is. He said this is a major rural arterial street with ten foot shoulders and two twelve-foot lanes. Mr. Kruse explained that he drives this road several times a day because his office is on Sinclair Road and he sees a lot of the traffic. He said it is very difficult to go 30 mph and likened it to "creeping". He said it does not fit with the size of the road. At the 85th percentile, Mr. Kruse noted that the average speed is 43 mph for eastbound and 48 mph for westbound. He did not think that would change much if the speed limit is raised. He said it was a reasonable speed to go on this big, wide road. Mr. Kruse explained he has a lot of appreciation for the concerns of the PTA, but added that there are not very many kids who ride their bikes or use that sidewalk to get to school. He said most are either getting there by bus or being dropped off and picked up by their parents. Mr. Kruse thought this was a realistic approach, but said if they want to reduce the speed there are obviously better ways to do it. He agreed they needed to get a report about it, but he personally did not think speeding was a problem in this location.
In the future, Mr. Beck said the problem could be avoided by having only senior high schools and perhaps junior high schools on thoroughfares of this size. He said the grade schools need to be centralized in neighborhoods on collector type streets. Mr. Beck noted what they are doing here is reducing the capacity of a big investment of the community on Nifong Boulevard by the City and also to the County to the west. He said it is something that we, as a community, need to look at as future planning is done. Mayor Hindman said that was a very good point as it creates an almost unresolvable conflict.
B5-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: CROCKETT, HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
the municipal election to be held April 6, 1999, to elect Council Members
for Wards 1
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the deadline for filing a petition is January 21, 1999.
B12-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
and approving work by J.C. Industries; approving engineer's final report
16" water main installation on Route PP.
B6-99 Authorizing the acquisition of easements for construction of the Defoe Drive storm water
drainage improvement project.
B7-99 Authorizing Change Order No. 2; approving engineer's final report for the downtown fire
B8-99 Calling for bids on the Mill Creek/Rockbridge Subdivision drainage improvement project.
B9-99 Accepting conveyances for sewer, drainage and construction purposes.
B10-99 Approving the final plat of Wellington Manor, Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.
B11-99 Renewing an agreement with the Missouri Department of Health for HIV prevention
services; appropriating funds.
R12-99 Setting a public hearing: construction of an 8-inch water main serving Springdale Estates,
Plats 6 and 7; payment of differential costs above those to install a 6-inch water main.
R13-99 Setting a public hearing: construction of improvements for the B-16 Outfall Relief Sewer,
B-17 Interceptor Sewer and Bear Creek Outfall Sewer.
R14-99 Setting a public hearing: improvements to Grant Lane from Scott Boulevard east and
northward to the south end of the existing improved pavement.
R15-99 Setting a public hearing: historic restoration of the lobby and mezzanine of the Daniel
R16-99 Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the southeast corner
of Sinclair Street and Southampton Drive.
R17-99 Designating representatives for compliance with environmental regulations at the City
R18-99 Designating the Columbia Convention and Visitors Bureau as an official destination
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
R19-99 Renewing an agreement with the Central Missouri Humane Society.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the City has had a cooperative agreement with the Humane Society since 1963. He said the Society provides the City with office space, parking, kennel services, vet care, and telephone answering service for after hours emergency service. He noted that the City pays the Humane Society $107,503.25. During the last annual budget process, they were budgeted a three percent increase.
Ms. Coble asked if the three percent increase is sufficient. Mr. Beck said the staff talked to the Society about it, and that was the amount agreed upon. He said from time to time they have been given more than three percent when special needs existed. Mr. Beck did not recall any specific requests for more funding. Ms. Coble thought it would be interesting to see the number of calls and the number of times their services are used just to be able to track the increases over time. Mr. Beck said he would look to see if that information was available. He thought it probably was.
Mr. Janku noted the question of hours that came up at an earlier hearing had not been addressed. He said there had been questions about the availability of the enforcement officer at certain times of the day. Mr. Beck felt that would create a different level of service. Unless the Council wanted to do something before the next budget round, Mr. Beck suggested that they keep it on the table so it can be reviewed at budget time.
Ms. Coble said she had asked the question earlier because there was confusion about evening hours and holiday/weekend hours, and who one would call, and who one would be able to get to when animal control officers are not available. Mr. Beck said the staff would report on that along with the other information requested.
The vote on R19-99 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
funds to repay the Designated Loan fund for money borrowed to fund
engineering services contract for the Brown Station Road project.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this is somewhat of an internal operating procedure that was followed for the City's financial benefit to begin the Brown Station Road work. He reported $122,000 was borrowed from the City's Designated Loan Fund, with the intent of paying it back after selling the bonds at the most favorable time. He noted the ballot issue related funds are now available to pay back the fund, and came from the 1996 quarter percent sales tax.
The vote on R20-99 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, 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:
construction of an 8-inch water main serving Springdale Estates, Plats
6 and 7;
payment of differential costs; appropriating funds.
B14-99 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B15-99 Calling for bids for the historic restoration of the lobby and mezzanine of the Daniel Boone
B16-99 Calling for bids for the construction of Sanitary Sewer Wetland Treatment Unit No. 4.
B17-99 Authorizing a cooperative agreement with Boone County for the 1999 revenue sharing
funding for improvements to Scott Boulevard and Oakland Gravel Road.
B18-99 Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code to establish one way direction for alley between
Sixth and Seventh Streets.
B19-99 Authorizing the acquisition of easements for the construction of Bear Creek Trail Phase III
and Hinkson Creek Trail Phase II.
B20-99 Authorizing the acquisition of land for the construction of C-6 Trunk Sewer to Bearfield
B21-99 Establishing permanent R-1 zoning on property located on the southeast side of Old Plank
Road, south of Glasgow Drive.
B22-99 Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code to correct the description of the location of the 45
mph speed zone on State Route PP.
B23-99 Adopting the City of Columbia employee health care plan and the employee dental plan.
B24-99 Authorizing an agreement with RightChoice Managed Care, Inc., to administer the City's
employee health care plan and employee dental plan.
B25-99 Authorizing an agreement with Ozark Management, Inc., and an agreement with Ozark Air
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Old Village Road Sewer NID.
Mr. Beck noted that the Council had a work session with the staff on this issue at the request of a representative working with the neighborhood improvement associations regarding the establishment of neighborhood improvement districts. He said the question dealt with the Council policy wherein it indicates that 100% of the property owners desirous of connecting to City sewer would either need to annex into the City, or sign pre-annexation agreements. Mr. Beck reported this issue had been discussed some time ago with Mr. Alderson and County engineering representatives, and it was felt it would be very difficult to obtain 100% agreement from everyone within the proposed district to be in accordance with the City's policy. Under the neighborhood improvement district program, it requires 65% of the property owners to establish a neighborhood improvement district. Mr. Beck stated that the purpose of a NID is to develop, build, and pay for the sewers that would serve a particular district. He noted a question has been raised regarding how to dispose of the sewage that has been collected within the neighborhood improvement district. Some alternatives that have been suggested includes connection to City sewer, building connections to some existing Boone County Regional Sewer District facility, or to build new facilities. Mr. Beck stated this pertains mostly to existing development where at least a large portion of the lots are developed in any given area.
After discussions, Mr. Beck said staff presented the Council with the alternative of requiring the same percentage of the people within a NID, consisting of at least 65% of the residents, to sign a pre-annexation agreement or an agreement stating the intent to annex when and if the property is contiguous with the City limits. The question before the Council now is whether or not they want to adopt a policy to enact the 65% participation, or some other percentage or alternative.
Don Stamper, Boone County Presiding Commissioner, explained that he is a new member of the Boone County Regional Sewer District Board of Directors. He said they had discussed this issue at their meeting earlier this evening. He said it was apparent that not only was this issue affecting the Regional Sewer District, but the City's decision also will have a tremendous impact on the Boone County Commission and its policies as they relate to sewer. He reported they understand the orderly growth of cities is important, and are fostering that in most cases. Mr. Stamper said the decision tonight could virtually end the County Commission's neighborhood improvement district program on sewers. To tie sewage treatment to annexation seemed to him to be somewhat of an attempt to sacrifice the environment for annexation. Mr. Stamper wondered if this was an issue the Council and Commission should be sitting down and looking at together, instead of drawing lines in the sand about what it takes to get a sewer. He hated to think a situation would be created in which an opportunity to clean up the environment would be forfeited. Mr. Stamper said he could not thank the City or the Sewer District enough for all of the work they have done thus far.
Mayor Hindman said the problem right now is that the Council has been given a deadline, which has already passed, for dealing with this particular situation. He said the Council is in the position of having to act one way or another. Mayor Hindman suggested if that decision could be postponed, a meeting would be a very good idea.
Mr. Beck said a letter had been received stating if the Sewer District did not have an answer by December 31, the residents would proceed with individual treatment. Mr. Stamper did not believe that to be necessarily an arbitrary deadline. He thought the neighborhood is entitled to an answer, one way or another, and if they want to go off and develop an individual treatment system, that could certainly be done. Mr. Stamper did not know, however, if that would be in the best interest of the community.
Mr. Janku agreed it would be good to discuss this issue. He said there are a lot of concerns that had been discussed, with one being the equal treatment of people. Mr. Janku observed the City has a policy in which people are required to annex into the City to get sewer, and it would be hard to provide sewage service to a group of people who have no intention of annexing.
Mayor Hindman said the Council has been motivated to get to this point basically by virtue of the deadline that was imposed by this particular subdivision. Mr. Stamper pointed out that the Council is considering an across-the-board policy this evening. Mayor Hindman acknowledged that is true. Mr. Stamper said it seemed to have escalated from one subdivision making a request, to a possible change in policy. Mayor Hindman explained that the Council prefers to enact policies when dealing with subdivisions. Mr. Kruse asked if the deadline could be moved. Mayor Hindman said he would be happy to meet with the County and postpone the deadline in hopes of doing the right thing.
Mr. Stamper said if his presence this evening has unduly delayed the project, he would accept full responsibility. Mr. Beck said the deadline came from the Sewer District.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that the report be continued indefinitely in order for the City Council and the County representatives to meet and discuss it. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Kruse said he did not know that the entire Council needed to meet with the entire Commission. He thought representatives of each group would suffice.
(B) 2000 Census
Mr. Beck explained that this report was to inform the Council that staff is working with the Census Bureau. He said it is very important to the City to have a good census count, and Mr. Hancock and his staff have been meeting with the Bureau representatives. Mr. Beck said he had personally met with some regional representatives early on in the process.
Mr. Hancock said his department would do everything they could given their manpower limitations to help the Bureau get a good and accurate census. He said there are census people in and out of his office frequently.
Mr. Janku said the technical aspects are important in making sure accurate information is available to the Census Bureau when they begin their count. He said other communities motivate their citizens to participate fully because there is a lot of concern that many people, for a variety of reasons, do not get counted. Mr. Janku reported things would be done at the local level, not just nationally, but by the Mayor and Council to encourage various groups to participate.
Mr. Hancock said his staff would be participating in all of that. He also thought there would be a greater emphasis on counting homeless individuals. In the 1990 census, they counted only six or eight homeless people, even though the Police Department had provided help in determining locations so an accurate count could be made.
Mr. Janku was contacted by the developer, and he is willing to make various changes in his plan to try to accommodate the primary concerns of the immediate neighbors and the Council. He did not think the final plans were at a point where they could proceed. He asked about voting to authorize reconsideration. Mr. Janku thought the application should be submitted as a PUD, because those types of developments are designed to address a lot of issues that should be ascertained when the infrastructure is not in place. He asked whether the Council could authorize the reconsideration by a vote tonight, and then delay the introduction of an ordinance until the particular language and procedures are in place. Mr. Boeckmann said what he understood the developer to be requesting originally was to come back with an ordinance identical to the one the Council previously considered. Mayor Hindman asked if it would be a new ordinance if the application came in as a PUD. He did not think it would be a matter of reconsideration in that case. Mr. Boeckmann said if it came in as a PUD, the process should start over and go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. If it is similar to what the Commission has already given a recommendation to the Council on, Mr. Boeckmann did not think that step would be necessary. He pointed out that if some period of time has elapsed since the last review, then the request should probably go back to Planning and Zoning. However, if the zoning is going to be the same but with conditions attached, the Council could probably consider it without sending it back to Planning and Zoning.
Mr. Janku noted a second approach, which would involve submitting a preliminary plat. He asked if the Council could then obtain the guarantees. Mr. Boeckmann said if the Council prefers legalities and guarantees, the PUD is the best way to go. He said that would give a little more assurance that the property will be developed the way it had been presented. Mr. Boeckmann said that conditional zoning is pretty much frowned on and is not a good substitute for a PUD.
Mr. Janku asked about timing and when the plat would have to be filed. Mr. Hancock said he did not know that the City could address all of the things the developer has said he would do. He explained that in the past, conditions have been placed on preliminary plats where roads have to be in place, or other things have to be done prior to final platting. Mr. Hancock suggested another option. He wondered if there really needed to be a plan in an R-1 or even duplex PUD. He said if everything could not be done all at once, it could be classified as a PUD, but did not necessarily have to be followed by plan. Mr. Hancock explained that coming back with a plan is usually the objection to going with a PUD. He noted that Mr. Strothman did not want to go with option two, he prefers option three.
Mayor Hindman remarked that the PUD ordinance needs improvement, at least to the point where builders will use it. He said it is not used now unless the developer is desperate.
Mr. Janku asked if the Council could proceed with Mr. Hancock's fourth option. Mr. Boeckmann said probably a better way to go would be to amend the zoning code and deal with the issues.
Mr. Janku asked about making a motion that the Council reconsider the request with the understanding the ordinance will not be introduced unless the agreement is worked out by the next meeting.
Mr. Boeckmann said the Council could take a vote early in the meeting on whether or not to introduce the ordinance that would be a reconsideration. Based on the discussion this evening, he said it probably was not worth putting it on the agenda unless an agreement has been worked out. Mr. Boeckmann suggested a motion directing staff to consider placing it on the agenda at the next meeting.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the staff be directed to consider placing the reconsideration on the next agenda if an agreement is worked out. The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(D) Oakland Pool.
Mr. Beck explained the staff felt it would be desirable to install a water play structure in the family area of the renovated pool. He said the bid add-on price had been $78,763, and there were not adequate funds to proceed with it at the time the work was awarded. Adequate funds are still not available to do all of the work, but he explained they have been able to save $15,000 on piping replacement in the renovation process, which could be applied toward the water play structure. Mr. Beck noted the Cosmo Club indicated they would contribute $9,000 toward the equipment. An additional $55,000 is still needed, and Mr. Beck said staff has been trying to encourage anyone in the community to step-up and sponsor the water play area. In lieu of not receiving funds on a timely basis, staff is suggesting that the water play structure be installed in conjunction with the reconstruction work. Mr. Beck said the idea is to have the Parks and Recreation Department take a loan out of the Designated Loan Fund in the amount of $55,000, and that they pay it back over a three year period -- with interest. He explained payback would come from fees that would be collected for capital improvements in the Parks and Recreation operation. He said if donations are made toward the project, the loan would be reduced by that amount.
Mr. Janku said this would put the total project cost over $600,000. He was sure the pool users are very appreciative of the community support for this project. Mr. Janku noted this renovation project was put on the ballot in 1995 as part of the recreation package, and had passed thanks to community support. He is personally appreciative of the support.
Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be directed to proceed with the necessary change order and ordinance appropriating the funds. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Transfer of Funds.
(F) Policy of
Prosecution of Marijuana Possession.
Mr. Beck noted that Police Chief Botsford had provided a written report to the Council.
Chief Botsford pointed out that there has been some confusion as to what is policy and what is not, what is philosophy and what is not. He questioned whether or not that mattered as the results are still the same -- an increase in prosecution of marijuana crime. He explained that his first three or four months on the job were spent listening to people and looking toward reorganizing the Police Department. After that, his staff tried to develop strategies to deal with the problems the people in the community had expressed at various neighborhood meetings. Chief Botsford noted the two biggest concerns had been the drug problem and traffic. His staff felt it necessary to have an increase in traffic enforcement, and he thought they had been very successful at that. He noted that enforcement is up 30 to 40% this year. This was done because the community expressed an interest in it, and that is what community policing is all about.
Chief Botsford reported his department also tried to develop strategies to deal with the drug problem, and one of many strategies discussed at that time was whether it was more effective to charge people under City ordinance and/or State statute. Enforcing under City ordinance, Chief Botsford believed a message is being sent that, "if you are going to smoke dope in Boone County, you ought to do it Columbia because if you do it any place else in Boone County, you will be arrested for State statute any way. And if you do smoke marijuana in Columbia, you should make sure you get caught by the Columbia Police Department because if you get caught by the Sheriff's Office or the Highway Patrol, you are still going to get prosecuted under a State statute."
Chief Botsford said they have as many people devoted to the full-time education of kids and how to avoid drugs as they do for enforcement of drugs. As with any other crime or any other offense, he said part of the deterrent affect is the arrest and prosecution. He said his staff tries to teach kids that drugs are not good for them and is a bad thing to do, but it is also conveyed that if drugs are used, there are consequences for that. Chief Botsford explained that when they look into the drug problems and analyze them, it is not always about crack cocaine -- it is a lot of different drugs.
Chief Botsford stated that no officer in the City of Columbia is prohibited from enforcing the City ordinance on marijuana prosecution. He reported he would not do that because he felt it was up to the discretion of the officer as to which route to follow. Chief Botsford thought probably most police officers obviously agreed with the position that it is a greater deterrent to use the State statute. He felt that was the right thing to do and that, in the long run, it would discourage drug use amongst the people living in Columbia.
Ms. Coble commented that the memo stated that the consequences actually are similar, the difference being the criminal record one has when being prosecuted in State Court versus Municipal Court. Chief Botsford agreed that was obviously one of the consequences. He said the fine is comparable no matter where it is prosecuted. Ms. Coble said the message then is a bit more similar than the statement would lead one to believe. Chief Botsford felt that if it was too similar, there would not be a lot of people upset that it is being done.
Ms. Coble reported she had not received any calls about this issue (marijuana possession) in the first ward. She would wager, of the neighborhood associations the Chief spoke to when he first came to the community, and because of the good job he and his officers have done since meeting with the neighborhood associations, they probably would hear more complaints about drug usage and crimes related to drugs in the first ward than any place else. She said there are more arrests in her part of the City. She relayed some incidences, personal and otherwise, involving burglary, crack houses in the neighborhood, threats, etc. Ms. Coble observed when there are arrests, it did not involve marijuana possession -- it involved crack, child abuse, resisting arrest, receipt of stolen property, etc.
Ms. Coble stated it is her belief that those in the first ward are not looking at the issue of marijuana possession in terms of crime in their neighborhood, and experience has shown there has been a lot of weapons and a murder directly related to the sale of crack cocaine. She said it is a different level of activity, and she felt residents have the right, without having morals questioned, to make those distinctions. She related in the first ward, there is a difference as well as a different level of danger and impact on personal lives. Ms. Coble said those are the concerns that have been brought to her attention in the past six years, and the concerns she has lived with in the first ward in the past twelve years.
Ms. Coble commended the Chief for the work already done by the police department. She noted there is a big difference now -- it is safer and there is less drug activity, but she did not believe it is a fair assessment of what is going on in the first ward. To say that neighborhood associations and residents are seeking harsher penalties for marijuana possession, as they are for the type of drug crimes that are having a relationship with other violent crimes against people, is not a fair assessment. Ms. Coble reported there is a clear distinction between the two.
Chief Botsford said the things Ms. Coble brought up are genuine concerns and they are working very hard on them. He said he could not make the distinction quite as neatly as Ms. Coble between marijuana and other drugs. It has been his experience, having done this for 35 years, that drugs are much more interconnected than that. Chief Botsford reported the same people do both marijuana and crack, and he believed that marijuana is a gateway drug to harder drugs. As a police department, he said they spend countless hours trying to educate children about the dangers of marijuana, as well as other drugs. He said the department has six people devoted full time to it, and they spend a lot of money on it.
Mr. Coffman commended Chief Botsford for his outstanding success since coming to Columbia. He commented that he has a philosophical disagreement with the Chief when it comes to marijuana. Mr. Coffman thought there is a clear distinction in the level of harm and danger from marijuana than other controlled substances. He said he is also concerned with the distinction that is made between marijuana and legal drugs like alcohol and such. Mr. Coffman said he would like to see enforcement priorities on violent crimes and violent drug crimes as opposed to non-violent drug crimes. He agreed the ultimate effort is effective education and sending the right message to our youth about what is most harmful.
Mr. Coffman asked if it was correct that first time drunk driving offenders are ticketed and sent to City Court. He inquired if he understood how the policy was set and how it works. Chief Botsford said offenders are arrested, not ticketed, and that information goes on their driver's record in particular. He reported every time is a "first time" arrest for marijuana in Columbia because there is no record of every having been arrested for it. He said one clear distinction is that when someone is arrested for driving under the influence, the very first DUI is on a driver's record forever, for anyone that ever stops you. To answer the question, Chief Botsford said he did understand the reasoning on it and it was acceptable to him. He thought it was a different issue. Chief Botsford noted that he did not think alcohol abuse is any better than marijuana abuse, but there was nothing the police department could do about it. Chief Botsford reported they would not be making it a better situation by instilling another dangerous controlled substance done in public. Mr. Coffman said drunk driving is the use of a drug, and then also doing something that is dangerous to others, as opposed to the person using it. He is also interested in the fact that the City has a clear policy; however, it is not in the ordinances. Referring to DUI, Mr. Coffman asked if the written policy was that first time offenders go to City Court, and the second time they go to the state. Chief Botsford reiterated there is no clear policy as far as he knew, but he thought that was what happened many times. Mr. Coffman asked if that was up to the discretion of the officer. Chief Botsford said that would be his belief. Regarding the DWI's, Mr. Boeckmann said that was basically worked out between the Prosecutors. He said that was pretty much the policy, first offense go to Municipal Court and subsequent offenses go to the state. He said there are exceptions, but that was the general rule. He said that was worked out with the City Prosecutor and the County Prosecutor sitting down and deciding on it. He said that was probably five or six years ago and, at the same time, the City adopted some other ordinances that mirrored state offenses, such as driving under suspension and so forth. Mr. Boeckmann related if someone was arrested with both, there would not be a split jurisdiction with one case going to state and the other to the City. Between the two Prosecutors, he said a lot of those things are worked out and then the Police know what the Prosecutor's policies are, so if it is a first time DWI offense, they will write it to the City. Mr. Boeckmann said the Police were involved at the time of the discussions.
Since that policy was worked out between the two jurisdictional Prosecutors, Mr. Coffman asked if that had ever been done with misdemeanor marijuana possession. Mr. Boeckmann said because he was not here in 1985 when the ordinance was first adopted, he did not know. Mr. Coffman asked Chief Botsford if it was his policy to work out these cases with the Prosecutor. Chief Botsford said the issue had never come up, neither of the Prosecutors have asked him to work out the situation. Mayor Hindman interjected that Mr. Boeckmann had said it had just been worked out between the Prosecutors, not with the Police -- the Police recognized what had been worked out and made arrests accordingly. Mr. Coffman said the case never gets to the City Prosecutor if there is not a summons sent. Mr. Boeckmann said with the DWI's, the whole purpose of the City adopting the ordinance was so first time offenses would go to Municipal Court. He said it was also in reaction to the Circuit Court trying to control their dockets a little better as they were getting backed up. He said everyone in the whole system was aware of why the ordinance was adopted and acted accordingly.
Mr. Kruse commented that driving under the influence of alcohol is obviously very different than possessing a small amount of marijuana in terms of risk, both to the driver and to the other people who might be harmed by the person who is impaired. He asked what the policy is on handling the first time possession of alcohol as a minor. Mr. Boeckmann said the City has an ordinance against minors in possession of alcohol as well as a state statute. He knew nothing about a policy. Chief Botsford said he did not think the Police Department has a policy one way or the other as to where such an arrest would be sent. His guess is that it probably happens both ways -- a police officer probably does both. Mr. Kruse said it is his understanding that first possession of alcohol by a minor is very routinely prosecuted under the City ordinance and there is no criminal record. He suggested alcohol is a dangerous drug.
Regarding prosecution, Mr. Coffman said it interested him to read in the Chief's report that many state prosecutions are actually referred back to the City. He had received a phone call from a reporter who had contacted the Prosecutor's Office and had been told that was not the case. Mr. Coffman asked how many are actually sent back and forth. Chief Botsford said he did not think that was what the reporter had been told, and he did not think he reported it accurately because Kevin Crane called him after the conversation. Chief Botsford reported the County prosecutor, Mr. Crane, told him they had not done that for a number of months, but they did previously. He knew it has not been done in the last few months, but he could not answer the question of how many.
Mr. Coffman thought he had received at least 50 contacts regarding this issue, and all but two of them have been supportive of the policy and the way it had previously existed, and are not in favor of the new philosophy. He said that may be a case of people calling because they agree with him, but he said it shows him that there is a large population out there that feels the policy the City has had for the past 13 years was one that represented this community and was favored by a lot of people who thought it was rational and proportional to the harm from the minimum possession of marijuana. Mr. Coffman commented there was at least the perception that there had been some sort of policy adopted, whether it was implicit or not, and it did follow some extensive public debate. He was concerned about a shift in philosophy without enough time for public comment and debate on the issue. He would be interested in more information because he knew of cities where they have explicit policies.
There was a discussion about a first time offender and the offense not showing up on their record if it is prosecuted in Municipal Court. Mr. Kruse said the staff would have to keep an administrative record. Mr. Coffman asked if it was true that when an officer calls up a record they are not able to determine City offenses on the computer. Chief Botsford said that is correct. He said it is not a court of record and there is no criminal record of a person every having been arrested or tried for that crime, other than if Municipal Court is open. Chief Botsford stated one could call the Municipal Court and find out that way. Mr. Boeckmann said the point is that once it got over to Municipal Court and was a second or subsequent offense, it could be sent to the state, but the Police Officer would not know that on the spot.
Mr. Kruse was curious about what other communities are doing, and often times the Council receives that type of information before having further discussions about a particular policy. He listed a number of college cities from which he wanted the staff to obtain information on what their laws and philosophies are in terms of enforcing the laws. He read from an article in The Economist which he said contained more evidence that would suggest that the use of marijuana, by most people, does not lead to the use of harder drugs. He said the first drug people use is tobacco, with the second being alcohol. Mr. Kruse observed one could argue that these are gateway drugs as well, but in fact, most people who drink do not use marijuana or other illicit drugs.
Mr. Kruse made the motion that staff contact the cities listed to obtain the information he wanted in time to report back at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved by voice vote.
Mrs. Crockett stated that the use of marijuana is illegal and the City hired a Police Chief that was going to be tough on drugs and he is doing so. She thought she had received as many calls as Mr. Coffman, but from the other side because people knew where she stood on the issue. She did not think it was the Council's place to tell a man who has been doing this kind of work for 35 years how to run his department. Mrs. Crockett said she supported the Chief and what he is doing, as did the people who had called her regarding the issue.
Mr. Campbell said he had only received a few calls and he was trying to listen to both sides. He said his calls had all been in support of the Chief's policy. He said there are a few questions the Council needs to address because there is a City ordinance in place, a state ordinance in place, and the Council is prohibited by City Charter from giving instructions to a City staff member, however, they can set policy. He said the issue of alcohol prosecution is something worked out by the legal profession, not by a legislative group such as the Council. As this issue proceeds, Mr. Campbell said he would like to hear from Mr. Boeckmann as to what the Council's legal options are, and how much impact it will have.
Mr. Janku noted that the Boone County Circuit Court is starting drug court, which he felt would deal with a lot of these issues. He said it would be interesting to see how they evolve their policies. Mr. Janku thought a lot of it would be based on treatment. Chief Botsford commented that he is highly in favor of drug court. He thought it to be one of the most effective means of dealing with a drug problem that this country has ever been involved in. Chief Botsford reported he had been instrumental in instituting a drug court in another city.
Ms. Coble thought there are many differences of opinion in approach, but she believed the Council's central duty was as a policy making body. She felt it was a very healthy policy debate they can engage in and see what kind of information they can get from different points. She said there is a legacy of policy the Council also needs to consider, and that was the passage of the ordinance as it came from the level of the citizens.
(G) Report of
the Recreation Committee on Private Ice Facility on property at the
Mayor Hindman said that Chief Botsford pointed out that education is one of the proper arms in trying to do something about the drug problem. He felt providing adequate recreation was another very important arm.
Greg Steinhoff, co-chair of the Community Recreation Center Committee has evaluated lots of different activities. He said the ice facility is an activity that is perceived as a high need in the community, but he said they have found it to be a high cost item. Mr. Steinhoff reported there is also a risk of future subsidy. To be consistent with public input the Committee has received, and the need to keep it a simple project, he said they felt pursuing a public/private partnership, whereby a portion of the property would be made available under favorable conditions or terms to attract a private operator to build and operate a rink on the campus, is an attractive concept. Mr. Steinhoff explained that the Committee has engaged a consultant who is currently preparing a feasibility analysis on both an ice facility as well as the rest of the activities the Committee is considering. He said they wanted to continue to do that, and the Committee felt this is the appropriate time to begin to decide whether to go the route of a public/private partnership. Once that decision is made, the consultant can work with the private operator in the master planning of the property. He asked that the Council authorize the City staff to begin the RFQ process to determine the feasibility of such a venture. As always, Mr. Steinhoff explained the Committee would like an opportunity for public input on this at the February 1, 1999, Council meeting.
Mr. Campbell said the land for the building would seem to be relatively simple, but there would probably be shared parking lots. Mr. Campbell said it might be a challenge as to how that cost would be allocated between the private and public sector. He would enjoy reading about how that has been done in other communities. Mr. Steinhoff said the Committee has had that discussion with the consultants who have had experience in these kinds of partnerships. He said that is a negotiated item, and an attractive feature to a potential private operator in that they would not have to bear the full brunt of the cost of the parking. He said that and other potential shared services or shared areas with the recreation center are items that could defray the cost on both sides to a certain extent.
Mayor Hindman said one of the issues in the minds of some people when they hear about the possibility of an ice facility is the total land use. He understood the Committee had talked to the consultant about that. He understood the Farmers Market was one of the groups concerned about it, and that the consultant would be meeting with that group to discuss the issue. It was Mayor Hindman's understanding that there would be space for the Farmers Market. Mr. Steinhoff said part of the scope of services for the consultant is for them to examine the master planning of the property to incorporate a Farmers Market piece to it. He said the Farmers Market and the people that represent that entity will be meeting in a focus group and in a number of other ways with the consultant. He said it is the Committee's idea for this to be a community recreation area, and he said the Farmers Market is certainly a community activity. He said it would fit quite nicely with it.
Ms. Cupp added that the focus groups would be held on the 28th and 29th of this month. She said they are meeting with the appropriate groups and inviting the appropriate individuals. She noted the Farmers Market is definitely included in that group.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that staff be directed to work with the committee to develop a request for qualifications and, further, that the City staff provide a public notice for any interested parties to be heard at the February 1, 1999, council meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
a grant request for the East Campus Neighborhood.
Mr. Beck explained that the grant request is in the amount of $250 and, in accordance with policy, the Council would need to authorize it.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the request be approved in the amount of $250 to be used for purposes other than food. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett 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 Boards and Commissions:
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODES COMMISSION
Mescher, Kirk T., 308 Stalcup, Ward 4 - term to expire 8/1/01
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION
Kinsey, Reginald A., 312 Defoe, Ward 4 - term to expire 12/31/99.
HEALTH INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
Pistel, Fred, 2105 Cobblestone, Ward 4 - term to expire 2/16/02
PERSONNEL ADVISORY BOARD
McDonald, Peter J., 2713 Greenbriar, Ward 5 - term to expire 9/30/00
RISK MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Marvel, Wanda F., 2609 Summit, Ward 4 - term to expire 1/1/02
SUBSTANCE ABUSE ADVISORY COMMISSION
Kibitlewski, Joseph L., 3505 Bray, Ward 4 - term to expire 10/31/99
COMMENTS OF THE COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
Mr. Campbell noted that a large amount of snow, probably 15 feet high, has been piled in the emergency road behind Sam's. He asked the staff to check into the situation.
Mr. Campbell said the City staff obviously worked very hard on the City streets, but someone suggested to him that Columbia is a southern city having northern snowfalls on occasion as it relates to snow removal. He said it has been suggested several times that the City needs a two tiered response because in most cases, the way snow is removed probably works very well, but when there is eight to ten inches of it, we are not very well prepared. He said Columbia needs another way of handling snow emergencies. One suggestion he had been given was that when there is a snow emergency, and in order to facilitate streets being cleaned, to establish even and odd parking in areas where it is possible. On one day parking would be permitted on one side of the street to allow for cleaning of the other side, and then the next day the other side could be cleaned with the vehicles having moved to the already cleaned side of the street. The other suggestion was to have private contractors who can help out given certain amounts of snow.
Mr. Campbell said his biggest concern was with sidewalks after a snowfall. He said for the last two weeks Columbia has been an unwalkable city rather than a walkable one. He suggested that the Council, the Mayor, and the City Manager urge people to clean their sidewalks. In areas where there is a high pedestrian traffic, perhaps some kind of brochure should be hung on doorknobs after snowstorms encouraging people to clean their walks. Mr. Campbell noted many of these people are older or others who simply have difficulty shoveling. He commented if the City would simply serve as a clearing house, either on the web page or through some other mechanism, people could call-in and see where there is a need for snow shoveling. Mr. Campbell thought the City really needed to work at this because if ever there is a time that sidewalks need to be cleared, it is in a snow storm like that which just occurred. He has seen people walking in the streets because sidewalks are impassable, and if something is not done, a serious accident will be a result of that. Mr. Campbell reported in some states, it is a law that sidewalks must be cleaned within 12 hours -- and the law is enforced.
Mr. Janku agreed that it is a serious problem and potentially life threatening. He said by the time notices are posted compelling people to comply, there might be a lot of enforcement, but not a lot of clean sidewalks. He said when it snows, the City cleans its own sidewalks. Mr. Janku suggested designating priority sidewalk streets, arterials or collectors, and pick-up the budget tab for having it done. He said some people will be upset if they are not on the designated route for a priority sidewalk street, but that will be one of the issues that will have to be dealt with.
Mr. Coffman said he had heard from a lot of people also, and he agreed with everything Mr. Campbell said.
Mr. Kruse observed in the Fifth ward there has been very little compliance, if any, with the ordinance regarding sidewalks. He said this kind of snow storm is a rare occurrence, especially being followed by the severe cold weather. Mr. Kruse agreed it was time to think about some type of emergency plan with a budget.
Mrs. Crockett said she received calls from people upset because shortly after having shoveled their walks, the snow plows come by and cover them again. For that reason, some people do not clean the sidewalks in the first place.
Mr. Beck said he receives more calls about driveways being plowed in. He said a decision would have to be made about the residential streets. His street consists of just a small lane, but he has not heard a single complaint. Mr. Beck stated if snow was plowed in from a 32 foot wide street, the driveways would be stacked. He said Council will need to set the criteria that should be pursued throughout the community. Mr. Beck reported then the funding will have to be in place to get the job done. He said that is the way sidewalks are built -- priorities are established. He guessed the same thing could be done with snow removal. Mr. Beck said there have been debates in the past as to whether or not the City should have snow routes -- all cars must be off the street within certain hours, however, it had never been enacted. He said the bottom line is that Columbia is not in the snow belt, and the City is not equipped as well as the cities that are.
Mr. Campbell said he would like to see the private contractor investigated. In addition, Mr. Kruse asked for a report on what some of the options might be.
Mr. Coffman said he had received some phone calls regarding Stephens Lake. The newspaper article he recently read had indicated that Stephens was waiting for a call from the City. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Beck said a letter had been written, so there must be some sort of communications problem. He reported he would like to see this work, and the staff is pursuing private funds that might assist with the golf course.
Regarding the snow, Mr. Janku said there apparently is no priority route within the Derby Ridge Subdivision. With the completion of Derby Ridge as a through street, he said it might be a consideration, or if not, citation was suggested.
Mr. Janku complimented the staff on snow removal in downtown Columbia. He commented they had done a great job.
Regarding storm water in Haden Park and the existing problem just north of Northland Drive, Mr. Janku asked that the staff look into what might be done. He said it was near some apartments and he wanted to know if the storm water utility could deal with it.
Regarding the Miller parking lot off of Locust, Mr. Janku said when the City purchased it, they rushed into operation because of the parking structure construction. He noted that the landscaping is still not in place.
Curtis Bohl, 116 W. El Cortez, said he was disturbed about some of the Council comments he had heard earlier about the marijuana issue. He believed marijuana to be a gateway drug, and wanted to see the Chief's philosophy followed. Mr. Bohl suggested rather than contacting other college towns, that other Missouri cities of similar size as Columbia be contacted.
Vance Pitman, President of the Columbia Police Officer's Association, explained that he represents all of the commissioned personnel, with the exception of three, in the Police Department. He is not present to discuss whether or not marijuana should be legalized, but he is concerned that the Council wants to limit his authority as a Police Officer -- along with all of the other officers in the City. He understood the Council is pursuing a course of action in order to guide the Chief of Police, but he and his constituents do not have the choice to use that discretion. Mr. Pitman felt his is an educated department, and the officers should be able to use that discretion as well as anyone else. He said nobody knows more about the possession of marijuana than the officer on the street, and he did not think their ability to make a decision should be limited as to what should or should not be done. Mr. Pitman reported the City is very fortunate to have attracted a man with the credentials that Chief Botsford has. He commented the Chief has done a fine job and should be supported.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
© 2016 City of Columbia