FEBRUARY 1, 1999

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, February 1, 1999, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri.  The roll was taken with the following results: Council members CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, and CROCKETT were present.  The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of January 19, 1999, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mrs. Crockett.

    Mr. Janku explained that he has been in communication with the applicant/developer of the Barberry/Westwind rezoning, and he also spoke with the neighbors who have been in contact with the developer.  He reported it appears some of the concerns can be addressed.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the ordinance be reconsidered.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mr. Kruse.

(1)     Special Recognition of Jonathan and Jordan Grant.
    Fire Chief Markgraf explained how the two young men had responded to a fire in their home, which resulted in no personal injuries to the family and the house did not incur any major damage.
    The Mayor congratulated the Grant brothers on the great job they had performed.  He presented both with Citizens Life Saving Award plaques.
    Mr. Beck awarded each young man with a Certificate of Merit.

(2)     Recognition of 39 years of service to City Manager, Raymond A. Beck.
    Mayor Hindman noted that 39 years ago today the City of Columbia hired Mr. Beck as a City Engineer.  He reported on Mr. Beck's remarkable record of service to the community and the impact he had upon the City of Columbia is beyond description.
    Mr. Beck thanked everyone for their support.


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 explained that this issue had been tabled from the last meeting in order to give the neighborhood and the property owner further time to discuss the plans for the area.  He said meetings have taken place and he understood that many of the issues have been resolved.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Tom Schneider, an attorney with offices at 11 N. Seventh, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  With Mrs. Crockett's assistance, he said Mr. Ousley had resolved the issues with the neighbors.  He explained that Mr. Ousley has agreed to deed the back 100 feet of property to the abutting neighbors on Evergreen.  This would be pursuant to restrictive covenants which would require that the neighborhood maintain the natural tree and vegetative cover, that ordinary tree conservation and maintenance be accepted, and that nothing be constructed on this buffer strip.  Mr. Schneider stated the neighbors have since agreed they would support the C-P rezoning.  In addition, the front 2.5 acres, which is now unplanned open commercial, will be brought under the plan.  It was felt that everyone's interest will be well-served by the application.
    Mr. Campbell asked if all aspects to the plan which have been previously discussed  would remain in place.  Mr. Schneider said that was correct.
    George Ousley, property owner, felt the agreement that has been reached with the home owners is a fair one.  He offered to answer any questions.
    Mrs. Crockett asked when Mr. Ousley planned to deed the additional 100 feet to the abutting property owners.  Mr. Ousley said he would do that as quickly as he could.   Mrs. Crockett asked how the Council would be assured this would be taken care of in a timely manner.  Mayor Hindman noted that the C-P plan would have to be approved by the Council before any development can proceed.  Mr. Kruse noted that the 100 foot buffer strip is an issue between Mr. Ousley and the neighborhood.  Mrs. Crockett asked about the zoning of the buffer strip.  Mr. Boeckmann said it would be rezoned along with the other property, but there would be restrictive covenants in place which would not allow any type of development.  Mrs. Crockett was concerned about the taxes being higher.  Mr. Boeckmann said the zoning itself would not do that.  With the restriction that the property cannot be developed in any way, the value is not going to be changed by the fact that it is zoned commercial.
    Mrs. Crockett thanked Mr. Ousley for working with the neighbors.
    Roy Fullerton, 3812 Evergreen, commented that his neighbors living on Evergreen supported the agreement.  He suggested that the northern end of Woodridge be widened.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B377-98 was read with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B391-98     Rezoning property located at the northwest corner of Nifong Boulevard and Forum
                    Boulevard from R-1 and R-3 to PUD-5 and C-P.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that a letter had been received from the attorney for the applicant requesting to further table this issue to the next Council meeting.
    Mayor Hindman reopened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman continued the public hearing.
    Mr. Kruse made the motion that B391-98 be tabled to the February 15, 1999, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(A)            Construction of Sanitary Sewer Wetlands Treatment Unit No. 4.
    Item A was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this issue had also been tabled from the last meeting in order for another report to be prepared giving the history of the City's relationship with the property owner from the time the land was purchased.  It is felt that a buffer zone should be considered in this situation, similar to that which was done with the regional wastewater plant.  Mr. Beck noted it might be well to purchase the portion of the property which would include the existing house, but not all of the farm.  Mr. Beck explained that the City has a very large investment in the Wetland program.  He stated it is important to maintain the ability to add a new unit at this location.
    Mr. Patterson noted that when staff learned about Mr. Florea's concerns, a meeting had been scheduled with him.  At that meeting, Mr. Florea had been assured that the City would look at possible options to mitigate any of the problems that might be associated with the Wetlands.  Mr. Patterson stated staff also outlined the design process with Mr. Florea to explain the constraints on the property in regards to the archeological findings, the floodway of the creek, and the size limitations.  Mr. Florea's engineer was also present at the meeting.
    Mr. Patterson reported Mr. Galen Miller, primary design consultant with Burns & McDonnell, is present this evening to answer any remaining technical questions.
    Mr. Patterson said whether or not the Council gives authorization to proceed with the project this evening, it has always been staff's intention to follow through with what they told Mr. Florea at that meeting.  He reported that the project should not be delayed because it would cause them to lose a year.  Mr. Patterson suggested that staff should continue with the process initiated prior to the hearing with Mr. Florea, and a report will be forwarded to Council with a recommendation that could possibly entail purchase of land that would provide a buffer -- which would certainly summarize options that would fairly represent the opportunities and alternatives that would be available to the City.  He noted staff indicated to Mr. Florea that regardless of the status of the project, there would be no attempt to penalize or treat him unfavorably -- it is the City's intent to be fair and responsive to his concerns.
    Mr. Beck said another question raised by Presiding Commissioner Stamper at the last meeting related to drainage.  He asked if the engineer could address that.  Mr. Patterson said he could.  He noted the issue had also been addressed in the meeting with Mr. Florea, who had been assured that drainage was being designed as part of the project.
    Galen Miller, Consulting Engineer with Burns & McDonnell, explained that the project is designed to drain to the borrow area.  He noted that the surface grades would be rather flat and will not drain as well as most front yards, but it will not be an impoundment.
    Mr. Campbell asked if it was possible to have an odor abatement program by management, or to in any way change the amount of odor that will coming from such units.  Mr. Miller explained that is a primary function in the operation of the mechanical plant -- when it discharges to the Wetland unit, the operations in the plant drive the nature of odors.  He said there is nothing in the treatment unit in and of itself that could be expected to change, positively or negatively, the odors and discharges from the mechanical plant.  Mr. Campbell asked what it would take in the management of the plant itself to reduce odors.  Mr. Miller hesitated to answer that because he was not involved with the design of the mechanical plant.  Mr. Beck remembered some testimony from property owners in the area who indicated that odor was not really a problem.  Mr. Patterson said generally, the experience with odors of the wetlands had been that of marsh-like odors that are associated with a natural wetlands area.  Mr. Campbell asked if that would be the smell of decaying vegetation and that type of thing.  Mr. Patterson replied that is correct.
    Mrs. Crockett noted that when this property was purchased, it had been for sludge injection.  She felt Mr. Florea was concerned because he had not been notified that it was going to be a Wetland cell.  Mr. Patterson said there was definitely some misunderstanding about that because as soon as staff received the Burns & McDonnell report, they forwarded it to Mr. Florea with a letter and followed-up with a meeting.  He said that occurred on January 30, 1997.  At that time, Mr. Patterson explained it was stated to Mr. Florea that this was the preferred location and the reasons for it were the fact that the pump station would be required if the unit was constructed on the Bailey property.  In addition, several of the design considerations were explained to him.  Mrs. Crockett asked if Mr. Florea was in agreement.  Mr. Patterson said he would not say Mr. Florea was excited about the Wetlands being constructed there, but it was during that conversation that he indicated he had not noticed the problem with the Wetlands Unit Number One that he had anticipated.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Bruce Florea, 4316 S. Coats Lane, said he was not very much in disagreement with anything.  He felt the document was pretty fair and also that everyone was well aware of his situation and reasonably concerned about it.  He said the treatment unit was well-resigned and felt the City should go ahead and proceed with it.  Mr. Florea said he and has family understood the need for the Wetlands.  Regarding his knowledge about a Wetlands being located on the property, he envisioned some "wiggle room" as far as where it could be located and he assumed, incorrectly, it could be located at a considerable distance from his house.  Upon surveying, which Mr. Florea stated had occurred subsequent to the meeting Mr. Patterson referred to, the judgment of the engineer's was that the most feasible way of laying out the Wetlands was to come down the right-of-way line, thus it will be located as close to his house as it could be.  Mr. Florea had a different conception of the feasibility of being able to move the Wetlands around to accommodate not only the Wetlands process itself, but also the neighbors.  He is looking forward to negotiating with the City in good faith and working out some sort of agreement.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Ms. Coble made the motion that the Council authorize the completion of final plans and specifications and, further, that staff be directed to negotiate with Mr. Florea for mitigation of his concerns, including the potential purchase of the residence and a buffer zone around the property related to the Wetlands Unit No. 4.  The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B16-99     Calling for bids for the construction of Sanitary Sewer Wetland Treatment Unit No. 4.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted the estimated cost to be $5.24 million.  He reported staff would try to bid the project in March to have it on-line in the year 2000.  The new unit will increase capacity from 16.5 million to 20.6 million gallons per day, and is anticipated to carry the City through the year 2010.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B16-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B13-99     Authorizing construction of an 8-inch water main serving Springdale Estates, Plats 6 and 7;
                  payment of differential costs; appropriating funds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the City would be constructing an 8-inch main rather than a 6-inch main.  The length of the main is 1,975 feet with the City's cost of the differential being $5,056, which will be paid for out of the City's Water and Light fund.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B13-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B15-99     Calling for bids for the historic restoration of the lobby and mezzanine of the Daniel Boone
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the Council had appointed a committee and an architect was hired to examine the historic aspects of the Daniel Boone Building lobby for the purpose of renovation work.  The work will primarily consist of the construction of a second stairway from the mezzanine to the lobby, restoration of the wood ceiling, new light fixtures, new hand rails, carpeting on the mezzanine (for an area where some new meeting rooms have been added), and new wall finishes.  Included in the bid will be a sprinkler system for the lobby, fire alarm system for the building, and the reconstruction of the vestibule is being included as an alternate bid in the event funds are available for that phase of work.  Mr. Beck noted that donors are being invited to contribute toward the work on the lobby.  Because of the highly specialized nature of the work required in the ceiling restoration, Mr. Beck said the City will pre-qualify sub-contractors for that part of the project.  He said they want to be assured that the contractor working on the ceiling has done that type of work previously.  The estimated project cost is $226,000, and Mr. Beck said they are hopeful to begin the project during the next several months if the Council motions to proceed after the public hearing.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku commented that it is appropriate on a night when two individuals were recognized for performing fire safety activities, that City Hall will actually be brought up to standards to meet fire codes.
    B15-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B21-99     Establishing permanent R-1 zoning on property located on the southeast side of Old Plank
                  Road, south of Glasgow Drive.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman noted that a request had been received asking that this item be tabled to the February 15, 1999, council meeting.
    Mr. Beck explained that this is an approximate 16 acre tract of land in south central Columbia.  Both the staff and the Commission are recommending R-1 zoning for the parcel.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Ms. Coble made the motion that B21-99 be tabled to the February 15, 1999, council meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(B)             Construction of Bear Creek Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail, Phase III.
    Item B was read by the Clerk.
    The Mayor read the following statement for the record:

    Mr. Patterson reported that Bear Creek Trail Phase III is approximately eight-tenths of a mile and will extend from Garth Avenue on the west side to State Route 763 on the east.  This trail will tie in to the eastern end of Bear Creek Trail Phase I at Garth Avenue, and will be the origin for the future Bear Creek Trail Phase IV at the east end.  The cost of the project is $113,700, with $73,883 to be provided by federal enhancement funds.  The City's share is $39,867.
    Mr. Patterson explained that the project is being designed by the firm of Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Consulting Engineers after being surveyed by City of Columbia Public Works staff.  Mr. Patterson noted the trail will consist of a 10-foot wide gravel surface path and there are no bridges along this section of the trail.  He added this phase of the trail will be constructed entirely along the north side of the Bear Creek.   In addition, a cultural resource assessment, including archeological, architectural, and historical investigation is being performed.  The results of the assessment will be factored in to any final design and alignment of the trail.
    Mr. Patterson stated a wetlands resource investigation will also be conducted as it is known that wetlands do exist along the reach, and that there will have to be some trail adjustment to accommodate this.  Mr. Patterson said this is not considered to be a problem, and it is felt there is room to make the alignment changes on the section of the trail where the wetlands exist without any undue expense or hardship.
    Mr. Patterson stated that this trail project is in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Open Space Study of September 19, 1994.  The project, when combined with Bear Creek Trail Phases I, II, and IV, will provide a continuous trail from the Cosmo Park Recreation Area to the Oakland Park area across northern Columbia.  Alignment options for this section of trail are quite limited due to existing development along the south side of Bear Creek, as well as the high bluff and rougher topography on that side.  Some of the alignment will follow the Bear Creek sanitary sewer line through an area which has previously been disturbed, therefore, avoiding removal of large trees.  Where the trail does meander in an existing riparian forest, Mr. Patterson noted this section will be adjusted in order to move the larger and more healthy trees along the way.  Mr. Patterson pointed out that the trail will provide an alternative transportation opportunity in north and north central Columbia, and provide urban recreation alternatives to the community.
    Mr. Patterson explained that the project crosses eight parcels of land, all privately owned by four separate property owners.  The property owners were all privately contacted prior to the public hearing and their input was requested.  All owners have been notified of the public hearing and advised they would be able to present their views and comments to the Council at the meeting tonight.  He said there would be no businesses or persons relocated by this project, and all applicable federal guidelines will be followed in conjunction with the acquisition of easements necessary for the project.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku said the completion of this project is appreciated by the residents in the area and the community as a whole.  He thought it would be a great addition to Columbia.  He pointed out that approximately $79,000 is being funded from a grant the City received through the State of Missouri, and approximately $39,000 is being funded out of the greenbelt funds which were part of a Parks and Recreation package passed by the voters in 1995.  Mr. Janku is looking forward to the completion.
    Mr. Kruse asked when they could expect all of the phases being completed.  Mr. Beck said that is a few years away, and added that there are a lot of challenges in building this 10-foot wide trail.  Mr. Kruse asked Mr. Beck for his best projection.  Mr. Beck estimated perhaps three or four years.  He noted there have been many challenges designing the trail along the Creek, and the City has been working with a lot of governmental agencies.  Mr. Beck explained the City may have to request an extension on one of the phases.
    Mr. Janku asked when the first phase was anticipated to be open to the public.  Mr. Hood replied the first phase would be from Garth Avenue to Creasy Springs, and he is hopeful it will be finished some time late in the 1999 construction season.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be directed to continue with the final plans and specifications and proceed with the project.  The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(C)         Construction of improvements for the B-16 Outfall Relief Sewer, B-17 Interceptor Sewer and
              Bear Creek Outfall Sewer.
    Item C was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained that this public hearing is to determine the necessity for proceeding with two fairly major sewer line construction projects.  The projects are identified as the B-16 Outfall Relief Sewer, which extends from near Oakland Gravel Road to a point just west of the intersection of Brown Station Road, and the Bear Creek Outfall Sewer and B-17 Trunk Sewer, which extends to Gregory Heights.  Both projects have been designed by the consulting firm of Crawford, Murphy, and Tilly of St. Louis, and were part of the 1997 ballot issue that was approved by the voters as identified projects for construction and included in the five year construction plan.  He explained that the City intended utilizing the State Revolving Loan Fund Program for financing due to the reduced interest rate.
    Mr. Patterson displayed the B-16 plan on the overhead and explained that it includes the construction of 6,633 linear feet of 15-inch sewer pipe.  He pointed out that it is parallel to an existing 15-inch sewer line, and its purpose is to serve the developing industrial area in northeast Columbia -- including the Columbia Foods Plant.  The existing line is currently at capacity, and it had been known when it was installed that a parallel line would be required at some future date.  The estimated cost of this project is $658,500, and additional easements will be needed.
    Mr. Patterson explained the Bear Creek Outfall and B-17 Trunk will consist of 7,960 linear feet of 24-inch sewer line, and 25-feet of 8-inch pipe, connecting at the intersection of Oakland Gravel Road and Highway 63 where the Gregory Heights Pump Station and lagoon area are located.  Mr. Patterson noted that this project has been planned for some time to service an area where agreements have been made with the Boone County Sewer District.  He said it is a developing area as well as an existing established subdivision, and this would also serve as the line that will allow for the continuation of the drainage area to future developments in years to come.  Mr. Patterson commented it will also eliminate a temporary pump station.  The estimated cost for this project is $717,500.
    Mr. Patterson reported staff is anticipating these projects could enter the construction phase this fall, dependent upon the acquisition of easements.  He noted  the City would have to comply with the State Revolving Loan Fund closing schedule.
    Mr. Janku stated that in the previous discussion, it had been pointed out that the Bear Creek Trail closely followed the existing sewer lines.  He asked if there was potential for a similar alignment that probably should be considered while obtaining the easements.  Mr. Patterson said that had not been shown any where on the plan, so it was not included.  Mayor Hindman asked if it was something that might be doable.  Mr. Patterson said it would probably be just as easy to exchange the easements or convert them as the City would have to buy the easements for trail purposes.  He is not sure there would be a clean way of doing it with the State Revolving Fund Program.  Mr. Patterson said if it was not on the trail plan, they did not address it in their consideration.  Mr. Janku asked if there was a way to consider it at this point.  Mr. Patterson said it was, and did not think it would delay the project any to do it.  He noted the City would not be acquiring those easements for some time.  Mr. Patterson stated a report could be forwarded to the Council after obtaining input from Parks and Recreation.  He said when an ordinance to acquire easements is introduced, the Council could assess that.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed with the B-16 Trunk Sewer and B-17 Outfall Sewer projects, and to explore the possibility of trail easements.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D)         Improvements to Grant Lane from Scott Boulevard east and northward to the south end of
              the existing improved pavement.
    Item D was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson displayed a map on the overhead indicating the location of the project.  He explained that this public hearing is to determine the necessity for  reconstructing approximately 3,500 feet of Grant Lane from the end of the existing improved section south and west of Scott Boulevard.  The resolution estimate is $755,000, with the project to be funded from the 1996 1/4% sales tax as a specified project in that ballot issue.  If approved by Council, Mr. Patterson noted that tax bills could be levied against the adjacent property owners not to exceed $12.00 per abutting foot.  He explained several lots affected by the project are through lots, and at the discretion of the Council these could be subject to further reductions up to as much as 50%, provided access to Grant Lane is forfeited.  He pointed out that a portion of the project is outside the City limits, and these properties would not be subject to tax billing.  Mr. Patterson said an agreement with Boone County will also be necessary to address the easement acquisition process and jurisdictional responsibilities.
    Mr. Patterson reported that two formal neighborhood meetings have been held and the staff has individually met with interested property owners.  He felt the staff has made an extensive effort to respond to questions and answers.  Mr. Patterson stated it was not possible to develop a recommendation that reflected all property owner requests, while still being consistent with the directions staff received regarding other projects and amenities that should be included in the design concept stage.  He assured the Council that every effort has been made to keep the residents associated with this project as informed as possible.  A detailed staff report was sent to the property owners so they would have the information prior to the meeting tonight.
    Mr. Patterson stated that Grant Lane is designated as a collector street on the Major Thoroughfare Plan, and that the existing roadway is approximately 20 feet in width consisting of gravel in portions and asphalt in others.  He noted that it has roadside ditches, is without sidewalks, the vertical alignment does not provide safe sight distances, and the existing street width and lack of sidewalk does not allow for safe bicycle traveling and walking.  In order to achieve the perceived community desired amenities, even though it certainly does not satisfy many property owners, staff recommends that the street be constructed to collector standards of 38 feet in width.  He pointed out that it is not felt that this section of Grant Lane will be more than a local collector street.  Mr. Patterson explained that staff thought it would function as a major commercial collector and, therefore, no traffic volume considerations would dictate the design parameters as much as the other factors associated with its location.  The 38-foot width street is recommended to accommodate two lanes of traffic, two four and one-half foot bicycle lanes, and two and one-half foot curb and gutter sections for the conveyance of storm water.  Mr. Patterson said it is also recommended that parking be eliminated on this section of Grant Lane, but this is not thought to be a major inconvenience as most of the properties along the entire stretch back up to interior streets and do not require front driveways on to the street.
    Mr. Patterson explained staff also recommended that Class II bicycle lanes be placed on the street since it has been identified as a Class II bicycle route.  It could be anticipated the uses of this corridor will include a mixture of commuters and recreational bicycles, such as families and younger riders, due to the many residential areas close to Grant Lane.  Mr. Patterson reported staff had consulted the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission with regard to the project, and the Commission also recommended that the street be 38 feet wide with the two four and one-half foot bike lanes.  He said there continues to be some differences in opinion with regard to whether the lanes should actually be striped, or whether the pavement should simply be in place to allow for the bicycles to utilize.  He said staff recommends that five foot sidewalks along the entire length of the project be constructed.
    Mr. Patterson stated the placement of the sidewalk is proposed, in general, to be nine-feet from the back of the curb with the purpose being to provide for street tree planting.  He said the sidewalks would be shifted to as close as four feet in some areas where it is possible to salvage some more mature trees.  Mr. Patterson said it had been suggested that the bicycle lane could be combined with the sidewalk, but staff felt this would not remove bicyclists from the street -- who should be accommodated safely and separately from pedestrians.  Staff also recommended that approximately 150 street scape trees be planted along the project between the curb and sidewalk.  He said that is consistent with the concept of planning for a street scape.
    Mr. Patterson reported staff had spent a lot of time trying to reduce the impact the project would have on trees, and it became apparent the only way to do so would be to reduce the cross section of the street to 28-feet, eliminate bicycle combinations of any type, eliminate sidewalks on one side, and shift the roadway all the way to one side or the other.  He said that would virtually result in saving all trees along one side of the street.  The disadvantages would be the lack of adequate vehicle lanes, bicycle lanes, pedestrian accommodations, and deciding which side of the street to take the trees off of.    He said they looked at alternating the street, but that resulted in losing more trees because the transition from one side to the other caused even more loss.  Mr. Patterson explained staff felt this project would provide the first opportunity to plan a street scape, and that is the basis for the recommendation to plant trees.  He reported trees would be planted approximately 50 feet apart.  He noted that was probably as close as trees should be planted in order to have the desired canopy at maturity.
    Some of the other recommendations included in the proposal were a roundabout at the intersection of Grant Lane and Post Oak and Trailside Drive.  Mr. Patterson stated that at the neighborhood meetings, residents expressed concerns regarding the speeding on the street, and he felt roundabouts were legitimate even though a relatively low design speed of 30 mph is targeted for this area.  He noted staff is still recommending the traffic calming be incorporated in the project if it is constructed.  It is felt the intersection of Grant Lane with Trailside and Post Oak to be an ideal location to incorporate a roundabout.  Mr. Patterson said it would break up the stretch of the approximately 2,700 feet of Grant Lane into two sections, and the design shown would have an outside diameter of 102 feet with a 40 foot diameter interior landscape island.  In addition, a 12-foot mountable truck apron is proposed to surround the landscape island.  Mr. Patterson commented the above-mentioned diameter is necessary in order to safely accommodate emergency vehicles and school buses.
    Mr. Patterson explained the advantages of a roundabout at this location is that it would serve as a speed control device, which would eliminate the certain request in the future for an unwarranted four-way stop.  It is also thought that the roundabout would provide a visual enhancement for the neighborhood, as well as providing a pedestrian friendly crossing at Grant Lane with the delineated crosswalks and rumble strips to separate the traffic lanes.  The additional cost of the project for construction of the roundabout over a standard cross intersection has been estimated at $20,100.
    Mr. Patterson noted another roundabout is recommended at the intersection of the Grant Lane and the Maple Bluff Acres entrance.  He pointed out the original proposal would have had a very severe impact on property to the south and to the east.  Mr. Patterson reported staff prepared an alternative, which consisted of a tee intersection.  It is felt this design would work, but would not have the traffic characteristics of the roundabout.  He noted this type of intersection could handle the traffic that is expected.   After designing the tee intersection, staff received information from the property owner of the lot at the northwest corner indicating a desire and willingness to negotiate with the City for the acquisition of the lot which would allow putting the roundabout more to the northwest, minimizing the affect on the south and east property owners.  He said it would also provide an additional area for landscaping and green space on the project for beautification.  The additional cost for this roundabout is approximately $24,150.
    Regarding tax billing, Mr. Patterson said prior to making any special assessments, another public hearing is necessary to determine if there are benefits accrued to the properties.  He reiterated the possible cost reduction for the previously mentioned through lots.  Mr. Patterson reported the benefits the Council may wish to consider if the project is completed and tax billing is proposed are as follows:  the street will be curbed and guttered, which will provide improved storm water management; the decrease in maintenance requirements by elimination of roadside ditches; the street improves the appearance of properties; the sidewalks would provide improved safety for pedestrian traffic, as well as the bicycle lanes providing safety for people in the area; and the improved street would also eliminate dust problems that exist and improve the riding surface which has a tendency to decrease maintenance costs on vehicles.
    Mr. Campbell asked if the cost of the second roundabout included the land acquisition costs.  Mr. Patterson said that amount was not included.  With the new location for the one roundabout, Mr. Campbell asked about the distance between the roundabout and the property on the southwest corner.  Mr. Patterson overlaid the two overheads to show the difference.   Mr. Campbell could not see much difference.
    Regarding the tee intersection considered in place of a second roundabout, Mr. Janku asked if it would include stop signs or yield signs.  Mr. Patterson said it would not fit the description for stop signs at that location.  He said it would be similar to what is currently at Sunflower.  He said that was one of the reasons staff felt a roundabout would work better, it would allow for safer traffic movements.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Roy Robinson, 2981 Maple Bluff, whose home is located at the southeast corner of the intersection with Grant Lane, said he was speaking on his own behalf as well as President of the Maple Bluff Home Owners Association, and also for Bob Grant who is out of state presently.  He stated Mr. Grant's property is probably affected more by this project than anyone else.  By designating Grant Lane as a collector street, Mr. Robinson said the City standard is for a road similar to Chapel Hill.  He said if one were to objectively review the traffic on Grant Lane, they would agree that the proposed standard is excessive.  He said a 38-foot street is overkill.  Mr. Robinson did not think the proposed "experimental" roundabout would be the best use of funds.  He complimented Mr. Patterson's staff for meeting with the residents to try to work that out.  He said Mr. King has attempted to keep the roundabout out of his yard.  Mr. Robinson had concerns about drainage and the affect it would have on his property as well as on Mr. Grant's property.
    Ms. Coble asked Mr. Robinson if he had an alternative suggestion to the 38-foot wide street.  Mr. Robinson said if it could be reduced to 30-feet, residents would be pleased.
    Gae Dene Vance, 4008 Bent Oak Drive, spoke as a representative of the Oak Bridge II area.  She said almost every neighbor she has heard from has been unanimous on one topic -- street width.  She said many felt the best plan would be to simply black top Grant Lane and leave it as is.  Ms. Vance stated residents recognize that black top does not coincide with the City's overall plan and, in light of that, they propose the most minimum street width possible, preferably a 24 foot street, but certainly not to exceed a 32 foot street.  Ms. Vance noted that Dan Burden has indicated that Columbia streets are too wide.  While residents realize sidewalk width is a controversial subject, she indicated they would prefer a four-foot sidewalk on only one side of the street.  If sidewalk width and number is not negotiable, they suggested an alternative might be found in regard to considering the bike routes and sidewalk issue.  Ms. Vance gave an example of a five-foot sidewalk on one side of the street and six-feet on the other side, with the six-foot walk being used as a combination bike path/pedestrian area.  She said that would allow for a narrow street width and for the protection of bikers.  She added that it would also allow for on-street parking, which many of the residents oppose, but some houses front on Grant Lane and these individuals would appreciate and expect the convenience of on-street parking.  Most neighbors agree that roundabouts are unnecessary.  Residents felt what is absolutely necessary is the slowing of traffic.  She said they have suggested many alternatives, yet the roundabouts remain an issue.  If the roundabouts are not negotiable, Ms. Vance said the neighborhood requested that the width of the roundabouts be kept small enough to lessen the impact on the home owners at those sites.  What was initially a 100 foot roundabout has now become the possibility of over 120 feet.  She noted concerns raised about adequate storm water control and street lighting -- which should be kept to an absolute minimum, if used at all.
    If the neighborhood does not support the use of roundabouts, which would reduce the speed of vehicular traffic through the area, Mayor Hindman asked what residents had in mind for controlling speed.  Ms. Vance explained that some of the neighbors had requested stop signs and others have mentioned rumble strips.  She said their concern is in keeping the roundabouts small enough so as to not impact the properties at these locations.  Regarding the parking, Mayor Hindman said he had received calls on both sides and there seemed to be no unanimity.  Ms. Vance explained that many people whose homes do not face Grant Lane feel that on-street parking is not necessary and very undesirable, but there are those few houses that front Grant and those residents want that option.
    Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Patterson to address the storm water issue.  Mr. Patterson said approximately 20% of the construction cost is being used for storm water management.  He said the preliminary designs call for inlets, drainage pipes and outlets.  Mr. Patterson explained that staff met with the home owners in the area to determine what their specific problems are so solutions could be incorporated in the design.  Mr. Janku asked about the existing storm water control.  Mr. Patterson said it consists of open ditches and added that there are some areas that do not drain very well.
    Larry Hampton, 3906 Bent Oak, said he had not been living in the neighborhood at the time the previous meetings were held concerning the project.  He said Mr. King had come out and met with him and another neighbor a few weeks ago to explain the impact the project would have on their neighborhood as well as their property.  He explained that he lives at the corner where the first roundabout is being proposed -- at the entrance of the Katy Lakes Subdivision.  Mr. Hampton is opposed to the project because the traffic circle will encroach upon his property.  Environmentally, he is opposed to it because of the removal of 125 trees in excess of 6-inches in diameter.  He did not feel that a 38-foot street with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides is necessary for this area.  Mr. Hampton felt that Grant Lane should be widened to no more than 24 feet, and resurfaced with minimum impact to the country-like environment of their neighborhood.
    Mr. Kruse asked how much of Mr. Hampton's yard would be taken for the roundabout.  Mr. Hampton thought it was somewhere between 500 and 700 square feet that would have to come off of one corner.  He said it would bring the roundabout much too close to his back door.  Mr. Kruse asked about the depth of the lot from his house to the rear property line.  Mr. Hampton did not know what that would be.
    Tony Bartel, resident of Maple Bluff, said everyone that he has talked with from the three neighborhood associations are opposed to the widening of the street.  He wondered why the City would continue to push a project that everyone is opposed to.  Mr. Bartel reported he had conducted traffic counts, and the numbers did not warrant a 32-foot wide street nor any roundabouts.  He thought that one or two stop signs would be enough to control traffic.  The most dangerous portion of Grant Lane, in his opinion, is the hill north of Post Oak Drive.  Mr. Bartel felt too much land would be lost to the street yard and sidewalks.  He felt residents could get by with a lot less street, one sidewalk, and a bicycle path on one side to allow for parking on the other side of the street.
    Scott Shoulders, 4007 Brentwood in Katy Lakes Subdivision, explained that his property backs up to Grant Lane where it is currently gravel.  His concern is that his property drops off vertically where there are a lot of trees.  He questioned how it would be graded and how it would help erosion.  Mr. Shoulders said that he has a privacy fence in place and he did not care to have it removed.  He noted that the trees that would be removed are to be replaced with trees that would take 50 years to grow to the size of the trees that currently exists.
    Mr. Patterson explained that all projects with tapered and sloped grading call for seeding and mulch.  He said these areas are maintained until a vegetative growth is reestablished.  He pointed out that permanent right-of-way has already been dedicated in the area, and the only easements that would be necessary would be the grading easements in order to allow for the project to drain properly, and could be mowed and taken care of.  He said the City already has 66-feet of right-of-way along that stretch that is dedicated as part of the plat.  Regarding the privacy fence, Mr. Patterson explained that traditionally, staff negotiates the easements with the property owner, and the fence replacement and other items that could be impacted by the project are addressed at a later date.  He noted the City very frequently replaces fences that need to be relocated or removed during construction.
    Jim Sheppers, 4009 Beach Point, President of the Katy Lake Home Owners Association, said the group has had numerous meetings and have sent fliers out.  He had heard from only one person who is in support of the project.  The majority of the home owners would like to see Grant Lane improved somewhat, but not to this magnitude.  They felt the roundabouts were too extensive, with the design at Trailside and Bent Oak taking a lot of property away from people.  Mr. Sheppers observed it would also probably ruin the best looking entrance to the subdivision.  Regarding parking, he said the owners who face Grant Lane want parking on the street.
    Mr. Campbell asked if the neighborhood would prefer narrower streets or wider streets with on-street parking.  Mr. Sheppers said the majority of people he had spoken with would probably prefer a narrower street without parking.  Mr. Janku noted those people do not live on Grant Lane.  Mr. Sheppers pointed out that out of 150 members, less than 10% would be affected by having ownership on that street.
    Mr. Janku noted that there are still a number of houses to be built on the eastern end that will have driveways directly accessing the street.  Mr. Campbell suggested that off-street parking could be taken into account in the construction phase.  Mr. Sheppers supposed it could, but he said there are limited streets that visitors might park on.  He said Trailside and Brentwood are a considerable distance to the west and south.
    Tom Murphy, 4016 Bent Oak Lane, voiced his preference for a narrower road.  He noted than Dan Burden recommends a smaller planting area than what is being recommended for this project (nine feet versus six feet).  Mr. Murphy pointed out that if the sidewalk is next to the property line, roughly two feet of walking space would be lost.  Mr. Janku asked if that was because fences might be built at the property line.  Mr. Murphy said that was correct.
    Doug Moore, 4010 Bent Oak, echoed concerns about the street width being too wide.  Regarding the bike lanes, he explained Grant Lane is a street that intersects with Scott Boulevard.  Mr. Janku interjected that the City is in the process of improving Scott Boulevard.  He said the southern portion will be improved with a sidewalk and bike lanes.  Mr. Moore said that would only be up to a point past the intersection, where Grant intersects with Scott.  Mr. Moore also read a statement from a neighbor who could not come to the meeting.  The concern was about the location of sidewalks.  He said placing the sidewalk at the property owners lot line would cause a sense of intrusion and loss of privacy.  He felt that could result in a "hodge-podge" of privacy fences and hedge rows negating the aesthetic affect envisioned in the plan as presented.  Mr. Moore said he did not think many people would appreciate pedestrians walking through their back yards.  Mr. Kruse noted that sidewalks are typically built at the property line in front yards.  Mr. Moore said he did not think front yards were considered as much of a private area as rear yards are.  Mr. Kruse thought that to be a good point.
    Erin New, 4010 Brentwood, noted that his home does not abut Grant Lane.  He questioned the size of replacement trees.  Mr. Patterson replied they are usually one and one-half inch trees.  He said the Council could direct staff to look at something larger, but their experience has been that the smaller trees have a better chance of survival than the larger ones, and typically do not have to be replaced as frequently.  Mr. New asked if the width, whatever the choice may be, would affect the elevation on the 2,700 foot stretch.  He had concerns about the hill, and is hopeful the elevation could be leveled out some.  Mr. Patterson reported there is a projected cut at the intersection of about two and one-half feet, and there would be subsequent fills in the low areas in order to improve the sight distance in the dips.  Mr. Patterson said whatever the width of the street is reduced by, there would be some horizontal impact, but there would be no vertical impact.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Campbell suggested it was time to look at the City's street standards.  He noted that he travels down Stewart Road several times a day, which is 27½ feet wide, several times a day.  He said it was built to that standard after much negotiation and protest by the neighbors.  Mr. Campbell noted that the street functions very well and has no parking on it.  He said it is inconvenient not to have on-street parking, but residents learn to deal with it.  He suggested a 30-foot street for Grant Lane.  Mr. Campbell stated there could be two 12 foot lanes, with two and one-half feet on each side for curb and gutter, which would total 29 feet.  He said that would leave one-foot left over.  Mr. Campbell reported that a 30 foot street width, however, would not allow for on-street parking.  He noted that he spoke to very few residents who wanted a narrower street.
    Regarding the bike lanes, Mr. Campbell explained that he classifies bike riding into two major types -- commuting and recreational.  Bicyclists who commute travel from point A to point B on a regular basis, and they want to do it as expeditiously as possible.  Recreational biking is when children and adults ride for pleasure.  He did not think that is the same type of traffic movement that involves commuting.  When looking at the area, Mr. Campbell noted there are no schools or commercial areas close to Grant Lane, which suggests to him that bike traffic through this area would much more likely be recreational.  Mr. Campbell proposed that a six-foot wide sidewalk on one side would accommodate both bicycle and pedestrian traffic.  He knew the argument about bicycles and pedestrians not mixing well, but noted that riders and cars do not mix very well either.  He felt bicyclists would be much better off to be out of the traffic way.  Mr. Campbell pointed out that the City built such a thing on Old 63, and it seems to work very well.  By reducing the size, Mr. Campbell noted that the city could probably save $50,000 that could be used in many other places for traffic development of other kinds.
    As to the roundabouts and intersections, Mr. Campbell's understood that a tee intersection would be preferred at the one, but the other he had mixed feelings about.  Mr. Campbell said he would suggest a roundabout because traffic control would be greatly needed there.  He did not think a stop sign would give the amount of traffic control that a roundabout would, which is another reason for having a narrower street than a wider street.  Mr. Campbell pointed out that a wider street invites faster driving than a narrower street does.  He referred to the traffic on Chapel Hill Road.
    With respect to the roundabout as it relates to the street width, Mr. Kruse asked if the street is 30-feet wide, whether that meant the roundabout would be smaller.  He realized there would have to be a certain turning radius for school buses and emergency vehicles.  Mr. Patterson said it would not change the radius of the roundabout significantly because the radius is determined by what is required to get those types of vehicles through the roundabout.  Mr. Kruse said he had recently been in Portland where roundabouts on residential collector streets are used extensively.  He felt they had been very effective and attractive, and are better than stop signs.  He agreed with Mr. Campbell that at least a roundabout in the middle of the 2,700 foot stretch would be appropriate.  He understood that would have an impact upon some yards.  With respect to the sidewalks and bike lanes, he prefers Class II bike lanes, but he could see where they could do without them here if the sidewalks were adequate.  He preferred to see sidewalks on both sides of the street, but said there are positives and negatives to every one of the issues.
    With respect to sidewalk location, Mr. Janku agreed it would be better to move it back from the adjoining property line.  He thought a valid point had been made about how the property owner's use of their property, whether it be through fences or plantings, could adversely affect the use of the sidewalk.  Mr. Janku thought the tree yard could probably be made somewhat narrower, and the sidewalk could be moved closer to the street.  He did not think the stop signs would be appreciated because of the braking and acceleration noises that would be heard.  He did believe the roundabout could have some benefits for the adjoining property owner.  Mr. Janku noted the Bicycle Commission would like to have a wider street, and if the Council chooses not to go with a 38-foot wide street, he thought it should be at least 34 feet wide.  He reported that was what had been done on Old 63.  Mr. Janku observed that realistically, the City could not keep bike riders off the street, and they needed to be given space.  When the homes on the eastern end of the street are built, Mr. Janku said it would be hard to take away parking.  He did not think they would necessarily want to designate bike lanes because he thought the property owners who have access to the street would not want it.
    Mr. Campbell noted if there is on-street parking, it would be difficult to establish effective bike traffic.  In reality, Mr. Janku said what happens is the on-street parking is used very rarely and, while it does inhibit traffic, most of the time it is not used so bike travel is relatively easy.  He observed most people who have access to a street expect to have the right to park on it.  Mr. Janku stated the Council has learned over the years that it is hard to take parking away.  Mr. Campbell noted that construction has not occurred in much of this area, and he assumed the developer would take that into account when building the houses.  Mrs. Crockett said there are already some houses built.  Mr. Campbell said there are very few.  Mayor Hindman asked if there was on-street parking for those who presently live on Grant Lane.  Mr. Campbell said there is not.  Mayor Hindman noted then there would be no change.  Mr. Janku said currently, there is a series of homes being built, and they would be the ones adversely affected by a no parking policy.
    Mr. Coffman asked how many trees would be preserved if the Council agreed to Mr. Campbell's compromise suggestion.  Mr. Patterson said it would not significantly make a difference because the trees are clumped so close to the existing roadway that a couple of feet would not matter.  Mr. Coffman asked about eliminating one of the sidewalks and one of the roundabouts.  Mr. Patterson said a 28-foot street, widened all on one side and pushed to the right-of-way was about the only way to save any significant trees.
    Looking at the entire package, Mrs. Crockett said everything is included that the Council has been asking for in a subdivision; wide streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and roundabouts.  She noted the residents that currently live in the Grant Lane area do not agree to many of these improvements.  Mrs. Crockett felt the City is experimenting with roundabouts in this situation to see if it would work.  She wondered why this should be done in a residential subdivision, when stop signs would be sufficient.  Mrs. Crockett thought a narrower street and sidewalks on one side would be adequate.  She said it was a good plan, but she could not see putting it in a neighborhood that does not want it.
    Ms. Coble said she did not think of it as an experimental design, and all over the City there has been a push for wide streets.  She said looking at the large scale area map of this part of the City, knowing it is going to keep growing, one of the hardest problems to fix is to go back in and undo a project when planning was not done adequately and there was no roadway and right-of-way ability.  She reported it is always an "uncomfortable right now" situation in any neighborhood when this happens, but it will be the same, if not more so, on down the line.  Ms. Coble felt the roundabouts made a lot of sense, especially with a straightaway like this one through a residential neighborhood.  She thought the tree planting was generous.
    Mr. Kruse did not think the Council had ever asked for wide streets.  He said the Council tends to prefer narrow streets and Class II bike lanes when they can get them on collector streets, which do make streets wider.  He said the plan staff has put together is excellent, exactly the kind of design the Council has been asking for.  Mr. Kruse stated it is an ideal model that works great if no development has occurred.  He thought it was where the City should start with every road project.  Mr. Kruse observed the plan accommodates pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles, while also incorporating landscaping and traffic calming.  He said what the Council is attempting to do is to take the plan and work toward a reasonable compromise.
    Mayor Hindman said the staff has taken what the Council has been talking about -- what modern road design has been and looking at what has been successful in other cities.  He thanked the staff for their forward thinking on this project.  Mayor Hindman said this is a collector street, a street for the general use of the public, rather than just a neighborhood street, so they have to look at it from two points of view -- the affect on the neighborhood, and also the affect on the community as a whole.  Mayor Hindman agreed the Council needed to look at some form of compromise.  He felt the narrower street without on-street parking might be a good solution since there is no parking on it presently, and the developer could take that into consideration when homes are built.   By allowing space for the on-street parking, Mayor Hindman said this would result in a 2,700 foot long, very wide street.  He said his experience was that it would be a speedway and the residents will be very unhappy about it.  He is considering a 27½ foot wide street just because of Stewart Road.  Mayor Hindman notes he drives on Stewart Road a couple of times a day, and it has a lot of bicycles on it, no on-street parking, and it seems to work pretty well.  He is in favor of five-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street, but felt the green space between the sidewalk and the street could be narrowed.  He also supported the roundabout.  Mayor Hindman suggested that the lighting be looked at to make it as satisfactory as possible to the neighbors.  Regarding the tree removal, he regretted that it will have to occur, but is impressed by the table in the report about the endangering of the trees.  He said if the City does remove the trees, new ones would be planted to develop into a beautiful treescape in a relatively short period of time.
    Mr. Beck commented that he did not feel the street should be built any less than 32-feet wide for several reasons.  He said citizens committees that have been appointed over the years have always found that collector streets should be from 32 to 38 feet wide.  He said the City really adopted the 38-foot standard, although some have been waived in the past.  He gave Clinkscales Avenue as an example which carries hundreds of cars per day, is 32-feet wide, has bicycles on it, and parking on both sides of the street.   At times, Mr. Beck noted it is very congested.  He felt that bicycles on Grant Lane would be on the street, bike lanes or no bike lanes, except for children riding tricycles in front yards.  He thought the width of the sidewalk was a judgment call as to whether it should be four or five feet wide in that area.  Regarding walks on both sides of the street, he noted that the standard has called for walks on one side of collector/arterial streets as a minimum.  Mr. Beck recommended that bike lanes not be painted, and that it be classified a Class III with signs put up.
    Mayor Hindman said if the street is 30 feet wide, his recommendation would be to paint the lanes narrower to slow traffic down.
    Ms. Coble commented that she is uncomfortable with this engineering by the Council, and pulling street widths out of the air when they have been presented with an extensive engineering report, a lot of public comments, and a lot of ideas that are less than crystal clear.  Mr. Campbell felt the time to have the discussion and decision making is when the people are present so it can be done in front of them.
    Mr. Campbell made a motion that the staff be directed to design a 30-foot wide street along Grant Lane.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
    Mr.  Janku asked if two and one-half feet would be taken off of both sides for curb and gutter.  Mr. Campbell said that would be twelve and one-half feet, which is wider than most traffic lanes.  Mr. Janku said his concern as a bicyclist is that he is uncomfortable when he puts his wheel next to the edge caused by the curb and gutter.   He said the cars would not be affected so much, but the people trying to move up next to the curb when there is traffic coming both ways would be.  Mr. Campbell said it would be a trade-off with a relatively narrow street that will control traffic, or a wide street that encourages fast traffic which would be more dangerous to cyclists.
    Mrs. Crockett asked about the width of Oakland Gravel.  Mr. Patterson said it is a collector street and was built 38-feet wide.  Mrs. Crockett said she travels Oakland Gravel all of the time and she has never noticed speeding on it.  She was not suggesting a 38-foot width, but at least 32.
    Mr. Janku said he did not think 38-feet was needed when on-street parking is not part of the possibility.  He agreed that as street designs and restrictions are in place on collector streets to take off driveway access on newer streets, they probably need to look at that standard.  He did not know how to address the question about the bicycle population.  He did not know how much slower traffic would be between two and four feet widths.  Mr. Janku agreed at some point the street width would make a difference.  Mayor Hindman reminded him of Stewart Road which has lots of bicycles on it.  Mr. Beck said there is no play between shoving a car next to the curb and a car coming out of a side street.  He said there is not much space for judgement.  He also pointed out there will be drop inlets.  Mr. Beck asked Mr. Patterson what that would take out of the street width.  Mr. Patterson said that was one of the big reasons they are concerned about the narrower street , even if the bicycle lanes are taken off.  He said people are going to ride bikes on it and there are several drop inlets.  Mr. Patterson reported he quit riding on Stewart Road the second time he got run into an inlet.  He noted that there would be disabled vehicles and people parking, and cars would not be able to pass if there is a vehicle on the street.  Mr. Patterson stated that is another reason the standard was set -- to allow for that eventuality.
    The motion made by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Mr. Kruse, was approved by voice vote.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that there be a tee intersection at the corner of Maple Bluff and Grant, and that a roundabout be constructed at Post Oak.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that five-foot sidewalks be built on both sides of the street, set back six feet from the curb.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
    Mr. Kruse said that would leave room for street trees between the curb and sidewalk, as well as leaving room for landscaping on the other side of the sidewalk in some locations.  Mrs. Crockett asked if there would be utilities between the sidewalk and the street.  Mr. Patterson said typically that is where they are placed.  Mrs. Crockett asked if trees would be planted on top of the utilities.  Mr. Campbell said most of the area along there would have no utilities.  Mr. Kruse asked if this consists of above ground or below ground utilities.  It was suggested that be left open.  Mr. Patterson said he had the understanding that where possible, the Council wants it set in from the property line by at least two or three feet.
    Mr. Campbell withdrew his motion.  Mr. Kruse withdrew his second.  Mr. Campbell felt that Mr. Patterson understood what it was the Council wanted.
    It was decided the Council would leave the plan as is as far as the sidewalks are concerned.
    Ms. Coble noted that there is no plan -- the Council has adopted two additional motions, which negates what is in the plan.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the Council adopt the plan subject to the motions.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
    Mr. Janku asked when an ordinance would be brought forward about no parking.  He thought it needed to be done quickly.  Mr. Patterson said staff could bring an ordinance forward at any time.
    The motion made by Mayor Hindman, seconded by Mr. Kruse, was approved by voice vote.

(E)         Voluntary annexation of property located on the southeast corner of Sinclair Street and
              Southampton Drive.
    Mr. Beck reported this is a 40.3 acre tract of land located on the southeast corner of Sinclair Street and Southampton Drive.  The applicant is requesting that 5.47 acres be zoned C-P, 16.86 acres be zoned PUD-8, and 17.93 acres be zoned R-1.
    Mr. Bondra pointed out that this property is part of a larger island of unincorporated land.  He stated the developer does not choose to annex the other portion of the tract at this time, but he assumes that at some point the additional property will be developed and the applicant will be forced to annex in order to obtain sewer service.  Mr. Bondra noted one of the reasons the developer does not want to annex the entire property is because the applicant is not sure how he wants to develop the southern portion.  It was explained that when property is located within the city, the zoning ordinances stipulate that a preliminary plat must include plans for the entire tract owned by that individual, even if a portion of it is not included in the plat.  This is not the case when property is yet to be annexed.
    Roy Rogers, 1614 Whitburn, stated that he owns the property in question.  He briefly summarized his plans for the property, and offered to answer any questions.
    It was noted that no action is necessary at this time.

(F)     Ice Skating Facility.
    Item F was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained the Committee is requesting that the Council authorize staff to develop a request for qualifications in order to proceed towards selecting an experienced private operator for a possible partnership on an ice skating facility.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, thanked the Mayor for inviting him to the focus group that met last Thursday to discuss the recreation center.  He was hopeful the Council would look at the project from the viewpoint of the tax payer.  He noted that back in the 80's, the Ice Chalet failed for whatever reason and did not remain in business very long.  Mr. Lane stated that should not occur again at the expense of the tax payers.  He suggested that a private company finance the entire operations, or that it be done by donations.
    Don Spadone, 5400 West Tayside, explained that he is with the group, Ice Skate Columbia.  He said they (a lobbying group) examined the issue of bringing ice into Columbia.  Initially, the group looked at both public/private cooperation because they realized the burden to the tax payers to build a recreation center with assorted amenities, as well as an ice rink, would be tremendous.  Mr. Spadone noted that ice skating has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years, and the economics that have gone into the dynamics of ice skating have changed.  He commented that the popularity of the sport has increased tremendously.  Mr. Spadone said what the group is interested in at this point is for the City to simply take some land that is sitting vacant, and authorize leasing it to a private company -- let a private operator take the risk and the burden to make it successful.  Mr. Spadone reported that a multi-million dollar ice facility would help the vitality of the community, and it would not in any way increase the burden of taxation.
    Mr. Janku asked if there were examples of where this has been done elsewhere.  Mr. Spadone stated that Mayor Hindman and other Council members went to Fairview Heights, Illinois and viewed that facility.  He reported with an investment of land from the community, they brought in a $5.5 million facility which has been tremendously successful.  He said they have been able to secure the equivalent to the Show-Me State Games to their town, which brings in revenue.  Mr. Spadone noted it is a win/win situation for that community, and it did not cost the tax payers but a small pittance of the total cost of the entire project.  He thought that model could be used effectively in Columbia.
    Carol Harl, 204 Westwood, spoke as a 35-year resident of Columbia in support of an ice skating facility.  As a real estate salesperson, she felt Columbia has been hurt by not having any winter-time facilities.  In Money Magazine, she noted that Columbia was ranked low in regards to those types of activities.
    Craig Klumzach, 2001 Katy Lane, father of a daughter who ice skates, explained that they are forced to travel quite a bit.  He said they take their dollars to Jefferson City and St. Louis because there is no facility in Columbia for his children to use.  He thought this proposal is a compromise.  He said they are not asking the city to build an ice rink, or asking that it be funded with a tax issue, but the Committee is asking for help to induce a private organization to come in and build an ice rink for this community.  Mr. Klumzach felt the community has a lot of resources that are currently dormant and could be used to encourage an organization to come to Columbia and build an ice rink.  He explained that he has been working with the Recreation Committee to search out potential developers, and they have been somewhat successful in drawing interest from some private firms.  He noted there are some individuals who are interested as well, but they would ask that the City make a partnership or some investment in the venture.  In conjunction with the recreation center, Mr. Klumzach thought five or six million dollars could be saved by bringing in a private investor and, at the same time, leverage the resources that Columbia has to meet the need in the community.
    Mr. Janku asked if there was anything other than the land they would be requesting.  At the present time,  Mr. Klumzach said the main focus is that they have that resource available to them.  In Fairview Heights, he noted that the City had given a cash donation with some kind of a reverter agreement to the firm that built the rink.   Because two sites have been identified, they felt that Columbia has an advantage as there is an abundance of land that would be suitable for this purpose.  Mr. Janku asked if this proposal would be publicized and made available to anyone, local or out of town.  Mr. Klumzach said that was correct.  He said they have actually been contacting national developers and rink owners.  He said some of the owners operate as many as 25 rinks.  Mr. Klumzach reported the group has spoken to rink developers that would like to have some alternative funding -- the City would actually own the property, offer 501 C3 corporation and would issue revenue bonds.  He said there are a lot of different possibilities on how the issue could be approached, but they have to determine as a group which one would be most suitable.  Mr. Klumzach reported the group thought that the incentive with the land and the appropriate reverter agreement is the best option at this time.
    Emily Willitt, 1111 W. Rollins, stated that she has been figure skating for five plus years.  She explained that she had been skating in St. Louis just this afternoon.  She spoke about the benefits of skating, and reported a lot of her friends do not have the resources to enjoy it because of the time and expense of having to go out of town.
    Paul Spadone, 5400 W. Tayside Circle, explained that his team plays their games in Jefferson City and St. Louis, with Jefferson City being considered their home ice rink.  He noted that a round trip to the rink takes an hour, which cuts into their homework time.  He is certain that a local rink would be greatly used.
    Mrs. Crockett asked how many people in Paul's age group travel to Jefferson City for games and practice.  Paul replied that quite a few people make the trip.
    Kevin Colewater, 1043 Cooper, a member of the MU Hockey Team, commented that a rink in Columbia would do a lot toward advancing the team, as well as giving them better practice times.
    In terms of the general student population, Mr. Janku asked about the interest in skating.  Mr. Colewater explained that many of the students are from St. Louis and Kansas City and places that have local access to ice rinks.  He said the students are very interested in hockey.  Mr. Colewater reported that about 150 people are in attendance at 11:00 p.m. to watch the team play in Jefferson City.  He said the residents in Jefferson City stay and watch their games after public sessions.
    Mr. Kruse asked if the MU team received any support from the University.  Mr. Colewater said they are provided enough to pay for ice time and a small amount of travel.
    Jean Graebner, 1800 S. Roby Farm Road, spoke on behalf of the senior citizens.  She said the dedicated skaters are not just the young ones.  She noted that a number of seniors love to ice skate and make the trip to Jefferson City.  Mr. Graebner stated that an ice rink would not just support the young people in Columbia, but people of all ages.
    Harry Web, 3406 Rangeline, a youth hockey coach, explained that he grew up in St. Louis and played youth hockey.  He said it is very discouraging to have to drive to Jefferson City to play hockey.  He reported that his team was in Jefferson City on Saturday, and as they were leaving, he noted that the line for public skating was out the door and around the side of the building.  Mr. Web commented there is a tremendous interest in skating.  As a teacher at Oakland, he hears students saying how much they would enjoy ice skating more often.  He said the school itself has had two functions this year where they take bus loads of students to go skating in Jefferson City on Tuesday evenings.  Mr. Web felt a rink in Columbia would be very successful.
    John LaMont, 1715 Cannif Circle, explained that he is a Jefferson City youth volunteer and Parks and Recreation participant.  He currently coaches the Jefferson City High School Hockey Team as well as a pee wee team there.  Being born in Canada, he has had the opportunity to witness very successful youth hockey programs.  He felt Columbia definitely has a demographic influence to have that kind of program.   By not having a rink, Mr. LaMont thought Columbia was missing a major youth and adult recreation activity.
    Paul Archombo, 1039 Cooper Drive, captain of the MU Ice Hockey Team, explained that they would probably have sell-out crowds in a Columbia rink, which would generate revenue for the City.
    James Robinett, III, 754 Demaret, a pee wee team member, spoke in support of an ice rink in Columbia.
    James Robinett, Jr., 7554 Demaret, said besides his son playing ice hockey, his daughter takes ice skating lessons as well.  He asked for the Council's support for an ice rink in Columbia.
    Doug Abrams, 249 E. High Pointe Lane, President of the Jefferson City Youth Hockey Program, explained that there are 160 players in the youth program right now, with the biggest problem being how to fit everyone in.  He pointed out that he is in his 30th year of coaching youth hockey, and knows what an ice rink does for a community.  Mr. Abrams reported he has seen the direction it has given kids in those communities.  He remarked that he had no question whatsoever that in this town of 75,000 people, an ice rink would be busting at the seams the day after it is built.  Mr. Abrams is hopeful the Council would support the issue for people of all ages in Columbia.
    Scott Lincoln, 811 Cornell, commented that skating is an affordable sport.
    Shawn Gray, 2507 Black Oak Drive, said that he and his brother usually leave after school to go to hockey practice and do not get home until nine.  He sometimes has problems finishing his homework because of the time it takes to drive to Jefferson City.  A rink in Columbia would help him get more homework done.  Mr. Gray thought that a lot of his friends that do not skate would learn how if there was a rink in Columbia.
    Kathy Spadone, 5400 West Tayside Circle, said they have been talking about the "ice rink" this evening; however, to maximize the use of such a facility it would need two ice surfaces.  The reason for this would be to allow enough room for different types of skating.  With Columbia being located in the center of the state, Ms. Spadone said if a rink were to open here, figure skating would become more popular and, inevitably, competitions would develop.  She said the same is true of hockey.  Ms. Spadone commented that geographically, Columbia would be able to draw from both the Kansas City and St. Louis areas for tournaments and competitions.  She said a two-ice surface would draw larger tournaments to the area, and perhaps tie into the Show-Me State Games for ice competitions, which would bring a lot of tourism revenue into the community.
    Brad Litton, 2409 Lacewood Drive, a pee wee team member, spoke in support of an ice rink in Columbia because of the travel time involved in getting to and from practices.
    Greg Steinhoff, 5708 Sundance, reported Mr. Lane raised a good point about the risk involved when entering into this kind of strategy.  If the private operator does not survive, the City would be left with a white elephant.  He explained that the Committee's responsibility is to make sure that the viability of the potential private operator is very well-documented, and that any operator of such a facility has a proven record for it being sustainable.  He said the group has done a lot of work to analyze the demographics of the community and to understand the difference between ice rinks that are successful and those that seem to have not made it.  They felt the demographics over the last 25 years and the popularity of the sport have changed to the point where now one could make a much better case for the sustainability of a project like this.  Mr. Steinhoff said the Committee is aware of the need to make sure a legitimate operator is found, and if that is not the case, no recommendation will be sent to the City Council.  He wanted to make sure that was clear to the ice skating community.
    Mr. Janku asked if the RFQ would specify the nature of a facility (one ice surface versus two).  Mr. Steinhoff said the Committee would like to see the operators run numbers on both.  He pointed out that it costs about 25% more to run an additional sheet of ice, so the facility would need to exceed capacity by at least that amount to justify the second sheet.  Once that is done, the margin goes way up as many more skaters could be accommodated, which would create that much more revenue.  They understood most rinks to be two sheets.  Mr. Steinhoff noted that some of the consultants the Committee has spoken to have indicated that at this time, ice skating has not developed to the point where there is an interest from all segments of the community.  He said the developer would have to be able to survive while the sport develops locally.
    Mr. Campbell asked about the size of such a  facility.  Mr. Steinhoff replied there are two sizes, a NHL size rink and an Olympic size rink.  He said the City could have one of each, or any other combination.  The NHL is about 200 x 85 and the footprint of a double rink is about an acre and one-quarter.  He said Olympic size is larger, 200 x 100.  Mr. Kruse asked if that would include seating.  Mr. Steinhoff said the seating is generally 800 to 900 people -- five to six rows of bleachers the entire length of the ice.  He said there are usually locker room facilities underneath the seating to maximize space utilization.
    Mr. Steinhoff reported the Committee felt, after looking at the cost of constructing a rink as part of the recreation center project, it was something that would put them over the top in terms of what the tax payers would support.  He said that is why they recommend pursuing this from the private sector angle.
    Kyle Thompson, 3708 Wakefield, spoke in support of a rink.
    Susan Niederberger, 3614 Hermitage Road, manager of the MU Ice Hockey Team, noted that they play a lot of their games in St. Louis because the team does not have to pay for the ice or towels.  Of the crowds they see in St. Louis, she thought three-quarters of the spectators supported the MU league.  Ms. Niederberger reported if these fans are willing to go to St. Louis, they would certainly be willing to come to the games if they were in Columbia.
    Lottie Bushman, 818 W. Rollins Road, reported that she is a professional ice skating coach and has coached in Jefferson City for 17 years.  She explained that she runs the figure skating club there, and has found there are many families in Columbia who would love for their kids to be involved, but are apprehensive because of the time involved getting to and from Jefferson City.  She said the main reason for Columbia to support a rink is because ice skating is a sport families can participate in together.  Ms. Bushman noted it is a wonderful opportunity for families.
    Michael Laskey, 3514 Woods Edge, pointed out that the rink in Jefferson City is not a world class facility.  He reported the facility closes in March and does not open again until October or November as they do not have the mechanical ability to keep water frozen all summer long.  If a new facility were to be built in Columbia, it would obviously be built to better standards and will be opened 12 months a year.  He noted if such a rink is constructed in this City, many of the skaters would be traveling from Jefferson City for the other six months of the year.
    Mike Sweeney, Scott Boulevard, said he had actually skated at the old Ice Chalet and added that he still skates to this day.  He said the number one growing sport is ice hockey, and wondered why a facility should not be built.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that a Request for Qualifications be developed to select an experienced builder/operator with a proven record of success for an ice rink.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

R8-99     Authorizing an agreement with Show-Me Central Habitat for Humanity for a grant of CDBG
                funds for the development of Haden Park Subdivision.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman noted that a request had been received to table the issue further.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that R8-99 be tabled to the March 1, 1999, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B25-99     Ozark Ground Lease Agreement.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this would authorize Ozark to build a hangar and corporate offices at the airport.  He said it would be about 100 feet south of the postal building.  Mr. Beck reported the City's standard lease document for property is about 190 x 215 feet, and it  provides for the first right of refusal for an additional 200 x 215 feet south of the initial tract.  The lease rate would be the same as for other tenants.  The provision is for a 40-year lease arrangement, with a 10-year renewal, after which time the structure would become the property of the City.  Mr. Beck noted the City would be providing infrastructure as has occurred at the airport for other lease holders.  He also noted a request for waiver of the landing fees during the certification process (when testing is occurring), and the FAA has indicated this is a common practice in other communities.  Mr. Beck reported Ozark would be paying landing fees as soon as they go into business serving the public.
    B25-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, AND CROCKETT.  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.

B14-99     Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
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
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.
R21-99     Authorizing a grant application to the Missouri Arts Council to provide funding for cultural
                  arts administration and Columbia Festival of the Arts.
R22-99     Authorizing a grant application to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for loans
                  and grants under the Missouri Clean Water Law for sanitary sewer improvement projects.
R23-99     Renewing an agreement with the Columbia Housing Authority for use of the Blind Boone
                  Center Medical Clinic facilities.
R24-99     Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri State Department of Social Services, Division
                  of Family Services to assist families applying for expanded Medicaid for children.

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

R25-99     Approving the preliminary plat of Community View Subdivision.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Bondra explained that this tract of land is zoned R-3 and had been proposed as a church site for Community United Methodist Church, instead, however, the church moved onto the Silvey Insurance property north of Broadway.  Although the property is zoned R-3, he explained that it is deed restricted to single family homes or a church.  Mr. Bondra reported this proposal is for a 27 lot subdivision.  He said Yorkshire Drive would be extended from the north to Kunlun Drive, and there would be another cul-de-sac running westward off of Yorkshire.  He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if anything had been decided about the street name situation.  Mr. Bondra said the Commission talked about there being a problem with names.  He said one particular Commissioner had a problem with a street name, but he did not know that the rest of the Commission shared the concern, or at least not enough to recommend that street names be changed in this area.
    Mr. Janku thought the idea of the 80 acre issue, where an entire area is planned, would help.  He said if it was known in advance there might be a connection, it would make a difference.
    Mayor Hindman said this is one more example of why the City needs to be thinking about interconnecting areas.
    The vote on R25-99 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT.  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:

B26-99     Approving the final plat of M.N.S. Subdivision; authorizing a performance contract.
B27-99     Approving the final plat of Sidra Subdivision, Plat 2 a replat of lot 7 of Sidra Subdivision,
                  Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.
B28-99     Rezoning property located at 1302 Lakeview Avenue and adjoining property to the east
                  from R-3 to C-3.
B29-99     Rezoning property located between Westwind Drive and Barberry Avenue from A-1 to R-1
                  and from A-1 and R-1 to R-2.
B30-99     Voluntary annexation of property located on the southeast corner of Sinclair Street and
                  Southampton Drive; establishing permanent zoning.
B31-99     Approving the final plat of Thornbrook, Plat No. 3.
B32-99     Amending Chapter 29 of the Code to place a one year time limit on resubmittals of zoning
                  map amendments.
B33-99     Amending Chapter 14-248 of the Code to correct an erroneous reference.
B34-99     Amending Chapter 22 of the Code to establish a consistent expiration date for certificates
                  of compliance.
B35-99     Levying special tax assessment against property located at 207 Third Avenue for
                  abatement of weed nuisance.
B36-99     Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B37-99     Appropriating funds for the Route PP improvement project.
B38-99     Authorizing Changer Order No. 1 to the contract with Westport Pools, Inc. for the Oakland
                  Pool renovation and appropriating funds.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the Council adjourn to a closed session on Tuesday, February 16, 1999, immediately following a public work session beginning at 6:00 p.m, for the purpose of discussing litigation, real estate, and personnel matters.
    The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Motion passed.

(A)     Intra-Departmental Transfer of Funds.
    Report accepted.

(B)     Policy of Prosecution of Marijuana Possession.
    Mr. Kruse thanked the staff for the helpful report.  Mr. Coffman was appreciative of everyone involved in the recent resolution that has been worked out.  Ms. Coble thought it had been a good compromise by all parts.  Mayor Hindman commented that it had taken a lot of good work.


    Mrs. Crockett commented that she had received a call about the gate behind the Wal-Mart Super Store and the snow being piled there.  She said since that call, she had been forwarded a report by Mr. Patterson and knew that it would be taken care of.   Mr. Patterson assured her the staff was following-up on the situation.
    Ms. Coble asked about a target date for the completion of the extensive road work on North Garth, north of Sexton.  Mr. Patterson said he was sure there was a projected date on the project, but he would have to check on it.
    Mr. Janku mentioned a request received from the County Commission concerning notification of residents within 1,000 feet of proposed annexations.  He thought it would be limited to large tract annexations, which would mean it would not be a major problem.  He asked that such a policy be reviewed.
    Mr. Janku noted that extra funds were received for bus operations and asked if some of it could be used for maps and schedules as had been discussed on previous occasions.
    Mr. Janku asked for an update from the staff as to where the City stands on the 1995 ballot issue projects.  He noted that the City of Springfield has a very active campaign of notifying the public and keeping citizens updated about the status of projects, which verifies that the plans are being carried out.  Mr. Janku suggested putting together an information campaign.  He noted that many of the City's projects do not have signage in place indicating the funding source.
    Mr. Janku said he had received information from a constituent concerning the Con-Agg agreement the Council approved about a year ago.  He said there were portions of the concrete plant that were to be removed from the site, but apparently are still in place.  Mr. Janku requested that staff determine whether or not the obligations were met by the other party.
    Mr. Coffman noted that the Stadium/Audubon improvements are coming along.  He said the light has not been installed as quickly as had been hoped, but he had received a faxed letter today from Hollywood Theaters today stating their commitment to sign the intersection improvement agreement.  Mr. Coffman reported the letter stated they are working on bids, and claim the project is expected to begin March 1.  It should take 120 days to complete.
    Mayor Hindman said he had been on the radio this morning and had received a request about the Hitt and Broadway intersection.  He said the Council had discussed plans for having adjustments made for a proper pedestrian crossing at Hitt and Broadway and asked about the status.
    Mayor Hindman reported another complaint pertained to road striping or painting on Route B.  Mr. Beck commented that is a state project, and agreed it needs to be fixed because when the road is wet, it is very difficult to see where the lanes are.
    Mayor Hindman said he was concerned about comments that were heard earlier referring to the utilities in the area between the curb and the sidewalk.  Mayor Hindman felt the City should be able to have street yards allowing people to plant trees in these areas, and said there needs to be a way to do that.  He reported there seems to be a conflict when the utilities are run under the street yards, and maybe they should be run under the street or sidewalk, or further up into the yard.  He asked for a report on the situation.  Mr. Janku said the Council had received a report years ago relating to this issue, and he thought it was generally not a problem, but there are certain areas where sight distance can be affected.  Mayor Hindman thought it had something to do with the roots interfering with the utilities.  He wanted to know what the policies are, and then perhaps look into what other communities are doing to deal with this situation.  Mr. Beck said he would forward a report to the Council detailing the pros and cons.
    Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, asked about procedures when an issue has been tabled.
    Dan Viets, an attorney with offices at 15 N. Tenth Street, after thanking the Council and the staff for the work they do, commented on the marijuana report that was discussed earlier.  He found it interesting that the three municipalities in Missouri who were surveyed, all have city ordinances just like Columbia's -- mirroring the state statute.  He noted it provides for the same range of punishment, up to one year in jail and up to a $1,000 fine, or some combination.  And just like the state statute, it also provides for a maximum weight under which this can be charged.  While the written report from County Prosecutor Kevin Crane indicates that small amounts may now be prosecuted in City Court, he reported Mr. Crane has made verbal statements indicating what his idea of "small amounts" might constitute, which may be something as small as 5 grams.  Mr. Viets noted none of the other municipalities surveyed have that kind of restrictive limitation on the amounts which are charged to city court.  He reported the Missouri cities surveyed charge up to 35 grams under the ordinance -- as Columbia's ordinance provides for.
    Mr. Viets stated the only distinction between cases that are referred to the County Prosecutor and cases referred to the Municipal Prosecutor are the fact that one who goes to Circuit Court under state statute may very well wind-up with a criminal drug conviction record.  Such a conviction will haunt that individual for the rest of his or her life, and may become a serious obstacle toward obtaining employment or seeking higher education opportunities, which might otherwise be available.  He pointed out that those who are prosecuted in Municipal Court may suffer the same range of punishment, and will have exactly the same type of record, with the exception that these individuals can say they have not been convicted of a crime.  Mr. Viets said the City needs to monitor how this new policy is applied, reserve judgment on it, and keep in mind the possibility that future Council action might be required.
    The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

                                                                                          Respectfully submitted,
                                                                                          Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                          City Clerk