APRIL 5, 2004


The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, April 5, 2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON and JOHN were present. Council Member LOVELESS was absent. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.


The minutes of the regular meeting of March 15, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Ash and a second by Ms. Crayton.


The agenda including the Consent Agenda was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Hutton.



Mayor Hindman recognized two Scout groups, Troops 701 and 707, who were observing the Council meeting as part of their Citizenship in the Community merit badges.


B1-04 Rezoning property located on the west side of Maryland Avenue, between Rollins Street and Kentucky Boulevard from R-3 to C-P; approving the Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity C-P development plan.

The bill was read by the Clerk.

Mayor Hindman explained that a request for withdrawal had been received from the applicant.

B78-04 Rezoning property located on the south side of Vandiver Drive and on the west side of U.S. Highway 63 from O-P and M-1 to C-P; approving the Bass Pro at CenterState Crossings C-P Development Plan; granting variances from the Subdivision Regulations.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that this had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on a 7 to 1 vote. The property contained approximately 27 acres. He asked about the stormwater plan. Mr. Patterson replied that it had been approved as of today.

Using the overhead, Mr. Dudark pointed out the location of Bass Pro, which would be served by a private street coming off of Vandiver, paralleling 63, and connecting back to Vandiver Drive. The request for the variance, he noted, had to do with a sidewalk on Lake Ridgeway Road. The proposal was for an eight foot sidewalk along the east side and no sidewalk on the west side. The west side was subject to utility easements and was part of their tree preservation area. Recommendations for the final plat were that they label that tract "not for development," name private streets, and show the private streets as lots that would be maintained by the property owners association in the area.

Mayor Hindman asked if the developer owned the property on the west side, all of the way up to Vandiver. Mr. Dudark said they did not as part of this site development plan. Mayor Hindman asked if Lake Ridgeway Road was a new road. Mr. Dudark replied that it was and noted it would eventually be relocated and extended further south to Clark Lane. The variances being requested tonight would not affect the north portion of Lake Ridgeway Road.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Johann Holt, Sierra Club, commented that the tree clearing done on this property was an example of why the City needed a better tree ordinance.

Curtis McDonald, CenterState Properties, explained that Lake Ridgeway Road would be built all the way up to Vandiver Drive as part of the development. That would give them adequate secondary emergency access to the back side of the parking field. He stated it was not considered to be a primary point of access for the project.

Mayor Hindman voiced concern about the parking lot size, saying many parking lots sit empty most of the time. He saw that as a waste of impervious surface and felt it was aesthetically undesirable. Mr. McDonald said he would not argue either point and noted they had sought a happy medium on the issue. He explained that, based on past experience, during ten days of the year, their peak days, Bass Pro Shop averaged the need for 750 spaces. The ordinance required 433 spaces and the applicant was proposing to have 629 spaces. The additional space was there, not because they wanted to spend the additional $750,000 on paving, but because, based on historical precedent, Bass Pro was a proven regional draw. Mr. McDonald noted 100 parking spaces were required just for employees. In addition, the average length of stay at a Bass Pro Shop was over 2 hours, so there would not be a high turnover of people vacating spaces quickly for other people to fill. Mr. McDonald stated that since this was something he was paying for, he, himself, had to be convinced the additional parking was necessary.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mayor Hindman asked about the stormwater plan. Mr. Patterson explained they were reducing peak flows and implementing sand filters and other treatments to address water quality as well as water quantity.

Brian Harrington, Design Engineer with Allstate Consultants, stated they placed a premium on the lake for this project. The lake offered the benefit of detention as well as being able to treat some of the water. They also added a couple of sand filters to the area south of the building, which was not a tributary to the lake, where the first half inch of rain coming off the parking lot would be diverted. The sand filters were holding cells and would remove the big pollutants like soda cups, wrappers, and etc. The water would then trickle over a sand bed, percolate through, go to the drainage, and back into the storm system. The area of the parking lot north of the building that drained to the lake would sheet off the parking lot and drain into a gravel cut off trench before it went into the lake. That trench would be approximately three feet wide and three feet deep and the water would percolate down into the drainage system and on into the lake. Mr. Harrington noted there was a small portion of the north parking lot that would drain toward the MoDOT right-of-way. It would sheet off into another trench, which was more of a swale. During low flows, the water was expected to percolate down into the trench, into a collector pipe, and on into the storm system, but during the major flows, the water would continue to surface on the swale.

Mr. Ash stated that he believed the facility would be busy and that this amount of parking would be needed since it would draw customers on a regional basis. He felt the Council would not be as concerned about the number of parking spaces and amount of impervious surface if the runoff could be handled more creatively.

Mr. John pointed out that the City now had major landscape standards, so newer parking lots were more aesthetically pleasing.

Mayor Hindman concurred it was true that the City had stepped up the landscape ordinance. He noted this would be the chance to see how well it worked. He believed the impervious surface issue could be dealt with, but remained concerned about the aesthetics.

B78-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: LOVELESS. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B79-04 Rezoning property located on the south side of the eastern terminus of Chapel Hill Road from O-P to C-P.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 5.2 acre tract of ground that was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission subject to use limitations.

Mr. Dudark noted that the uses they had listed were mostly O-1 and C-1 uses. He felt the list was reasonable.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Ron Shy, 5600 S. Highway KK, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Bob Jurgensmeyer and the contract purchasers. The amendment proposed by the Planning Staff, he noted, was acceptable.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mayor Hindman complimented the developers of the area for the job they had done landscaping. Although it was very controversial in the beginning, he noted, it ended up being superior to other nearby developments.

B79-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: LOVELESS. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B84-04 Construction of a sewer project (UMC South Campus Relief Sewer) and Maryland Avenue drainage project, and acquisition of easements.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted this was a sizable sanitary and stormwater sewer project, both of which would be paid for out of their respective utility funds.

Mr. Patterson explained they would be combining two CIP projects. The sewer project was one talked about before and was divided into two phases in order to provide additional capacity and replace some substandard lines on University property. The first phase was necessitated by work going on presently on campus. The proposed project would consist of constructing approximately 600 lineal feet of 15-inch sanitary sewer from Maryland Avenue to Richmond Avenue. It would replace an existing 10-inch diameter sewer that did not have adequate capacity. The recent construction of the Virginia Avenue Housing and Dining Facility and the Life Sciences Center significantly increased the volume of wastewater that the City's sewer collection system must transport. The storm drainage work was part of a much larger project to renovate the existing storm drainage system between Maryland Avenue and Kentucky Boulevard. It was also being designed to minimize conflicts between the two utilities. The plan was to replace the existing system from Maryland to Kentucky. The project was being undertaken to reduce structure flooding at 915 Richmond Avenue, to move the drainage system from under three buildings, and to relieve severe street flooding on Maryland, Richmond and Kentucky. The work was being coordinated with the University's work to redevelop housing at the corner of Providence and Stadium. The University, as part of the redevelopment, would build a bypass storm drainage system around the periphery of that property to bring the drainage system on the property to City standards. Staff proposed to incorporate into the F-1 Relief Sewer Project a short section of the overall storm drainage plan. Staff believed building this portion was necessary in order to take advantage of the redevelopment of the building and lot at 915 Maryland, which the owner planned to do this summer. Waiting to construct this part of the storm drainage work until 2006 would mean tearing up the new parking lot in order to install the concrete box. This would be a disservice to the property owner. The cost to the Sanitary Sewer Utility and Stormwater Utility would be $100,000 and $68,000, respectively. There would be no tax bills on the projects since both would reconstruct substandard, inferior systems. Easements would have to be acquired, which was why the ordinance acquiring easements was being introduced at the same time as this public hearing.

Mr. Janku asked about the structure on Maryland. Mr. Patterson explained they would be tearing down the building and wanted to make sure the work could be done this summer when they constructed the parking lot.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Nancy Montare, Zeta Tau Alpha, 912 Richmond, understood this to be a two-phased project and said they were concerned about the comment that it would be a disservice to one of the property owners to have their parking lot torn up twice. She noted the project would also require their parking lot to be torn up twice. She inquired about combining the north and south parking lot projects. Mr. Patterson felt the only limitation would be to determine if the funding was available this year. Obviously, it would be beneficial if they could do them both at the same time. He stated he could report back on where they could make it an addition to this project, if the Council chose to do so.

Warren Prost, 6 Club Court, spoke in support of the project. He and his wife owned the property at 915 Richmond, which had stormwater running under it. He thanked the Public Works Staff for addressing the problem and for their cooperation.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff be directed to proceed and that they try to make this a one phase project because of the parking lot situation. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B84-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: LOVELESS. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B86-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Boone Quarry, Plat 3; providing for payment of differential costs.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Under City policy, Mr. Beck explained that the Water and Light Department paid the differential cost when pipes were oversized for what was needed to serve a development. In this case, we would be paying the difference between a 12-inch and 8-inch line. The project consisted of approximately 800 feet of 12-inch line at a cost of about $8,700.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B86-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: LOVELESS. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

R62-04 Approving an amendment to the FY 2004 Action Plan and 1999-2004 Consolidated Plan.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that each year, during the budgeting process, they estimated the amount of federal dollars that might be received under the CDBG and HOME programs. In this case, the amount ultimately allocated was $27,000 less than what was estimated. The suggestion was that the $27,000 be made up out of 2002 contingency funds. The City was notified it would be allocated $1,010,000 in CDBG funds, $692,922 in HOME funds, and $50,843 in American Dream Downpayment Initiative program funding for 2004. Because the Hope Street reconstruction project could not be completed during 2004, Staff was proposing to transfer funds from this project to complete the two infrastructure projects related to the City/County Health Facility that were needed to provide pedestrian access and control vehicular traffic. This change would help facilitate the timely expenditure of 2004 CDBG funds.

Boone County Group Homes and Family Support had proposed to use some of the City's unprogrammed HOME funds to bring owner occupied housing up to City standards and to help developmentally disabled persons maintain owner occupancy. Improvements would include accessibility modifications, major structural repairs, and lead hazard control.

The proposed amendments in Attachment A were discussed at this point.

Mr. Janku asked about ADDI and if the suggestion was that it be done City-wide as opposed to targeted. He also asked if it would continue in the future or if this was just for the first year. Mr. Dudark replied this was the first year of funding, but he thought the plan was to continue funding. He said it would be up to the President and Congress to do so. We would simply start out this way, because we needed to spend the money in order to not have funds leftover. That was why they suggested City-wide on the lower, $2,500, amount and stepping up the payment for the CDBG and NFT areas.

Mr. Janku asked if the additional money for the Health Facility, which included money for the sidewalk on Worley, also included funding for landscaping the parking lot. The CDBG money, Mr. Dudark explained, was just for public improvements. The improvements to the parking lot and the landscaping would be funded out of the building budget. Mr. Janku asked if that had been addressed yet. Mr. Patterson stated that after getting better information on costs and finding out what funds were available, the City had funding for their share of the parking lot resurfacing and the County had signed off on the budget. It was anticipated that they would be able to proceed with it this summer.

Mr. Beck pointed out that we were monitored fairly closely on spend down of the money. In reviewing the entire program with Staff, he felt this to be the best approach as far as reallocation of the funds and making sure we meet our spend down requirements within the time constraints given.

Mr. John thought $83,000 for the sidewalk seemed like a lot of money. Mr. Patterson explained that was partly due to a curb section being part of the parking lot on the inside. It made it more expensive to put in the curb facing. Mayor Hindman asked what would happen if they did not put in the curb facing. Mr. Patterson said vehicles would come up over the sidewalk and break it down. Part of the plan included a stormwater bio-retention system set into the landscaped areas of the parking lot.

Ms. Crayton asked if there was any new money that could be used for rehabilitation of existing homes. Mr. Dudark explained that this new program was only for home ownership, to enable people to buy a house, thus raising the number of existing homeowners. He remarked they were not proposing to change any of the funds Council approved for repairs and rehabilitation. Staff felt there was still adequate funding to meet needs in that area. Ms. Crayton asked about the program for City employees. Mr. Dudark replied that it was still in the budget. Mr. Janku noted they could put more money from HOME and CDBG funds into rehab in the future.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Anna Coulibaly, 902 Hope Place, commented that they had been working with the City since the 90s to try to get some form of improvements on Hope and Hardin. She noted the stormwater situation had been rectified on Hardin in the last few days and it was a major improvement. She said there were different areas with no curb and guttering, which created breeding grounds for mosquitos. Ms. Coulibaly felt the improvements completed had made their situation better, but had not solved all of the problems between West Boulevard and Hope because there was still no drainage. She thanked everyone for trying to hasten the sidewalks on West Worley and said they were absolutely necessary because of the new health facility.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, was concerned that the delay on Hope and Hardin might be for similar reasons as the delay on the reconstruction of Sixth Street. He felt that was because there was not enough Staff to take care of all of the City projects that needed overseeing. He asked Council to request a report regarding why Hope could not be done this year.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Beck pointed out that the Hope Street project had not been dropped, but deferred because of the money not being spent down. For spend down purposes, construction work must be totally completed and the contractor paid off as far as reporting the use of CDBG monies.

Mr. Janku explained that spend down was a federal government term meaning that money must be spent by a certain time or it would revert back to them.

Mr. Janku asked about the CDBG process for the upcoming budget. Mr. Dudark replied they were still in the process of receiving applications. It would close in the middle of May. Mr. Janku noted they would be made aware of the project Ms. Coulibaly was concerned about at that time. He asked that she be notified as to when the hearing would be held. Mr. Dudark pointed out that the Hope project was on the list of potential projects recently discussed by the Council for 2005 that would go to the Commission.

Mayor Hindman asked about Hardin. Mr. Dudark responded that it was another street and was listed separately. He said it was not funded this year and was not on 2005 list going to the Commission.

Mayor Hindman liked the idea of the incentives tied to the ADDI, getting more if you were in the CDBG area, and even more, if you were in the NRT area.

The vote on R62-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: LOVELESS. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R63-04 Authorizing transit fixed route adjustments.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that the Public Works Staff had been working on this plan for a substantial amount of time and that the general public had the opportunity to attend public hearings on the proposed route changes.

Mr. Patterson explained this required public hearing was necessary for purposes of making alterations of the transit system, which was federally funded through the FTA. It also required a series of public information sessions and opportunities for the public to have input regarding any decisions made regarding alterations to the system. The system changes and alterations that had been proposed were presented to the City Council in a previous work session and a report was also made available to them at a Council Meeting. The proposed changes were the subject of four different public information meetings held at different locations within the community. He outlined the proposal regarding the transit system fixed route enhancements. The purpose of altering the fixed route system was to accomplish the City's transportation goals, which had been stated publicly and had been part of our operating mission for many years. Those were to provide transportation to as many citizens as possible at the lowest cost, while still maintaining timely and dependable service. Further, it was to establish and maintain a high level of public confidence in the transit system. Mr. Patterson said the purpose of the proposed enhancements were to improve our current route efficiency, maintain our schedules, recognize the changes that had occurred in the community with regard to origin and destination points, and increase the ridership base of those people who had access to and utilized the public transportation system. They established certain criteria in evaluating the changes, to include minimizing the adverse impact on current riders, while requiring no additional budget resources to implement the changes. Currently, he noted, we had four fixed routes, one commuter route, a para-transit service and a University contract services. In the way of changes, they were first proposing the elimination of the yellow commuter route except for the morning and evening shuttle, the creation of a new downtown orbiter route, adding a theater commuter route, and modifying the red route west, the orange route south, the blue route east, and the green route.

He noted the yellow commuter route to be the least utilized service in the entire system with an average of less than 30 people per day riding it. They found that most of the riders were going to the Woodhaven facility in the morning and were not leaving until evening. They felt a lot of unproductive hours could be eliminated while still serving the users with a morning and evening shuttle route. The current route system on the yellow commuter route consisted of a shuttle going from the Forum Shopping Center to Woodhaven and back during the hours of operation. The areas they would retain and that were proposed as changes would include the evening and morning shuttle back and forth from Providence to Woodhaven, which would interconnect with the orange route so that people who needed the service would still have the same service they previously had.

The second recommendation was the creation of a downtown orbiter route. This route would service the heavily congested areas of the central city and the campus areas, including our public parking garages, hospitals, Wabash Station, and businesses. It would compliment the student shuttle that was currently being provided by the City. The orbiter route would operate during the same hours as fixed routes, including Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings. This route would be required, in order to implement the other recommended changes because it was the one that would allow the expressing of the other routes to bypass this congested area. The general function of the route would be to cycle through the downtown area, to allow the other routes to bypass, and to enhance service to the downtown area. During the peak hours, there would be two buses operating with 15 minute headways and, during off peak hours, there would be one bus operating with a 30 minute headway.

The third recommendation was a theater route. This was one of the most heavily requested services on the customer survey performed last year. This would be a limited commuter route that would interconnect with the orbiter route and the campus routes. It would travel to the Forum and Hollywood Theaters between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Thursday and Friday and from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday.

Although there were not a lot of major changes to the existing routes, there were some significant changes. The first was the red route west. Mr. Patterson noted it would follow current routing to Stadium, but would then be modified to allow service to new destination points, specifically the Hy-Vee area, Fairview Clinics, and Moberly Community College in the Crossroads Shopping Center. The western portion of Ash would be traveled in one direction only. Mall destinations would still be covered by blue and green routes, but there would be a transfer point with the red route to get to the Mall routes. The red route to the east changes would be to take Broadway from College to Keene Street, traveling Old 63 in one direction, and avoiding the congested and heavily traveled MU campus area, which would be made possible by the orbiter route. Proposed modifications to the orange route to the south would allow service to the Buttonwood area encompassing the Social Security and License Offices while avoiding the heavily congested areas of the MU campus and would ensure Green Meadows Medical Clinics would also be serviced. Alterations to the blue route east would have the feature of servicing Benton Elementary School and would establish express routing bypassing the congested areas. The previously covered areas of the Business Loop would now be covered by the green route. There were no recommended changes being suggested for the green route west other than reducing the service during mid-day from a 40 hour headway to an 80 hour headway, which would coincide with the other routes during mid-day service. The green route east would incorporate portions of the east and central Business Loop area, would provide service to the Stephens Lake Recreational Complex, and would eliminate the redundant mid-day service paralleling the level of service with other routes. Peak time services on both the east and west portions of the green route would be unaffected.

Mr. Patterson stated they held public information meetings on February 26 at the Daniel Boone Building, March 4 at Oak Towers, March 18 at Rock Bridge High School, and April 1 at Oakland Junior High School. He noted the Council had been furnished the comments of the minutes of those meetings which would also be made part of the transcript.

Mr. Patterson noted reoccurring comments regarding the need for more service and service to different areas of the community. He also pointed out concern regarding the reduction of the mid-day service on the green route and pedestrian access to the Resource Center on Vandiver. With regard to more service and service to different areas of the City, Mr. Patterson reiterated one of the benchmarks used was that any changes would not require additional resources in this budget year. Although Staff felt the request to be appropriate, the request for additional service would require additional funding. Mr. Patterson stated the Council could consider it during next year's budget process if they so desired. If we added routes or locations of service, the options would be to remove service from one area and relocate it or put additional drivers on the road to expand the actual area of service. He noted that adding bus routes was quite expensive and the acquisition of new buses could take as much as two years. The estimated cost of an additional route was approximately $400,000 to put in place. Regarding the reduction of the headway on the green route, they reviewed the ridership and felt the option of changing it would not deprive a significant number of people who were using the service. He commented that they would observe the green route to determine if, when the Health Facility opened, there was a significant change in ridership, which might affect budget recommendations for next year and require the service be restored to a 40 minute headway. Pedestrian access to the Resource Center had been a troublesome area for quite some time. He noted the marked pedestrian crossing and said they had suggestions on how to make the crossing safer. The disadvantage of trying to redirect the route, Staff felt was greater than any advantage that might be seen in changing the direction so people could discharge on the south side. At this point, Staff recommended leaving the route direction as is.

Ms. Crayton noted that the majority of users were low to moderate income. She was concerned about the Resource Center and the length of time it took to get there. She was not satisfied with the discharge point because of safety reasons. Ms. Crayton noted that a lot of the better paying jobs were moving further out and were not on bus routes. She suggested the City and County work together on a City/County-wide bus system. Ms. Crayton felt the people that needed bus service the most were the one's that would be affected the most by removing service in certain areas and having the good jobs and grocery stores moving further out.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

John Marquez, 410 N. Tenth, an employee of Columbia Foods, suggested a bus route to the area would lessen the congestion at the Waco Road intersection. He felt it would be a great service to other manufacturers in the area.

Tiffany Julian, 1609 Telluride, Student Affairs Committee member, Missouri Students Association at the University, explained that her committee was very concerned about public transportation and how it affected students. She said they would like to see more students using public transportation and felt the proposed changes were a step in the right direction, given money constraints. During budget discussions, she was hopeful funding would become available to extend the routes further out.

Johann Holt, Sierra Club member, saw a need for more funding for more routes. He felt this would keep the City's core intact. He liked the idea of a City/County Transit Authority.

Anna Coulibaly, 902 Hope Place, commented that people were losing their jobs because we had a non-functioning system. Having lived and worked on three different continents, Ms. Coulibaly stated that she had never seen a city the size of Columbia that did not have a functioning mass transit system. She proposed an amendment whereby the whole system would be reconsidered and analyzed. Although there had been public meetings, she noted there was very little information given and the proposed routes were not displayed.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, spoke in support of the proposed changes and endorsed the notion of a complete system analysis. He encouraged the CATSO group to do the analysis. He felt the level of subsidy for mass transit had not been analyzed as far as being too high or too low in comparison to the level of the subsidy for streets and non-mass transit.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Janku suggested extending the orange route from Kitty Hawk to Vandiver, taking it to the mobile home park at the Vandiver/Parker intersection. He thought it had already been done administratively.

Ms. Crayton was concerned about people not being able to get to the jobs that nobody wanted, such as those at Lenoir and The Bluffs.

Although the discussion was valid, Mr. Ash reminded everyone the issue here was to try to improve current conditions. He noted that only existing riders were surveyed and suggested going outside the user group. If the City could invest in getting people to Route B, LeMone, or some of the other areas, although it might not have an immediate break-even impact, Mr. Ash felt in the grand scheme of things, it could save money. He noted where extra money was being put on the bus system, we might able to save it on social services down the line. He said it was bigger than just getting people from point A to point B, but a quality of life issue as well.

Ms. Crayton suggested adding public transportation to the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission and surveying potential users through City utility bills. Mr. Ash agreed and felt if only current riders were being surveyed, the bigger picture was being missed.

Mr. Hutton assumed the bus system was evaluated on a daily basis. Mr. Patterson replied that they monitor performance constantly. He noted they did not make frequent changes because change always impacted someone. They tried to analyze where there were opportunities for improvement, and then, over a period of time, tried to incorporate them with adjustments. One of the biggest problems was that employment locations were scattered and far out. Employee pools were also very diversified throughout the area and it would take a pretty comprehensive system to cover all of the necessary areas. Currently, he noted, they were operating with a 40 minute headway at best, which was not an acceptable level. Thirty minutes was what they were striving for. Mr. Hutton asked when the last substantial changes had been made to the system. Mr. Patterson thought it was in 1992 or 1993. Since then, they had just made minor adjustments. Mr. Hutton agreed that jobs were moving further out and noted that the Route B corridor seemed to be a major issue, as did the LeMone Industrial area. Mr. Hutton asked if Staff would be analyzing the transit system for potential changes that would have a budget impact during the next round of budget talks. Mr. Patterson said there had been enough work done that they would have the information and could provide it on any area of service the Council would like. He said they could report back in time for Retreat purposes or budget talks. Mr. Hutton asked about the issue at 1500 Vandiver. Mr. Patterson replied there were ways to address it, but said with the current limitations on routing without adding service, they would have to downsize by either having people crossing the street or having school children crossing Rangeline, which was an even busier street. If they could follow through with some of the suggestions for improving the safety at that point, he thought it would be a big help. He pointed out there had been no accidents there. If they got the curb cuts in and improved lighting, he felt it would be safer. Timing was the big problem and if they went into the parking lot five minutes would be added to the route and it was consistently running behind schedule now. Mr. Hutton asked about the timetable for the curb cuts. Mr. Patterson replied they planned to do it this summer.

Mr. Hutton commented that Columbia was large enough to need public transportation, but not large enough to support it financially through ridership. Mr. Janku pointed out that other cities were slashing their transit service and added that we were holding our own in that respect. Even though we did not have an ideal system that could be all things to all people, Mr. Hutton noted, we did have a fairly good system. He pointed out the taxpayers of Columbia supported the bus system to a large degree. Mr. Beck said the City subsidized it with $1.5 million plus what was received from the federal government, which was close to $400,000.

Mr. Patterson pointed out that we charged 50 cents per ride with the most efficient route, the orange route, which had an average cost of $3.80 per trip cost. The most expensive, the yellow route being proposed to be cut back, was $10.57 per ride.

Ms. Crayton pointed out the City would be paying for it in social service costs if it did not have a system for people to get to work.

Mayor Hindman agreed these were serious issues that needed to be addressed. He understood there to be about 30% of the population that did not drive. Based on not adjusting the current budget, he thought the proposed changes looked good, in particular the orbiter route. He felt the employer route needed to be looked at as soon as possible. Regarding the improvement of the crosswalk at Vandiver, he suggested more extreme measures like flashing lights or a walk light and asked that it be put on the priority list to be accomplished this year. He also thought there should be a thorough examination of the possibility of joining with the County to improve the system. Mayor Hindman noted he had heard many complaints regarding an inadequate situation with regard to the Greyhound Bus Station and the fact that it was located too far out creating a dangerous situation. He thought that should be looked at also. He suggested voting favorably on the suggested changes.

The vote on R63-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: LOVELESS. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:


B85-04 Establishing Sanitary Sewer District No. 154 along West Broadway Glenwood, Westwood, Edgewood and Maupin Road.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Patterson explained that the district boundary encompassed 51 parcels on West Broadway, Glenwood Avenue, Westwood Avenue, Edgewood Avenue and Maupin Road. The proposal was to replace the private common collectors at a construction estimate of $510,000. The maximum tax bill rate was $0.2133 per square foot with the tax bill amounts ranging from $1,600 to $14,200. In accordance with City policy, the sewer utility would pay one-half of the cost of replacing the common collectors. Additionally, any resulting tax bills over $5,000 would be capped at that amount with assessments being deferred until the property was redeveloped. In this case, he noted the sewer utility would be funding about $255,000 of the project with approximately $29,000 in deferred tax bills. The rest would be assessed with the initial assessments on the properties. Mr. Patterson noted that Staff had worked very diligently with the people in the neighborhood by having at least three public meetings with property owners and making numerous individual contacts in an effort to minimize the impact, to address concerns, and to try to come up with a plan that would best serve the area. This would be the first project to use a technique called "pipe bursting" which would allow them to go into old sewer lines, replace them without tearing up yards, in most cases, and placing new lines in by simply breaking the line in place and pulling a new line in behind it. He said they also intended to use lining inside the pipes for the purpose of having as little disruption as possible, although there would still be some open cut construction that would be necessary. The latter would be held to a minimum to keep from tearing out trees and other improvements. There were 51 properties which required 1550 feet of 8-inch line. There was 1700 lineal feet that would be needed for the traditional open cut.

Doug Hunt, 206 Westwood, commented that although Staff had done a great job, he was concerned about the trees. About one-third of the project, he noted, would be done with open trenching and when asking Staff about the trees, they were told that "maybe" something could be done. He said they were hopeful that everything that could be done would be done in terms of switching to lateral trenching technology, if necessary, or doing something like helping them with the expense of having them cut down, taken away, or replaced.

After formation of the district, Mr. Beck pointed out a public hearing would be held on the plans and specifications. He said Mr. Hunt's concerns could be addressed at that time.

Mr. Janku asked about excluding properties north of Broadway. Looking at the cost differential and at the sewer district formed by the fraternity houses, Mr. John felt the upstream people needed to be part of the district even if they were not having a particular problem in their yard today. He said they still needed to be part of the solution because it was running down through everyone else's yard. Mr. Patterson noted that the problems generating concerns on the north side had all but been eliminated when they went to the pipe bursting technique on that side.

B85-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: LOVELESS. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B87-04 Authorizing an agreement with Jacobs Civil Inc. for engineering services for the Hillsdale Pump Station project.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

In the 2003 ballot issue, Mr. Beck stated that money was included to build this northeast pump station and purchase the site. The project was very similar to what had been done at Bethel and Nifong.

Mr. Hutton questioned the projected cost being $474,000 for engineering fees based on a $1.2 million project cost. He thought the norm for engineering and architectural fees ran around eight to twelve percent of construction costs. Later this evening, he noted, they would be voting on a project where the fees were nine and one-half percent. In this case, they were talking about 37 percent of the construction cost. He realized the $1.2 million construction cost was for the pump station and that part of the design had to do with the future reservoir as well. Although that could raise the fee, those costs would not be in the construction cost. Since Jacobs was the only company that bid on the project because they did the south pumping station and nobody wanted to compete against them, Mr. Hutton felt the cost should actually be reduced. Mr. Dasho replied that back in 1992 when the south pump station was built for a cost of $5,420,000, the design costs were $2,530,000. He thought it was clear we were getting the benefit of them using the designs from the south pumping station to build this new pump station because the costs were so much more reduced on the design costs. He pointed out it was not just the design of the station they were doing in this case, but also the review of the construction of the project itself, by having engineers on site as the project went forward. In addition, they would produce the bid specifications, review them, and hire the contractors. Although it was a large percentage of the overall project, Mr. Dasho felt we would be getting our dollars worth out of it. He thought it reflected the impact of the work Jacobs did in 1992. Mr. Hutton asked if there were construction costs in this that were not in the $1.2 million figure they were designing for. Mr. Dasho replied that there were.

B87-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: LOVELESS. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:


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

B80-04 Approving the Final Plat of Dakota Ridge Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B81-04 Approving the Final Plat of Hunter's Gate, Plat No. 3a; authorizing a development agreement.

B82-04 Approving the Final Plat of Hunter's Gate, Plat No. 3b; authorizing a performance contract.

B83-04 Approving the Final Plat of Russell Subdivision, Plat 3.

B88-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B89-04 Appropriating revenues collected from the sales of the Columbia Police Department Historical Book.

R55-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of water main along Southampton Drive.

R56-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of an irrigation system in the Grindstone Parkway median islands.

R57-04 Authorizing an agreement with the University of Missouri Sinclair School of Nursing to provide health clinic experience for nursing students.

R58-04 Authorizing application to the Missouri Department of Social Services for an Emergency Shelter Grant.

R59-04 Authorizing an agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for snow depth reporting services at Columbia Regional Airport.

The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: LOVELESS. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:


R60-04 Authorizing the City of Columbia to serve as a co-applicant on an Economic Development Administration grant application for construction of a life sciences business incubator.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck pointed out that Staff was recommending adoption of this and added that it was being done in accordance with the Regional Economic Development Plan. He noted the City would not be out any money up front other than joining the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, which we had done. The City would also be somewhat involved in the non-profit organization which would be operating the agency.

Mayor Hindman felt this to be a very important step for Columbia's economic development.

The vote on R60-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: LOVELESS. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R61-04 Amending the agreement with Chiodini Associates as it relates to preliminary design services for the Howard and Gentry buildings.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that an earlier report had been submitted to the Council which indicated that the Health Department would be moving out of the Howard Building this summer (first floor and lower level). Since that time, he noted an announcement was received regarding a grant for the Wabash Station. Staff was hoping to coordinate the activity of the Howard Building and the Wabash Station as the parking utility was to be moved from the Wabash building to the lower level of the Howard Building. He noted the Council had also asked Staff to look at the Gentry Building. Approval of this resolution would extend the scope of the agreement with Chiodini Associates to perform architectural services needed for renovation work on both the Howard and Gentry Buildings. The cost for this extension was $34,000 plus some reimbursable expenses. The proposed agreement stipulated that at least 50% of the work and fees would go to local architectural and engineering firms.

Mayor Hindman commented on attending a meeting regarding the greening of buildings and what could be done to improve the energy efficiency of them. He asked that the architect look at what could be done to improve "the green" of the buildings. He noted there were grants available through the State. He asked that the contract be amended accordingly to include looking at the cost-benefits of what we might be able to do.

Mr. Ash agreed with the concept, but felt they should go into it realistically. He thought a lot more creative things could be done when starting from scratch. Mayor Hindman said he was not sure how much there was we could do with either the Howard or Gentry Buildings, but would like to have it looked into.

Regarding the Howard Building, Mayor Hindman thought the patio in front appeared to be abandoned space most of the time. He thought there might be some way to make it more appealing to the community and asked that while the architectural work was being done that they look into the issue.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that Staff be directed to report back on the financial impact of adding the greening issue as well as the patio issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.

Mr. Boeckmann noted that if by chance there was no financial impact, the Staff could go ahead with the contract, but if there was an impact, it would be brought back to the Council for an amendment.

The vote on R61-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: LOVELESS. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

The following bills were introduced by the Mayor unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:

B339-03 Amending Chapters 16 and 17 of the City Code as it relates to weapons offenses and firearms in City buildings and parks.

B90-04 Establishing permanent PUD-1, PUD-3, PUD-4, O-P, C-P and C-3 zoning on property located on the southwest side of U.S. Highway 63 and on the north side of Gans Road.

B91-04 Rezoning property located on the west side of U. S. Highway 63 and along the east side of a proposed realignment of Lake Ridgeway Road from M-1 to C-P; approving the Furniture Row at CenterState Crossings C-P development plan.

B92-04 Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code relating to street design standards.

B93-04 Approving the Final Plat of Eastport Village Plat 4; authorizing a performance contract.

B94-04 Approving the Final Plat of Stonecrest, Plat No. 7; authorizing a performance contract.

B95-04 Approving the Final Plat of Vanderveen Crossing, Plat No. 13A; authorizing a performance contract.

B96-04 Vacating street right-of-way in conjunction with the proposed Final Plat of Woodridge Subdivision No. 1A.

B97-04 Approving the Final Plat of Woodridge Subdivision No. 1A; authorizing a performance contract; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations relating to C-P development plan approval.

B98-04 Confirming the contract with Emery Sapp and Sons, Inc. for reconstruction of Garth Avenue from Thurman Street to Bear Creek and the reconstruc- tion of the Garth Avenue bridge over Bear Creek; appropriating funds.

B99-04 Confirming the contract with C.L. Richardson Construction Company for the Settler Ridge (B-20) Sewer Project.

B100-04 Authorizing acquisition of easements for construction of street improvements to East Broadway, from Old 63 to U.S. Highway 63.

B101-04 Authorizing acquisition of easements for construction of Sewer District No. 150 (Mexico Gravel Road).

B102-04 Authorizing acquisition of easements for construction of Sewer District No. 158 (Old Plank Subdivision).

B103-04 Authorizing construction of water main along Southampton Drive.

B104-04 Accepting conveyance; authorizing payment of differential costs for water main serving Stonecrest, Plat 5; approving the Engineer's Final Report.

B105-04 Confirming the contract with Sterling Excavation, Inc. for construction of water main along Roger I. Wilson Drive, from Oakland Gravel Road to the Boone County Jail property.

B106-04 Accepting conveyances relating to the construction of an overhead electric line along Mount Vernon Avenue.

B107-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B108-04 Calling for bids for the construction of an irrigation system in the Grindstone Parkway median islands.

B109-04 Authorizing an agreement with The Curators of the University of Missouri for medical director services.

B110-04 Appropriating donated funds to the Memorial Tree and Bench Program.

B111-04 Amending Chapter 24 of the City Code as it relates to the obstruction of streets and sidewalks.

B112-04 Authorizing an annexation agreement with Boone County for property located along the west side of U.S. Highway 63 North.

B113-04 Authorizing a sewer purchase and interconnection agreement with Boone County Regional Sewer District for property located in Boone Industrial Park and Gaslight Acres.


(A) Intra-departmental Transfer of Funds.

Report accepted.

(B) Street Closure Requests.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the requests be granted as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C) Downtown Improvements - Bike Racks and Newspaper Corrals.

Mr. Beck explained this to be another phase of implementing the Downtown Improvement Plan.

Mr. John made the motion that Staff be directed to proceed with plans. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.

Mr. Ash liked the idea of the sleeves going over the poles. He asked where the idea came from. Mr. Hood said the idea was created by some of the Park Planning

Staff. In looking at the fact that the posts were being used, in many cases, by people leaning a bike up against them and chaining it to the post, they looked into modifying the post to where it would work more efficiently. Mr. Ash suggested selling the idea.

Regarding the newspaper corrals, Mr. Ash asked if anyone was being squeezed out. He asked if there would be the same number of newspapers in the new corrals as in the old ones. Mr. Boeckmann explained there was a First Amendment right to have news stands on public right-of-way, so he was sure it had not been anyone's intent to squeeze anyone out.

The motion made by Mr. John, seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D) Memorial Day Parade - Permission for Parachute Jump onto Broadway.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the request be granted as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(E) Planning and Zoning Commission Report - City/County Fringe Area Planning.

Mr. Janku asked about the planning tools mentioned. Mr. Dudark explained that growth management planning would be involved in the fringe area development. Mainly priority growth areas, secondary growth areas, and coordination of public investments, sewers, water systems, and things like that in the growth areas were the tools indicated. In addition, it could include some sort of adequate facility ordinances and those kinds of things in terms of timing or availability of street improvements when the development occurred. In sub-area planning, he said, that would essentially be an isolated area, such as around an interchange or along a corridor or some sub-sector of the community.

Mayor Hindman thought a lot of what they wanted, the Council should be very interested in. Mr. John pointed out that the letter was what they were proposing to do based on their original request to the Council. Mr. Ash asked if the letter was simply saying instead of doing sketch planning they wanted to do sub-area planning. It was agreed that was what was meant and that they would like to press forward, but had asked Council permission incorrectly. Mr. Ash commented that the City and County working together was a great idea and that doing a lot of planning was probably better than no planning at all. He thought people were nervous about plans becoming more than plans and being set in stone. He asked if the Council wanted to put constraints on them, give them guidance, or just turn them loose.

Mr. Janku suggested taking it a step further by having them explain what they were going to do. Mr. John agreed. He said he was not sure of some of the items and noted there was no course of action in their letter. Mr. Janku suggested saying yes, we wanted to start looking at it and the first step would be to explain what they would be doing in outline form. He said the Council should also know if additional Staff resources would be required.

Mr. Ash asked Mr. Dudark if he could clarify the request so the Council could make a decision. Mr. Dudark thought someone mentioned describing what they believed growth management planning would encompass. He said they could provide that to the Council with some sort of procedural plan. He thought they could do the same thing with sub-area planning, but did not believe sub-area planning would have as much relevance without the first step, growth area planning.

Mayor Hindman felt fringe area planning was better than nothing and something that should be done. He thought the five things they said they would do were very specific and that it would be useful information. He thought it would be nice to have a chart to see what the differences were between County and City regulations. He was concerned about the impact of development farther out noting there were many areas that had already been platted. Although he thought the fringe area was important, he felt there was an issue about a much larger area. He felt we needed to do more than what the Commission was planning and added that what they wanted to do was going to be impacted by what people who already had rights out in the County were going to do.

Mr. Janku asked if there was a way to integrate the two, or if this was something that would have to proceed separately. Mayor Hindman felt the bigger issue needed to be handled through a bigger group, probably a citizen oriented group. He said they had offered to be the core, which he thought to be worth considering. He felt they would not get far unless they had something other than the planning because they already had the right to do these things. Mayor Hindman stated that a big problem was that employment was spread out over large areas, as were people, and as they developed, they added to the cost greatly. We needed to figure out what was a fair way of distributing those costs.

Mr. Ash suggested letting the Commission press ahead with what they wanted to do. Regarding the Mayor's thoughts, he felt the citizens group was a good idea. He noted that Report H talked about the City and County working together and said maybe that was where the citizens group would work.

Mr. Janku said he would like Staff, working with the Planning and Zoning Commission, to provide a report spelling out what Mr. Dudark had just said. After the Council reviewed it and signed off on it, he felt there would be a more clear understanding of what was involved and what the process would be. Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff, working with the Commission, bring back a report setting out the process to achieve the study of growth management planning limited to the Commission's request, not the bigger issue. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Ash understood Mr. Janku to be saying that before the Council could say yes, they needed a little more information as to what they would be saying yes to and what it was they would be doing. Mr. Janku replied, yes.

(F) Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission Report - Bicycle/Pedestrian Checklist.

Mr. Beck explained the Commission submitted a list of items they felt should be used by Staff during the development review process.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that Staff be directed to prepare a more detailed checklist and implementation report for Council review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.

Mr. Ash thought it sounded like a good idea and asked Mr. Patterson what he thought. Mr. Patterson replied that Staff had not had enough time to really look into the impact it would have on the current process. He said most of the items on the list were already being done.

The motion made by Mayor Hindman and seconded by Mr. Janku was approved unanimously by voice vote.

(G) Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission Report - Potential Old 63/Broadway Intersection Improvements.

Mr. Beck explained that he had discussed this briefly with Mr. Patterson and felt the next step would be to refer it to Public Works to see how the recommendations would fit into their design work for the intersection.

Mr. Patterson noted that the Commission had input into the final design. Now that they had seen the response, he wanted to apply the features to what the standards would allow and then have the Council see what could actually be done. He pointed out that some of the suggestions might not be approvable under the Uniform Traffic Control Standards.

Mr. Janku asked if the crossing could be away from the signal. Mr. Patterson said they would like to look into that to see what the implications might be. He said the Council would see it before the plans were finalized. Mr. Ash asked that a drawing be included at that time. Mr. Patterson replied they would develop a sketch.

Mr. Ash made the motion that Staff be directed to report back after reviewing the recommendations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(H) Request for Direction - Follow Up to Council/County Commission Meeting.

Mr. Ash asked if Mayor Hindman wanted to add to this considering his comments regarding the bigger picture. Mayor Hindman replied that they needed to work with the County on it because the City could not just decide to work on the issue since it was also a County issue.

Mayor Hindman suggested that we add a "C" saying that we would cooperate on large area planning and tax issues. He felt the two things went together because planning did not work unless you eliminated the competition. Mr. John asked if he meant the urbanizing area? Mayor Hindman stated he meant the urbanizing area at the very least, but thought maybe even the whole County.

Mr. Ash spoke in support of the concept of the City and County working together, but commented that when you get 10 people around the table, he did not think it was productive. His recommendation was to break the issues up and form sub-committees. He suggested the Council provide direction at the beginning and approval at the end. In between, he wanted the Council out of the way, so the paid Staff could do the work.

Mayor Hindman noted that the County Visioning process was still going on. He said Karen Miller had approached him, as well as other Mayors, and they had made appointments to it. He felt that model might be the way to work this issue - working with the Presiding Commission and obtaining ideas as to what the County thinks should be done. He noted they answered to different constituents.

Mr. Janku pointed out there were some very specific technical things he felt could be resolved early on, like street issues. He thought the "bigger picture" issues would take a lot longer to work out. He was hopeful those things could be separated out so they could proceed and get some of the efficiencies that were talked about at the meeting going. He said the other issues could be worked on, but did not want the others held back until the bigger issues were resolved.

Mr. Beck said the idea was to get input as to what to put in resolution form. He said the first step was to determine whether or not the Council wanted to meet with the County Commission or get from them items they felt should be in a resolution that the Council and Commission would review and both bodies would adopt and move forward. He said they could jointly prepare it and e-mail it to the Council to see if there was anything else anyone wanted to add to the resolution.

Mayor Hindman pointed out that development was legal now without rezoning to do a huge amount of outlying development. He said it was only through some planning and through some disincentive technique that we could encourage development to stay close to the cities.

In doing that, Ms. Crayton felt they were saying that the services should come to the bus line. She said Section 8 housing was being built further and further out and there was no incentive to bring it closer in.

Mr. Beck agreed and said that was why we had encourage State government to coordinate with local government before they put in a public service to see if it was on a bus line. He said it was difficult to provide good bus service if these essential services were scattered all over the community.

Mayor Hindman thought the resolution should include working together to do large area planning and tax structure planning.

Mr. Ash liked the idea of completing the technical items, not holding them up until the big issues are ironed out.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that the resolution include working together to do large area planning and tax structure planning. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.




Regarding the bus system and the potential for changes to the routes, Mr. Hutton made the motion that Staff be directed to come back with a report before the budget was finalized to look at potential changes to the bus routes, and in particular, adding the Route B corridor and the LeMone Boulevard area to a bus route. He asked that they also look at the potential for extending the green route to the corner of Smiley and Oakland. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.

Mayor Hindman asked to make a friendly amendment to the motion by looking into extending the hours. Mr. Hutton agreed.

Mr. Hutton pointed out that it had been over ten years since substantial changes had been made to the bus system. He asked if it was time to look at fairly dramatic changes. He doubted the ridership was up since 1992. Mr. Patterson replied that it had been up some in the last eight months, but said last year it was down from the previous year. Because our population had grown significantly and ridership was going down, percentage wise, Mr. Hutton asked if it was time to look at revamping it. Mr. Janku did not think so. He said people had made decisions based on bus routes. Mr. Hutton did not disagree, but said, on the other hand, they were hearing from a bunch of people who did not.

Mr. Ash noted the system kept operating off of existing riders and was not getting information from prospective riders. He suggested a Staff report on ways to investigate what the next step should be to figure out what the solution could be. Mr. Janku was interested in learning what the process had been back in 1992. He said it had been a major issue and the route structure then was very different. Mr. Patterson explained that a consultant had been hired to do an analysis of the system and make recommendations for changes. He said they were substantial changes at the time. Mr. Janku remembered it as a brutal experience. He noted there was a route on Route B and because the ridership was not there, it was taken out. If it was decided the Council had $500,000 additional in the budget, Mr. Janku said they could pick different options and add what ever they felt the biggest priority was.

Mr. Ash thought that might be premature if they did not investigate what sort of market they were missing. Ms. Crayton felt the best way to survey would be to enclose it in the monthly utility bills. Mr. Ash said rather than telling the Staff specifically how they should gather the information, he wanted them to consider Ms. Crayton's suggestion or give the Council other options as to how they could gather more information about potential ridership. After they had that information, he stated they could take Mr. Janku's suggestion about looking at potential changes and costs. Mr. Ash reiterated the idea of creating some sort of public transit commission. It was decided it should start with the Staff.

Incorporating Mr. Hutton's earlier motion, seconded by Mr. Janku, Mr. John made the motion that Staff be directed to come back with a report on improving ridership and service so the Council would have ideas about a direction to take to improve ridership and service. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku said previously he had brought up the question about CDBG funds being used for buildings and facilities located on bus lines. After tonight's discussion, he thought everyone should be well aware of their feelings. Mr. Ash thought they had discussed putting the issue on a checklist.

Regarding budget discussions, Mr. Janku reported that he brought up the possibility of a sidewalk along the Business Loop between I-70 Drive and Sexton Road where the new Kia dealership had gone in. There was a sidewalk in front of the dealership and the sidewalk could connect with the area along the U-Haul frontage. He was hopeful annual sidewalks budget could fund it, since it was not eligible for CDBG funding.

Regarding CDBG funding, Mr. Janku noted that there was one agency that needed to go to the Board of Adjustment to get done what they wanted to do with the money that had already been approved for them. He thought perhaps they should get the zoning first before any money was appropriated in the future.

Mr. Janku noted, in the Energy and Environment Commission minutes, they questioned the status of the indoor air quality issue raised. He asked that someone contact them and let them know that we had a special task force that was still working on the issue.

Mr. Janku asked for an update on the status of the Harmony Creek Watershed Study.

Mayor Hindman commented on sidewalks along Paquin Street and Waugh at Paquin Towers. He said the sidewalks in that location were in awful shape, making it very difficult for people with disabilities to utilize the walks. He asked that the situation be given a high priority. He was also concerned about sidewalk conditions along Walnut Street, from College Avenue east to the Freedom House. He asked Staff to look into both issues, saying it was very important that people with disabilities were able to be mobile.

Rhonda Garland, a new resident of the City, said she and her five year old daughter were looking for a place to have fun on a Saturday afternoon. She asked about the possibility of a Chucky Cheese with an arcade. She suggested that Columbia consider a small, family fun center. She passed out information about the Orange Blossom Festival in California. Mayor Hindman told Ms. Garland the information would be passed along to the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Mr. Ash suggested that she forward a petition to the corporate office of Chucky Cheese.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, commented that zoning was not enough, he said we needed to do planning. He suggested that the City and County Commission jointly authorize the City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions to organize and oversee growth management and sub-area land use planning for the metro planning area.

Mayor Hindman reminded everyone to vote on Election Day.

The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheela Amin

City Clerk