INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City
of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday,
January 6, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council Members CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, and CROCKETT were present. The
City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were
also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular
meeting of December 16, 1996, were approved unanimously by voice vote on
a motion made by Ms. Coble and a second by Mr. Campbell.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hindman noted that
R7-97 would be added under New Business.
The agenda, as amended, including
the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made
by Mr. Kruse and a second by Mr. Harline.
SPECIAL ITEMS
None.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B389-96 Approving
the preliminary residential manufactured home development plan of Richland
Heights,
Phase 2.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman noted that
the applicant requested that this item be tabled to the first meeting in
February due to health reasons.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that B389-96 be tabled to the February 3, 1997 meeting. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Janku.
Because this was an advertised
public hearing, Mayor Hindman asked for any comments before tabling the issue. There
were no comments.
The vote to table B389-96,
made by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by
voice vote.
B398-96 Authorizing
payment of differential costs for a 12-inch water main serving Corporate
Lake,
Plat
12, and appropriating funds.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
was in accordance with a Council policy previously approved. The staff
was recommending approval of the $8,000 appropriation to pay for the extra
sized, larger pipe.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B398-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
OLD BUSINESS
B385-96 Approving
the final plat of Sidra East Subdivision.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck reported that this
tract of land was located in northeast Columbia and explained that it would
create three R-3 lots, two of which would be tier lots. Because the
submission was for tier lots, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
denial because they felt the request was not in accordance with the intent
of a tier lot.
Mayor Hindman commented that
he had been impressed by the work done by the Commission and said he thought
they had made the proper recommendation.
B385-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING
NO: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. Bill
defeated.
B390-96 Amending
Chapter 11 of the City Code regarding smoking in public places.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
amendment had been prepared at the request of a Council person and explained
that it would amend the ordinance to allow smoking in any area of a restaurant
where musicians are performing after 9:00 p.m.
Ken Smith, 602 Jackson Street,
spoke in opposition to smoking in public places. As a non-smoker, Mr.
Smith said he felt the Council should look at the needs of non-smokers. He
said there were no places he knew of where one could go publicly and not
be around smoke. He said he likes to bowl, but that is almost prohibitive
because of the smoke in the bowling alleys. Mr. Smith thought this
amendment was probably for one particular location - Murry's, but said he
was opposed to smoking in public places whether it be Murry's, bowling alleys,
or other establishments.
Sue Dabney, 9642 South Route
N, pointed out that restaurants in Columbia continue to serve as restaurants
after 9:00 p.m. She said she sent the Council a copy of a quick phone
survey she did regarding restaurants and how late they serve dinner. She
noted that all 18 restaurants she surveyed served dinner after 9:00 p.m.
-- Murry's until midnight, six nights per week. She said as a non-smoker,
that meant she would not have the option of eating dinner after 9:00 p.m.
in a smoke-free area. Her second concern was with the State's Clean
Indoor Air ordinance. She said this ordinance requires a non-smoking
area in any restaurant with 50 or more seats. She wondered how this
amendment would not be in conflict with the State's ordinance.
Mr. Boeckmann explained that
restaurants would still be subject to the requirements of the State Clean
Air Act. He thought that 30% of the dining area was the maximum a restaurant
could have for smoking customers. He pointed out that Murry's and every
other restaurant in town has to comply with both the City ordinances as well
as with the State Statute. He said this proposed ordinance amendment
would create an exemption for any area of a restaurant where musicians are
performing after 9:00 p.m and before 1:30 a.m. He said the restaurant
would still have to comply with State regulations -- utilizing no more than
30% of the restaurant area designated for smoking. Mr. Boeckmann said
each restaurant, depending upon their particular configuration, would still
have to comply with the State Statute and designate no more than 30% of the
dining area for smoking, and these designated smoking areas would presumably
be where the musicians are playing.
Mr. Campbell asked if the
State Statute required that a patron cannot be forced to go through a smoking
area to get to a non-smoking area. Mr. Boeckmann said the City's ordinance
has a provision like that, but he did not believe the State Statute did. Ms.
Coble said that was what precipitated the proposed smoking amendment. Previously,
the smoking ordinance required that a person could not walk through a smoking
section to get to a non-smoking section. She said that was not enforced. When
the law was strengthened, the ordinance was then enforced universally throughout
the City. She said that was what the City was trying to deal with --
penalizing an establishment that is not just solely a restaurant, but also
a bonafide place of entertainment. She said this type of entertainment
is very often patronized by people who choose to use tobacco.
Elizabeth Henderson, 4605
Millbrook Drive, said she was a non-smoker along with 75% of the people in
the United States and she was opposed to the proposed amendment. She
said Columbia was very progressive relating to smoking and that passing this
amendment would be a step backwards. She asked the Council to continue
taking steps toward clean indoor air.
Alice Turner, 2194 E. Bearfield,
said that her son had been taught in school that smoking was not a good thing
and when he sees smoking in restaurants he gets a mixed message. Ms.
Turner said she was speaking on behalf of a friend tonight, a jazz musician,
who was not able to come to the meeting. She had been asked to remind
the Council that people that work in these restaurants, the musicians and
the restaurant staff, were affronted with a lot of smoke -- without much
choice.
Laura Crisman, 15 Burnham
Road, spoke in opposition to the ordinance because she is asthmatic. She
was disturbed that people were more concerned with a person's choice to smoke
than they were with her health or her right to breathe. She found it
hard to imagine that the Council would consider changing the ordinance for
one business.
Jim Davis, 9642 S. Route
N, 46, said he had done quite a bit of survey research on the hazards of
second hand tobacco smoke. He said he did some research asking people
what they preferred in terms of a smoke-free environment. He said there
was a very small percent (approximately 5%) that thought all areas should
be open to smoking. Approximately 70% of those surveyed thought smoking
areas should be provided, and the rest thought smoking should be banned entirely. Looking
at the issue in mass, the vast majority of people think that smoking should
be restricted at some level. He also did some research on how annoying
smoking was, and to the non-smoker it was very annoying.
Lloyd Harmon, 1906 Iris Drive,
also spoke in opposition. Being retired, Mr. Harmon said he travels
quite a bit and that it was very nice to be able to go into a restaurant
and not have someone blow smoke in his face. He said it was also nice
to go to the Mall to walk and not have to worry about smoke.
Mr. Janku asked if the area
where musicians perform becomes a smoking area at 9:00 p.m., whether the
area previously designated for smoking would become the non-smoking area
to balance things out. Mr. Boeckmann said that would be up to the business
owner. He said it seemed awkward to be changing areas that are smoking
and non-smoking, but guessed it would not be impossible.
Mr. Harline asked if Murry's
wanted to stop serving food after 9:00 p.m., whether a claim could be made
that they were no longer a restaurant. Mr. Boeckmann said that would
not work under the State Statute. He said once an establishment is
classified as a restaurant, it is always a restaurant. Mr. Boeckmann
said it probably would not work under City ordinances either. Mr. Harline
said he remembered when the Council discussed bowling alleys, there were
sections of those establishments that were designated as a restaurant. Mr.
Sanford said that had been a question asked early on. Previously, some
restaurants that served alcoholic beverages tried to circumvent the ordinance
by saying that because alcoholic beverages were served throughout the establishment,
the entire establishment should be classified as a bar and, therefore, were
exempt from the ordinance. He said the City did not interpret the ordinance
to mean that. He said if Murry's stopped serving food and became a
bar entirely, at that point they probably would be exempt from the ordinance.
Mr. Kruse asked about the
provisions for bowling alleys. Mr. Sanford explained that the ordinance
prohibits smoking in the lower concourse, where bowling is actually occurring,
but it does allow smoking in other areas except when youth leagues are predominantly
in attendance.
Mr. Kruse agreed with the
comments about Columbia being progressive on this as well as other issues. He
said he was proud to be a non-smoker and really appreciated having the opportunity
to go to a restaurant and eat in a non-smoking area. On the other hand,
Columbia was also known for its flexibility and the fact that the City tries
to, carefully and thoughtfully, take all points of view into account. He
said that was the genesis behind where he was coming from on this issue. He
said the proposed change was requested by a particular restaurant, but theoretically
any restaurant, depending on its physical configuration, could have similar
issues with it. Mr. Kruse said he would like to think about the issue
further. He suggested that the amendment be revised to read that an
exception could be made for that section of a restaurant in close proximity
to where musicians are performing after 9:00 p.m. and before 1:30 a.m., provided
that reasonable non-smoking accommodations continue to be available, or that
the Missouri Clean Indoor Air Act be complied with. In other words,
there would still be some area that would be non-smoking. One of the
concerns he heard was that if a restaurant continues to serve food after
9:00 p.m. and also has live music, the smoking ordinance would not have to
apply if they chose for it not to. He said people who continue to eat
would not have non-smoking accommodations. However, under State law
restaurants would still be required to have non-smoking areas.
Mr. Janku said he thought
the idea of changing an area from non-smoking to smoking while people are
eating was non-workable. Ms. Coble said there was still the option
of taking out the requirement that a person should not be forced to walk
through a smoking section to get to non-smoking. Mr. Janku agreed. He
said if that was the problem, this should be the issue addressed. Mr.
Kruse said he thought the problem was more than just walking through a smoking
area to get to a non-smoking area.
There was a discussion about
tabling the issue. It was decided that they had heard from the public
this evening and that the amendment was probably not workable.
B390-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE. VOTING
NO: CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. Bill
defeated.
B391-96 Amending
Chapter 13 of the City Code regarding alarm system reporting requirements.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
would change the penalty provision of the ordinance where questions have
been raised about who is ultimately responsible for reporting alarm systems.
Prior to the adoption of
the existing ordinance, Mr. Sanford said there were two problems associated
with false alarms. One was the well-publicized issue of the unnecessary
time spent by Fire and Police personnel responding to these calls, and the
dangers they and citizens were subjected to as a result. He said the
other problem, that did not get as much attention, was that prior to the
adoption of the ordinance there was no provisions for persons with alarms
to provide information to the Joint Communications Center. If the information
was provided and an alarm condition resulted, City forces would know who
to call about the problem. Because staff did not know the frequency
an alarm at a business or residence would go off, police or fire would respond
and have to stay literally for several hours while trying to find someone
who was in charge of the alarm system. Mr. Sanford said staff tried
to address this problem with the ordinance the Council adopted, but unfortunately
there was not a penalty associated for failing to report that information
to Joint Communications. He said this would clarify that situation
and would establish a penalty. He said it was not a major change in
the intent of the law.
Mr. Harline asked about the
potential fine. Mr. Boeckmann said he thought this would fall under
the general ordinance violation which was a fine of up to $500.00, although
that was substantially more than what would most likely be imposed.
Mr. Campbell said when the
ordinance was passed, Council was to get a report back within a year. He
asked when the year would end. Mr. Sanford replied that he thought
that would be March or April.
Mayor Hindman asked if ultimately
the violator would be the alarm owner. Mr. Sanford said that was correct. According
to the amendment, the ultimate responsibility would be with the alarm owner;
however, an alarm service company could do the reporting if they opted to
do it.
Mr. Campbell asked if the
systems were leased or purchased. Mr. Sanford said there were a variety
of them. He said many are actually owned by the place of business and
they pay a monthly service fee to an alarm monitoring agency. He said
that was the most typical situation, but other times the alarm service agency
would rent or lease the equipment as well. Mr. Campbell asked how people
would know they have to do report alarm systems. He asked if there
was some sort of list. Mr. Sanford said that was the problem. A list
could not be developed because there was no registration -- no way for them
to report. He said they noticed when warnings were sent, there had
been some complaints that the business owners did not know about the registration. As
a practical matter, Mr. Sanford was recommending that staff issue a courtesy
notice of a violation before sending information to the Prosecutor. In
discussing this with the City Counselor, Mr. Sanford said they decided it
would probably be prudent not to include that in the ordinance because it
would give another defense in the event they had to prosecute. He said
staff would not object to a policy of giving a two week warning or something
of that nature.
Mr. Janku suggested delaying
the effective date in order to give staff time to get the information out. Mr.
Sanford said he had no problem with that, but he did not know that everyone
would get the word.
Mayor Hindman said he thought
there would be a number of situations where people would find that they had
innocently violated the ordinance. He thought the policy of the warning
letter would be a good one.
Mrs. Crockett asked if there
had been a reduction in the number of false alarms since they passed the
ordinance. Mr. Sanford said they had the statistics, but he did not
think the ordinance had been in effect long enough to measure it.
B391-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B392-96 Amending
Chapter 22 of the City Code to clarify refuse billing rates for apartments.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson said this report
indicated that a citizen brought to their attention that there was an oversight
in billing and some apartment units were being improperly charged. The
City was charging the residential rate of $8.65 per month for those units
requesting that bags be delivered. He said this was a practice that
had been in our ordinances prior to changes several years ago. He said
when the changes were made, the account billings simply were not updated. Other
apartments in the City do not receive individual bags and are charged $7.90
per month for individual units. Those being billed on one account were
apartment managers responsible for the entire bill. These customers
were being billed at $7.65 per month. Mr. Patterson said what they
were presenting tonight was for the City Council to make the practice that
is currently underway legal. Options available include customers receiving
bags at the regular residential rate, or the current ordinance would be properly
enforced. He said that would mean going back and notifying the more
than 900 customers that the City would be discontinuing delivery of bags
and dropping their rate to $7.90. He said this was not an issue that
has a significant impact either way on the solid waste utility, but since
it was brought to their attention, Mr. Patterson felt it was important for
them to address it. He pointed out that staff felt it would not be
appropriate to try to reimburse customers if the change was not adopted because
the City had been providing trash bags valued at an equivalent amount to
what had been paid.
Mr. Harline pointed out that
if everyone with dumpster services consistently paid $7.90 and someone still
wanted City trash bags, they could still be purchased from grocery stores. Mr.
Patterson said that was correct. Mr. Patterson said in the report,
staff indicated that if Council chose not to pass the amendment, the apartment
complex would still have the option of purchasing bags and providing them
to their tenants. There were two things staff did not want to get involved
in; reimbursement and allowing options within an apartment complex.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway,
explained that he was the person that raised the inquiry. He understood
City policy to be either bags or a dumpster. In his case, Mr. Lane
said he was getting both and he did not need two trash receptacles. He
said the number of people being overcharged, like he was, was not really
known because a study had not been done. Mr. Lane pointed out that
there were 6,261 apartments units that are currently being billed at the
correct rate -- at either $7.65 or $7.90. He said if the ordinance
passes, these people will be subject to a rate increase of up to $8.65 at
the discretion of their landlord. Mr. Lane said he had two basic problems
with the amendment. The first being that the ordinance does not set
out a procedure for landlords to be removed from the program. He said
all it provides for is putting in an application to join the program. The
landlord has little incentive to do anything because he is not financially
involved. In the meantime, Mr. Lane said he would be paying for bags
he does not need. His second concern was that a fee increase would
be authorized by passage of the ordinance. He said the City Manager,
in his budget message, stated that there would be no utility rate increases
in fiscal year 1997. He said if this passed, there would be a rate
increase and understood there was another fee increase to be discussed at
the next meeting on another matter. He said he would like to see the
City follow through on holding the line on fee increases as far as utilities
are concerned for this fiscal year.
Mr. Beck said it had been
implied that there would be two rate increases. He said he assumed
Mr. Lane was referring to the Water and Light ballot issue where staff would
be proposing a rate increase for the water utility. This was indicated
in the budget message. He said if this particular issue was interpreted
as a rate increase, he was sure the Public Work's Director had not intended
for it to be. He said this was something a landlord would be charging
their tenants.
Mr. Janku asked if a landlord
could change his mind about receiving trash bags. Mr. Patterson said
they can do that, but not for individual apartments. The entire complex
has to be one way or the other. Mr. Janku asked if there was any difference
in sanitation where people have the bags provided. He said some people
who did not have the plastic bags could possibly elect to carry out their
trash in paper bags. He said it was conceivable that there might be
more debris. Mr. Patterson said if the dumpsters were overflowing,
plastic bags were more weather resistant than cardboard cartons and paper
bags. He corrected an earlier statement by the speaker regarding the
number affected being uncertain. He said there were 1,098 as of today. Mr.
Patterson said staff presented a report in November, but a month from now
that number would change because Columbia is a transient community and the
numbers change periodically. He said they were not talking about a
magnitude of 10% or more that changes.
Mr. Campbell said he thought
if people were getting a dumpster, they did not need plastic bags. As
far as the health is concerned, he noted that there are many commercial accounts
in Columbia that have dumpsters and the City does not require plastic bags. He
thought the property owners should be told that if they have an apartment
and are obtaining a dumpster, this is what will be charged.
Mr. Harline said there were
probably some people that would be upset because they would no longer have
City bags delivered to them. He said that option remains for anyone
living in an apartment because they can go to any grocery store and buy City
bags. He thought it was better to leave that option in the individual
tenants hands. He said if the option was left to landlords, he thought
there would be tenants who have an additional charge in bags and do not have
an option of taking themselves off.
B392-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE. VOTING
NO: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, JANKU, CROCKETT. Bill
defeated.
B396-96 Appropriating
funds for repairs to locomotive wheels.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
would appropriate $12,000 for repair of locomotive wheels on the COLT short
line Railroad. He said from time to time it is inspected and he understood
that the wheels had worn down to the point where they need to be upgraded. In
the meantime, the City needs to lease a locomotive for about five days.
B396-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were
given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B386-96 Approving
a replat of Lot 12123 of The Highlands, Plat 12-A.
B387-96 Approving
a replat of Lot 1234 of The Highlands, Plat 12-A.
B388-96 Approving
the final plat of Alive In Christ.
B393-96 Confirming
the contract for improvements to Richardson Street from Ripley Street to
William
Street.
B394-96 Accepting
conveyances for various development projects.
B395-96 Accepting
conveyances for water utility purposes.
B397-96 Appropriating
funds for construction of a drainage ditch on the COLT right of way.
R1-97 Setting
a public hearing regarding sidewalk construction on State Route 763 from
Bear
Creek
north 1,000 feet.
R2-97 Setting
a public hearing regarding Westridge landscaping project.
R3-97 Setting
a public hearing regarding differential payment for an 8-inch water main
in Avalon,
Plat
1.
R4-97 Setting
a public hearing regarding installing lights at two soccer fields in Cosmo
Park.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R5-97 Approving
the preliminary plat of Hanover Estates, Phase 2.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
approximate 10 acre tract of land would create eight R-3 lots. He said
it had been unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Mr. Harline asked if the
first six lots were essentially duplex lots. The response was yes. Mr.
Harline asked if there had been a question about pedestrian access. Mayor
Hindman responded that according to the minutes, staff suggested it but the
developer said no. Mr. Harline asked if the developer had to provide
it if the City asked for it. Ms. Coble said it was just a suggestion. Mayor
Hindman said he would like to see a pedestrian pass through and added that
if it were done right, it could go between two cul-de-sacs.
The vote on R5-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R6-97 Stating
The City's position on state and federal legislative issues.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that several
weeks ago he sent a list to the Council on proposed legislative issues and
it had been discussed at a work session. He said the changes made to
the list were reflected in this report and resolution. He explained
that it dealt primarily with state legislative issues, although there were
a few federal legislative issues included on the list. With adoption
of the resolution, Mr. Beck said his intent was to forward a copy of it to
legislators and then work with our lobbyist and city staff throughout the
session as each issue comes up.
Mayor Hindman asked if the
City was taking the position that they were absolutely opposed to removing
or increasing the limits on governmental liability. Being a lawyer,
he said he would question that. Ms. Coble said that had come up last
year. Mr. Beck said he thought there probably had been some misunderstanding
as to what alternatives the City has with our insurance on liability. He
said it had been evidenced most recently by the bus settlement.
The vote on R6-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R7-97 Authorizing
the City Manager to contract for remodeling and fire code compliance
work for
the
Daniel Boone Building.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said staff was getting
closer to begin bidding some of the work. He said this would authorize
the Purchasing Agent and himself to enter into a contractual arrangement
with the best bidder to do some of the work, rather than doing it all with
force account labor. He said this had been the plan all along and added
that it would speed up the process.
The vote on R7-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, 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:
B1-97 Granting
a variance for sidewalk construction on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Lamplight
Square,
Plat
2.
B2-97 Vacating
a waterline easement in Loveall Subdivision.
B3-97 Approving
the final plat of Hanover Estates, Plat 2.
B4-97 Assessing
a special tax to abate a weed and trash nuisance.
B5-97 Appropriating
funds for the Sexual Trauma/Assault Response Team.
B6-97 Authorizing
a right-of-use permit to allow Stephens College to install data conduit under
Walnut
Street.
B7-97 Authorizing
a right-of-use permit to allow the University to install chilled water pipes
under
Sixth
Street.
B8-97 Calling
for bids on the Forum Boulevard from Stadium to Chapel Hill Road improvement
project.
B9-97 Authorizing
an agreement with the Highway and Transportation Commission in
connection
with the Route B improvement project, and appropriating funds.
B10-96 Authorizing
the purchasing agent to bid planting materials, authorizing agreements with
property
owners, and appropriating funds for the Westridge landscaping project.
B11-97 Amending
Chapter 14 of the City Code regarding motor vehicles and traffic.
B12-97 Amending
Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding court costs.
B13-97 Proposing
an amendment to the Home Rule Charter to make language gender neutral, and
calling
a special election on the amendment.
B14-97 Calling
the municipal election to be held April 1, 1997, to elect councilmen for
Wards 2 and
6.
B15-97 Authorizing
use of city forces to install lights on two soccer fields in Cosmo Park.
B16-97 Accepting
a conveyance for a padmounted transformer and authorizing payment for the
easement.
B17-97 Accepting
conveyance of utility improvements.
B18-97 Authorizing
differential payment for an 8-inch water main in Avalon, Plat 1, and
appropriating
funds.
B19-97 Calling
for an election for the Water & Light Revenue Bond Issue.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Report on
Connecting Cable Channel 13 to Capital Cable.
Mr. Beck said staff's recommendation
was to continue as is until such time that we deal with the extension of
the optic cable system. He said that the City provides tapes to Capital
Cable and the major difference was that they do not broadcast the meetings
live. To move ahead prior to the loop being completed would cost about
$7,200, if not more.
Being the individual that
brought the issue up during budget sessions, Mr. Janku said he agreed with
the recommendation to go with the tapes until the fiber optic cable is extended
to that area. He was hopeful they could move quickly. He asked
that the tapes be dated and timed as to the meeting being broadcast. He
asked that the same thing be done with City cable programs that are taped
and shown at a later date. Mayor Hindman pointed out that there is
a periodic crawl across the screen that relays that message.
(B) Olive Drive
Area Sanitary Sewer District.
Mr. Beck noted that this
report had been prepared by the Public Works Department. He said this
area in northeast Columbia was developed prior to being annexed into the
City and there is a common collector sewer that the City is having problems
with. He said a large part of the cost would be tax billed to the property
owners. He said the Public Works Department developed some alternatives
for the residents and already met with them.
Mr. Patterson said staff
initially looked at the entire area for the purpose of installing a sanitary
sewer where there currently is not one, and replacing the private common
collectors in the area. He said that would encompass a much larger
geographic area with the estimated cost of the project set at $82,000. After
developing preliminary information, he explained that staff met with the
affected property owners. He said there was considerable concern by
those people who are currently on private common collectors and who are not
having problems. He said these residents already spent some money recently
upgrading their common private collector and they asked for a consideration
of other options. He said they prepared an option that deals only with
the area that does not have a sanitary sewer of any type. He said there
were probably two lots that would be affected with a private common collector. He
said the cost estimate for that option was $48,500. He said the staff's
inclination was that it would be best to proceed and put the entire district
on a public sanitary sewer that was built to current specifications; however,
it could be broken down into two projects and, at a later date when problems
do occur, come back with another sanitary sewer district. Mr. Patterson
said the cost would be higher per square foot than it would be if they could
do the work all at this time. He said the group was sent a copy of
the report so they are aware of the options and will have an opportunity
to respond and provide input.
Mayor Hindman called for
public comments. There were none.
Mr. Janku asked if the people
currently on private collector sewers would receive any cost benefit because
they may already have certain infrastructure in place. Mr. Patterson
replied they would. He said if they include any area that is currently
on a private common collector, the resident would be assessed only one-half
of the cost of replacement in accordance with City policy.
Mrs. Crockett asked if she
understood correctly that all persons involved had been contacted. Mr.
Patterson said that was correct. Mrs. Crockett asked if they had seen
the tax bill amounts. Mr. Patterson said everything the Council had
tonight had been sent to homeowners two or three weeks ago. Mrs. Crockett
commented that this was in her ward and noted that she had not heard one
word from any of the people involved. She assumed they were satisfied.
Mr. Campbell asked which
one of the two options the neighborhood thought Mr. Patterson was going to
bring forward. Mr. Patterson said he thought the majority of them would
prefer option two, which would eliminate residents from being tax billed
at this time. He noted that would increase costs for some, but the
long-term costs would be greater for the people on private common collectors. He
said if residents were polled, he would guess that option two would be preferred.
Mr. Janku said under option
two, the group that currently does not have sewers would be paying a lower
cost. Mr. Patterson said that was correct. Regarding the recent
upgrade on the private common collectors, Mr. Janku asked how long the upgrade
would last. Mr. Patterson said it would not be on the City's top ten
list of private common collectors under its current condition, so it would
not be a high priority for them if it were not associated with extending
a public sewer line out there.
Mr. Harline asked if there
was any impending environmental risk with option two. Mr. Patterson
said there was not. He said there was with the septic tanks they were
trying to take care of with option two.
Mr. Campbell asked what the
life was of the private collectors that had been upgraded. Mr. Patterson
said probably ten years -- it would be unlikely to have major problems with
those systems within that time period. Mr. Campbell asked if the homeowners
that would not be charged expected option number one to be brought forward. Mr.
Patterson said they all had knowledge of both options.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that the staff be directed to proceed with option number two. The motion
was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(C) Intra-Departmental
Transfer of Funds Request.
Report accepted.
(D) Bicycle Friendly
Community Designation.
Mayor Hindman thought the
Council should seriously consider doing this. He believed that if the
City met the requirements, we would be adding to the quality of life in Columbia. Secondly,
it would be just one more feather in our cap in letting everyone know what
kind of City we are. He commented that we meet most of the requirements
already.
Mrs. Crockett noted that
the City would be required to commit, at a minimum, $75,000 per year to bicycling
related activities. She asked if the reference to the maintenance of
bicycle lanes or trails would include the trail around the greenbelt in addition
to any other trails. Mayor Hindman said he would think so.
Mr. Janku said this recommendation
had been brought to him by a member of the Bicycle Commission. He said
when considering all of the bicycle activities already incurred by the City,
we probably meet the challenge already. He said if we got to the point
where we could not, the program could be given up. Mayor Hindman said
if we did not spend the $75,000, the City simply becomes ineligible for the
designation. Mrs. Crockett said she had no objection with any of the
other activities that are currently established if they could add up to the
$75,000. She said she would certainly have a problem coming up with
$75,000 just for bicycle lanes.
Mr. Kruse said he thought
a closer cost accounting should be initiated. He said if we did not
meet the $75,000, he thought we should.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that the staff be directed to pursue the issue. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(E) Family Day
Care Homes.
Mr. Beck reported this issue
was brought up because the State is considering guidelines that would require
the City to verify that an existing day care center has met all City standards
before it could be licensed by the State. He said if this rule is adopted
and it is found that there are day care centers not in compliance, the State
would not license them until they met our standards. He said this change
would increase the number of children allowed in a day care center from six
to ten. Mr. Beck said it would also accommodate temporary hours for
children over age two, and provisions when school is not in session because
of an emergency situation. He said the next step would be, if the Council
chose to proceed, to refer it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a
public hearing so they could make a recommendation to the Council. After
a recommendation has been received, the Council would have another public
hearing.
Mayor Hindman pointed
out that this would have no affect on licensing as the City does not require
licensing. He said this is a requirement of the State for day care
centers with more than four children. He questioned the privacy fence
of six feet separating the outdoor play area from adjacent residential uses. Mr.
Campbell said this was a requirement that he felt should be established unless
the adjacent neighbors agreed not to have such a fence. He thought
it was an important provision to include in the ordinance. He pointed
out that this would not apply to any existing day care centers because they
could not be grandfathered in. Mayor Hindman said in his neighborhood
there were a few day care facilities with their play areas in the front yard. He
did not think anyone wanted to see a six foot fence around a front yard.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(F) Removal of
Parking on Hitt Street.
Mr. Beck commented that this
was requested by the University as they are constructing a very large parking
facility along the west side of Hitt Street between Elm and University. He
said the contractor requested that parking be eliminated on both sides of
the street. Mr. Patterson and his staff discussed the issue with the
University and, at the time the report was written, believed they would be
able to only remove parking on one side of the street. Since the report
was written, Mr. Beck said he understood they felt parking needed to be removed
from both sides of the street. He noted that this would involve about
40 meters that yield approximately $1,800 to $2,000 per month. Over
a two year period to build the facility, he said it could have a substantial
impact on the parking utility as we begin to build our own facilities. He
said the University agreed to reimburse the City regardless if parking is
taken off of one or both sides. Mr. Beck said if the Council wished
to proceed, an agreement would be developed with the University dealing with
the loss of compensation.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that staff be directed to proceed with removing the parking on both sides
of the street, and drawing up an agreement with the University.
Mr. Janku asked what would
be done for pedestrian access through the area during the construction. He
said the sidewalk on the east side is rather narrow and there are telephone
poles and meters in the sidewalk itself. He said it certainly was not
accessible for ADA and rather difficult for just one pedestrian to walk through. Mr.
Beck agreed that the corridor should be available for pedestrian movement. Mr.
Campbell said if they close off the west side of Hitt, the east side would
not be adequate for pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Patterson said they would
work with the University on that. He did not think plans indicated
that there would be any major reconstruction in this area, but with the removal
of parking meters he believed the pedestrian corridor could be expanded. Mr.
Patterson said they may want to do some type of temporary fencing.
The motion made by Mr. Campbell
was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(G) Status Report
of Additional Health Department Facilities.
Some time ago when this issue
was discussed, Mr. Beck said the Council decided to set up a joint committee
between the City and the county to look at alternative sites where health
facilities could expand. Recently, he received a report from staff
suggesting that there be an architectural firm hired to review the retirement
center at the Boone Hospital site. The estimated cost to the City had
been $10,000 to $15,000. Mr. Beck held onto the report for a while
to see if additional information would come forward before a decision was
made to study this specific facility. He and the Mayor discussed the
issue several times and it was felt the Council should have an update as
to the status. He said there had been some activity in the community
as it relates to joining together some other operations in central facilities.
Mayor Hindman said he had
been approached several times about the issue distinguishing the City/County
Health Department from the Family Health Center. He said he relied
on the report done by the Chamber of Commerce Health Committee. He
thought it basically said that we should proceed with the operations and
that the City/County Health Service provides a separate function from the
Family Health Center. Yet, he was later told that the Committee had
not actually looked into that aspect very carefully and the Chairman of the
Committee agreed to this assertion. Before going forward, he thought
the issue of any overlapping of services between the different groups should
be looked into further. He had great confidence in our City/County
Health Clinic and said he thought they did wonderful work under extremely
trying conditions and provide a tremendous asset to the community. He
thought we needed to be able to answer these questions and know we can answer
them adequately. Mayor Hindman said he talked to President Brouder,
the Chairman of the Committee, and Mr. Brouder said he would be willing to
reconvene his group and make a study of the issue and bring back a report. He
thought it would be in the time frame of 60 to 90 days. Mayor Hindman
thought the Council should have them proceed with the evaluation.
Ms. Coble asked if it was
presented as a part of the research. Mayor Hindman said it had been
presented as a recommendation in the report. Ms. Coble understood that
the report indicated there were actually two separate functions served. She
thought it said that the Family Health Center was dealing with clientele
that did not require core public health functions which are delivered through
the City/County Health Department, and that there were two separate missions. She
said after the survey work was completed, they found that there were two
different populations being served. Mayor Hindman said that was the
way he read the report also, but when he talked to the Committee, was told
that it was basically accepted without really being looked into. He
felt they needed to have it thoroughly reviewed.
Mr. Janku said he would be
supportive of the review, except he would like to include what the City might
do in the short-term. He said this issue had been around a long time
and thought short-term fixes are put off because they think there is
something around the corner. He said the corner keeps getting further
away and he would like to see if there was something that could be done to
address the big problems, like the space dilemma. Mayor Hindman said
he was not sure the Council could ask that Committee to identify space for
us. Mr. Janku suggested that our staff look for it separately.
Ms. Coble said the issue
was very frustrating. While parts of the community speak critically
of what the City was trying to do, there was another segment that finds it
ironic that we would spend money, or at least donate a part of City-owned
property, for a Health Adventure Center in a community that is founded on
the health care industry. In addition, there is still insufficient
resources for those who are most in need of health care.
Mr. Campbell voiced his frustration
also and said the Council had been looking at this issue for six or seven
years and thought they had come up with a number of joint solutions. He
said at some point they had to make a decision and go with it. He said
there would always be another option "just around the corner".
Mr. Harline agreed with Mr.
Campbell and said six years ago the Council took a tour of the facilities
and saw how inadequate they were. He said conditions had only worsened
since then. He said if the people being served by the Clinic were better
organized and more adept at bringing their case to the Council, the problem
would probably be solved by now. He said he had problems with the retirement
center location because of its proximity to a bus stop. He said it
was not a particularly good site for parking and, for a variety of other
reasons, it did not seem like a great site. However, he was more tempted
to pursue it than to keep waiting for the perfect answer to turn up.
Mr. Kruse agreed with the
frustrations, but asked about the information in the memo that said there
is no indication that the facility which would be studied was even available. Mr.
Janku said he thought the Health Committee would also be looking at that. Mayor
Hindman said they would not be looking at that. Mr. Beck said he could
find no decision saying that the facility was definitely available for a
health facility. Mr. Beck pointed out that his original memos
regarding this issue had said it looked like they were on a long track. He
said staff did not know for sure at this time when the City/County Health
Department Clinic might move out of that building. He noted that they
would still have to build a building. Mr. Kruse said he thought they
needed to spend the 60 to 90 days to address the other issue first, but at
the same time try to figure out if and when the building would be available. Mr.
Beck pointed out that the track they were on requires approval of two agencies. He
said if we could come up with a site, hopefully there would be more joint
participation in a clinic. Mr. Janku said it was true they had set
aside about $375,000 in CDBG money for this purpose.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that the Chamber of Commerce be asked to reconvene their Committee to review
the relationship between the City/County Health Department and the Family
Health Center and bring back a report with recommendations to the Council
as promptly as possible -- no more than 90 days. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None.
Mayor Hindman appointed the
following individuals to the Microloan Committee for one year terms: Steve
Savage, Davy Dansberry, Reggie Turner, Lynn Dickerson, Chip Cooper, Gary
Banks, Jetuan Swift, Jill Cox, and Debin Benish.
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mr. Beck noted that the Council
has had two public work sessions relating to a proposed water and electric
revenue bond issue. He said this had been suggested in the last budget
message to the Council because it was felt we definitely needed it. Following
the last work session, Mr. Beck and staff finalized a list for the Council
as to what projects would be included on a list if the issue were to be adopted
by the voters of Columbia. He pointed out that the list would not go
to the voters, but in the past as they explain ballot issues and the purpose
of the amount of money, they tried to prepare a list and then very carefully
follow it. He said it was very important to complete the list that
is presented at the time of a ballot issue. The total for this bond
issue is $39,250,000 for both the water and electric operations. Staff
had been working with the Bond Counsel on the ordinance itself. Because
of notification dates and the Monday holiday on January 20, a special meeting
will be needed and has been set for Thursday, January 16, 1997, in the Council
Chamber at 5:30 p.m. The bond issue would be for a five year capital
improvement plan for the utility.
Mr. Malon said over a long
period of time the Water and Light Advisory Board had recommended that the
Council adopt a long-range financing strategy, and the Council had done so
back in the early 80's. He said the strategy was to use a combination
of debt inequity for the investment in the capital improvements required
for the electric and water utility. He said that strategy stabilized
the amount that had to be generated annually through rates for capital improvements. He
said this proposed bond issue is a revenue bond issue for the Water and Light
utility, which means that the bonds will be paid back by the utility fees
and charges. Mr. Malon said it would have no impact on taxes. The
funds would be used for capital improvements to the water and electric distribution
system -- renewing, replacing, or extending power lines, water mains, water
and electric services, substations and other facilities that provide service
to customers. The bond issue would provide funds for a five year CIP
plan from 1997 through 2001. Mr. Malon explained that out of the $39,250,000.00,
$23,125,000 was for the electric utility and $16,125,000 was for the water
utility. He said there was no rate increase anticipated for the electric
utility and the current proposal was for a 2% increase per year for four
years, beginning in October of 1997, for the water utility. He pointed
out that October 1, 1997, would be the beginning of the next fiscal year. On
the electric side of the bond issue, Mr. Malon displayed a list of the projects. He
said most of the money would be used for distribution, annual additions,
replacements, relocations and undergrounding. The water utility portion
of the bond issue was longer and divided into several sub-categories; contractual
obligations, distribution system improvements, reconstruction of old systems
and close loops, system reinforcements and fire flows, and annual water system
improvements. He noted that the lists were consistent with what the
Council reached a consensus on at their last work session.
Mr. Janku asked what the
2% increase would mean per year. Mr. Malon said the average bill was
somewhere in the range of $12 to $14 per month per residence so it would
be in the range of 30 cents. Mr. Janku asked who pays for the mains
in developing subdivisions. Mr. Malon explained that those are all
paid for by the builder. Usually it is a subdivision and the developer
extends the water mains to the development and then installs the mains within
the development. The City does the design work and supplies the specifications
to the builder. He said the water mains are dedicated to the City. If
it is an individual industry or something of that nature, the same rule applies.
Mr. Beck pointed out that
a change had been made since the work session on the amount shown for fire
hydrants which included additions and replacements. He said the number
had been reduced. Each year the City replaces quite a few hydrants
and it was felt that it should continue to be the utility's cost; however,
it was being suggested that some of the fire hydrant construction costs in
new developments be shared in the future by the developer. This is
similar to what they do right now in the county subdivisions. He said
it did not include a full five years for fire hydrant cost in new developments.
Mayor Hindman pointed out
that both the water and electric utilities were self-supporting. He
said there was no tax revenue going into them.
Mr. Janku noted that the
construction of the new middle school in north Columbia was proceeding quickly. He
said it was expected to open next fall and asked that the staff look into
how and if we would provide bus service to the school. He noted there
was very good use of the bus service by Gentry students.
Mr. Janku commented that
he received a call from the President of Forest Relief Missouri who suggested
that the City of Columbia apply for a grant to obtain funds for tree planting. He
indicated there were funds available that the City could request and it would
be particularly appropriate to use volunteers for planting. Mr. Janku
felt that tied in well with our volunteer program. He also remembered
that Union Electric has a grant program available for planting trees on public
property. He understood that Union Electric had a short deadline.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that the staff be directed to contact the two entities to obtain information
about these two grant possibilities. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Harline announced that
he attended the planning session for the Neighborhood Convention. He
said on February 21, a Friday, an open poster section is planned from 6:00-7:00
p.m. with a program following at 7:00 p.m. He pointed out that there
were seven neighborhoods involved, and twelve people represented the planning
group.
Mr. Kruse asked about the
Tree Plan Task Force and whether or not a meeting had been scheduled. Mr.
Watkins said two meetings had been scheduled at this point -- January 13th
and February 10th.
Mayor Hindman said he received
some irate complaints about the tree trimming going on by the Asplund Company. Mr.
Malon said if trimming occurs on private property, the company should have
received permission from the owners. Mayor Hindman said he was not
sure that it was private property. He thought the line perhaps went
down City property. Mayor Hindman said he would give the complainant's
names to Mr. Malon. Mr. Malon said tree trimming was a problem and
people do not appreciate it. If trees are not kept trimmed, however,
the City could experience some of the same problems other cities have had
recently with lines down everywhere. Mayor Hindman said Kansas City
has a policy different than ours. He said they allow the trees to grow
up over the lines. Mr. Malon said those were the ones that fell down. Mayor
Hindman said he understood there was a cost/benefit ratio to it. He
said he would like staff to look into how much more it would cost us to adopt
a similar policy.
Ms. Coble said she requested
a report on what the City of Eugene, Oregon does where they have established
a no topping ordinance. Mr. Malon said he thought the Tree Plan Task
Force would be working on this issue. He said he would get a report
for the Council.
Mr. Janku said the City of
Springfield, Missouri received recognition for the standards they adopted
and utilized for tree trimming. Mr. Kruse said the City has a tree
trimming policy, but his impression was that the swath taken out along the
trail by the creek far exceeded our policy. He said it seemed unnecessarily
destructive.
Mayor Hindman said he had
been approached by another group called the Environmental Fund. He
said it was similar to the United Way organization except it represented
environmental groups. He said they sent material which he needed to
send to the Law Department. He said this group wanted, and were legally
entitled to have, a drive through the City. He suggested that staff
take a look at the policy. He asked if we had any others besides United
Way. Mr. Beck said there was the Credit Union. Mayor Hindman
asked for a report on the issue so they could deal with the issue on a policy
basis.
Mr. Campbell said that question
had come up in the past. He asked if there was already a policy in
place. Mr. Beck said they did an employee survey and a report was submitted
to the Council. Mr. Kruse said that had been for Earth Share, a different
federation. He said this was the Missouri Environmental Fund so it
was more localized. Mr. Kruse said there was case law on it. Mayor
Hindman said he read the case law, but was not sure it said what the organization
claimed it did. He wanted the Law Department to look at the information
so the City could come up with a policy to follow when approached.
Ms. Coble said she had been
asked to find out which side of a wooden fence should face neighboring properties,
the finished side or the side with the brace. Mr. Campbell said there
was a Missouri fence law at the state level.
The meeting adjourned at
9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Penny
St. Romaine
City
Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia