FEBRUARY 3, 1997

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, February 3, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri.  The roll was taken with the following results:  Council Members HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, and HARLINE were present.  The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Departments Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of January 21, 1997, as well as the minutes of the special meeting of January 16, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mr. Kruse.

    Mayor Hindman noted that B36-97 and B37-97 would be removed from Introduction and would be introduced at the next meeting.
    The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Harline and a second by Mr. Janku.



B20-97     Rezoning from A-1 to C-P property south of Clark Lane, approximately 2,000 feet east of
                  Highway 63.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this was an approximate 15 acre tract of land and the original request had been for C-3 zoning, but was changed to planned commercial.  The rezoning to C-P was recommended unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Commission, subject to a list of restrictions.  Mr. Beck noted that, if approved, there were ten uses that would be restricted on the tract.
    Mr. Campbell inquired about the shaded area on the overhead drawing.  Mr. Hancock replied that it was the flood prone area.  Mr. Campbell asked if that was the 100 year flood plain.  Mr. Hancock said it was, but it could be filled in subject to flood plain development regulations.  It appeared that this area would have to be crossed to access property in the back, which would likely be the portion developed.  Mr. Campbell asked if the heavily wooded area would be subject to the 15% rule.  Mr. Hancock believed it would be subject to tree preservation and land disturbance provisions if the area was an oak/hickory climax forest.  He said staff would eventually see a plan on it if and when it is developed.  Mr. Hancock indicated it was possible to take a closer look at what kind of tree stands the developer may want to try to preserve.  Mr. Campbell asked if it was a climax forest.  Mr. Hancock said he could not answer that question.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Tom Schneider, an attorney with offices at 11 N. Seventh Street, spoke on behalf of the applicants who have owned the property since 1959.  He said the character of the neighborhood changed a great deal in the last 40 years and the applicants were desirous of a commercial zone for the tract.  He noted that the property owners would not be the developers, but the intended grantee requested to remain anonymous.  Because the City could not be told how the property was going to be developed, Mr. Schneider said they agreed, at the request of the Planning staff's request, to amend the application from open C-3 to C-P so the Council would later have the ability to monitor the development and provide input.  The amendment was within the Land Use Plan designation.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Campbell voiced two concerns about the development.  His first concern was whether this was the appropriate time to consider the request because of major traffic congestion in the area.  He added it would be a substantial amount of time before this issue would be resolved and was not sure that it was wise to encourage development at this time.  His second concern was that the tract was a heavily wooded area with a deep ravine and a flood plain.  He was worried about how it would be developed.  Mr. Campbell said he would be more comfortable if it was known whether the area was a climax forest, and if any of it would be preserved or how it would be developed.  For those reasons, Mr. Campbell said he could not support the application.   Mrs. Crockett agreed that the area was heavily wooded, but said the applicant was asking for C-P rather than C-3 zoning, which meant the Council would have control over the plan when it comes in.  She said there was already commercial zoning to the west and she did not know what else could be expected to go in this area.  She stated the City knew the road was going to be improved.  Mrs. Crockett said she would support the request.
    Mr. Kruse asked about the schedule for the planned improvements to the road.  Mr. Patterson thought it would be unlikely to occur during this construction season because approval to acquire right-of-way has just been received.  If construction did begin, it would be very late in the season.  Mr. Kruse asked if the improvements went all the way to this property and beyond.  Mr. Patterson replied they would.  Improvements would extend to where the bus barn property access is located, just to the west of the drainage structure.  Regardless of when state improvements are done on the road, Mr. Kruse asked whether the City, if the request is approved for C-P zoning, would have the right to ask for additional road improvements.  Mr. Patterson responded that was correct.  Typically, off-site improvements are examined as conditions for approval of a C-P plan when warranted.  This is an instance where staff would have that opportunity.
    Mayor Hindman recalled that there had been discussion about a center divider down Route PP at the intersection.  He said businesses that are already located in the area objected to it.  He asked if the Transportation Department intended to build a divider along this stretch of property.  Mayor Hindman said before anything more is developed, it would be an ideal time to deal with this particular issue.  Mr. Patterson said he did not think there were any current plans for that, but it was something that could be looked at as part of the C-P plan and conditions determined at that time.  Staff could inquire with the Transportation Department as to whether or not that should be something to be considered in the initial phases of development.  Mayor Hindman said he was very concerned about the potential of additional congestion in the area.  He thought it would be a good time to let it be known if the City was in favor of that.  Mr. Patterson said if staff knew what was going in, it would be much easier to project the impact on what the traffic generation could be.  Currently, they would have to take the worst possible case scenario and come up with some figures that would determine whether or not severe problems with the development could be anticipated.  Mayor Hindman thought they should be forewarned that was a possibility.
    Mr. Campbell said it appeared that the area to the west, which is already developed, contains 15 to 20 acres.  Mr. Hancock said that was correct.  Mr. Campbell said the amount of acreage on the south side would be almost doubled.  Mr. Hancock pointed out a large amount of vacant open C-3 on the north side as well.  He said the City would never be able to gain any off-site improvements from them.
    Mr. Beck thought staff would have to look at the northeast sector as an alternate thoroughfare to relieve the traffic.  There would either need to be some major work at or away from the intersection of 63 and 70.  It would probably have to be at a different location because of the development.  Mr. Beck reported the area transportation group was looking at some alternatives to handle the increasing development in this section.  One alternative that had been discussed was to try to project an additional overpass over I-70 lined up with Route PP to the north, going directly to the south.  This would tie into St. Charles Road, or some other east/west road south of I-70.  He agreed with Mr. Campbell in that there is a lot of traffic in this area; however, when looking at land use alternatives, one would have to question if it was a good site for housing.  Mr. Beck did not think residential zoning should be placed between two big traffic carriers.  Mr. Campbell said he was not suggesting that, but perhaps development could be phased to allow  an opportunity for the transportation development to catch up with the already congested commercial development.
    Mr. Kruse asked if there was any way to approach the Transportation Department about bringing the issue up again for further discussion.  He said this corridor, without a median of some kind to control the traffic, would be much worse than another Nifong.
    Mr. Janku said with C-P zoning, the City would have the right to expect some assistance with the improvements.  If the City did not have that leverage, cooperation from the landowner could not be anticipated.
    Mr. Harline said the City should be able to expect a reasonable amount of cooperation.
    Mr. Beck reported with a C-P plan, a sidewalk could be required without any problem.  He agreed that a reasonable amount of off-site improvements could be expected.  Some of the other property owners, such as Home Depot, had already made major contributions with off-site improvements.
    Mrs. Crockett asked what kind of lights would be installed on PP when the new road goes through.  Mr. Beck said there would be a signal at the entrance of Home Depot with another projected to the east, at the location where the public street goes through by the bus barn.  He said this was not in the initial funding program.
    Mayor Hindman asked about the development to the east, the A-1 property.  Mr. Campbell said it was shown on the Plan as planned commercial which extended all the way to Lake of the Woods.
    Mr. Campbell said he was not arguing against the use, but said he wanted to plan the development rather than have it be accidental.
    Mr. Janku said if this was approved, it would set the precedent for the second piece of property next to it to be planned.  Mr. Janku acknowledged there would be some problems, but staff was trying to address them and this would give the best leverage.  Mr. Harline agreed.  Mr. Janku noted that the City helped move the road improvement project forward by increasing the interest payments to the state.  Mr. Beck said there was a contract with the state (similar to Route B) to get this road built.  He said it puts the City in a much more assured position that it would occur as this project competes with others within the District.
    B20-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, KRUSE, HARLINE.  VOTING NO:  CAMPBELL.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B21-97     Rezoning from R-3 to C-P property on the southeast corner of Old 63 and Gordon Street.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this 2 1/2 acre tract was located several blocks south of Business Loop 70, on the east side of Old Highway 63.  The recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission was approval with the exception that alcoholic beverages by the package, restaurants and/or cafeterias could not be located in this area.  Staff also recommended approval.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Don Goldenhersch, owner of Total Environments, explained that he has been at this location for 17 years.  He said the property in question became available for purchase about a year ago.  He bought it at that time with the idea of expanding his parking and sales areas.  He explained that there is an old highway shed that currently has a non-conforming use which he is also trying to rezone to C-P.  He said basically he wanted to down zone that and change the zoning on the homes.  He pointed out that his request was within the City's Land Use Plan.  He asked for Council support.
    Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Goldenhersch if he owned the house to the south of this property.  Mr. Goldenhersch said he owned it and it was included in the rezoning request.
    Mr. Kruse asked if all of the homes were occupied.  Mr. Goldenhersch explained that four of the homes were occupied and he was not planning to evict those residents.  He was not planning on taking down the homes, but as people move out, he may try to tear them down.  If he did not need the space, he would keep them as rental homes.  Mr. Goldenhersch said the people currently residing in these homes could continue to do so as long as they chose to.
    Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Goldenhersch whether he owned all of the property in that block.  Mr. Goldenhersch said he did not own The Touch of Dutch.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if he owned the brown house on Gordon Street.  Mr. Goldenhersch said he did not, his property bordered it.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mrs. Crockett said this was a nice area and thought it was appropriate for the nursery.  She said there were commercial properties all the way around it.
    B21-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B22-97     Rezoning from R-3 to C-1 property at 1210 Eugenia Street.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this small tract of land was located west of College Avenue, just north of Hinkson, and south of the railroad tracks.  It was recommended for approval by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning staff.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    David Walker, an attorney with offices at 609 E. Walnut, spoke on behalf of the owner of the tract, the Jean Gibbens Trust.  He said there was property owned by the Trust immediately south of the subject tract which is an office building.  The purpose of the request was to allow the small tract to be used for additional parking.  He said there was currently a small house on the tract and it would be used for rental purposes unless additional parking is needed in the future.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B22-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B23-97     Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code to include the terms "mosque" and "synagogue"
                  wherever the term "church" is used.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that approval had been recommended unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Addae Ahmad, spoke on behalf of the Islamic Center of Central Missouri.  Mr. Ahmad said they were one of several faiths in Columbia and by including the term "mosque" in the City Code, it would represent an acknowledgment of their existence.  He said it would recognize the Center for promoting good will in the community and doing things that are positive.  He said the Center is active in the community and has been here for 14 years.  Mr. Ahmad said they would like to remain an integral part of the community.  He thanked the Council for considering their request.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B23-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B24-97     Amending Chapter 23 of the City Code re: billboards.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on a 6-1 vote.  He said the changes were initiated primarily because of some changes in federal laws relating to highways in cities.
    At their request, Mr. Janku made the motion that Mr. Kruse and Mayor Hindman be allowed to abstain from discussion and voting on B24-97.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Harline noted that there were some new cases mentioned in the Municipal Newsletter pertaining to this issue.  He said there may be problems with this bill and asked if the public hearing should be continued.  It was decided that the public hearing should be opened and, after discussion, continue it to a date certain rather than closing it.
    Mr. Campbell asked if there was a conflict in the wording regarding the 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet.  Mr. Boeckmann said that was intended.  Mr. Harline said the roads that have recently come under the national highway system would be 1,000 feet.
    Mr. Beck explained that this amendment addressed the regulation of billboards primarily on Stadium Boulevard and Providence Road.  Because of new federal legislation, there were questions and court actions as to whether or not the City can control billboards on the two roads.  In the past there had not been a problem, but with the new change in the highway classification system, it was possible that billboards could go up on Providence as large as those on I-70 and U.S. 63.  Mr. Beck reported this ordinance was proposing to regulate the spacing and size of billboards on Providence and Stadium, and make lesser changes on I-70 and U.S. 63.
    Mayor pro-tem Janku opened the public hearing.
    Harold Anderson, 2900 Northland Drive, said he wished there was a way the Council could vote down billboards altogether on Stadium and Providence.  He felt that billboards were distracting and caused safety hazards.  He referred to them as optical graffiti.
    Mr. Harline made the motion that they continue the public hearing on B24-97 to the March 3, 1997 meeting.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved by voice vote.

(A)     Voluntary annexation of National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church, property
          located east of Bearfield Road and south of Nifong Boulevard (Tract D).

(B)     Voluntary annexation of National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church, property
          located east of Bearfield Road and south of Nifong Boulevard (Tracts A & B).
    Items A and B were read by the Clerk.
    The Mayor asked that both issues be discussed together.
    Mr. Beck noted that the total acreage of the described tracts was 87.77 acres.  The annexations were recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and there had been a request for permanent zoning.  The requests had been circulated to County and City offices and everyone had an opportunity to respond.  Mr. Beck said there had been a positive response from the department heads that the City would be able to serve the area.
    Mr. Hancock pointed out that there had been some concern about the sheltered workshop which staff was working on bringing in.  Mr. Beck said he understood this property was under different ownership.  He further understood there would be a request for annexation on this smaller tract of land.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing on both Items A and B.
    Bruce Beckett, an attorney representing the petitioner, the National Benevolent Association, said he expected considerable discussion at the time of the public hearings of the zonings which have been requested as a collateral proceeding.  He said they requested to delay the public hearings on the zoning issue to March 3.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing and noted that action would be taken at the March 3 meeting.

B25-97     Establishing Sanitary Sewer District No. 136 along Olive and Laoris Streets.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this would be located in northeast Columbia off Brown Station Road.  There had been previous reports from the Public Works Department regarding this sewer district.  If the district is formed, there would be a public hearing held regarding improvement work within the district.  He said if the Council then decided to continue, the work would be completed and special tax bills would be issued against the property owners based on the square footage.  The work would be comprised of replacing some private lines and building extensions to existing public lines in the area.  He called the Council's attention to a letter received this afternoon from Roland P. Walker, attorney for O. C. Nichols, Jr., owner of property located at 2703 Brown Station Road.  The letter addressed the size of the tax bill as it relates to, and is compared to, appraisal work done on the property.  The Nichols property would comprise the largest tract in the district.
    Mr. Campbell asked what the options were.  If the City reduced a tax bill for one person, would that automatically spread the cost to others.  Mr. Beck said it would have to be picked up by the sewer utility.
    Mr. Patterson said his staff had several meetings with people in the area and tried to provide them with estimates.  Mr. Patterson had not seen the letter that was received this afternoon, nor had his department received any communication from area property owners since their last meeting.  He said those concerned had been provided with reports.  Mr. Patterson reported that the tax bill would not be assessed until after work is completed, and the Council could then determine whether or not an assessment of that size should be made.
    Mr. Janku asked if there was any eligibility for CDBG funding for a project like this.  Mr. Patterson said he was not sure this was a CDBG area and the City had not typically used it for support of a sanitary sewer on private lines.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if there was just one house on the two large lots located at 2703 Brown Station and 2617 Paris Road.   Mr. Patterson said he believed that was correct, but pointed out it was land that could be developed.  This was the basis for the tax bills, the concerned area would benefit from the project.  Mr. Patterson stated there was nothing to keep that land from being developed and having multiple uses.  He understood that one of the lots was in the stages of development at this time.   Mr. Campbell asked if the City had the equivalent of a green line on sewers.  Mr. Patterson said not in the sense he thought Mr. Campbell was referring to.  This was something staff discussed as a future funding mechanism.  Lines would be installed and then homeowners would be charged when connection occurs.  Mr. Patterson reported this procedure is not currently in place.  The only option is the tax bill method and it could be paid out over a ten year period.
    Mr. Harline asked why the City did not typically use CDBG money for sanitary sewer projects.  He thought it was utilized several years ago.  Mr. Beck thought it had been on building connections for houses.  Mr. Patterson believed the City used CDBG funding in the past, but as far as the actual public portion of the line, he did not recall ever having used funding for this purpose.  Instead of CDBG funds picking up the cost of the tax bill, Mr. Beck thought it had been used to reimburse the property owner for the connection.  Mr. Harline asked if the difference was that one was a utility and the other was a general fund issue.  Mr. Beck replied it was.
    Mr. Janku said the City is currently encountering a lot of areas that will be hard to sewer.  He was not sure the income levels would qualify for CDBG funds, but in this case it appears this individual might.  He hated to rule out an option that might help address a problem.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if there were individuals in this area that were still on lagoons.  Mr. Patterson said the system they were proposing to eliminate was in this area.  The area not connected to the sewer district is still served by a private common collector.  He said this is the area where there is a lagoon subject to inspection by the Health Department.  Mrs. Crockett said a sewer system is definitely needed in this area.
    Mr. Beck said there was no question as to the need for the sewer district and Mr. Walker's client was in favor of it going in, but was concerned about the cost.  Mrs. Crockett asked what would need to be done to see if CDBG money could be obtained for this project.  Mr. Hancock said there were no categories that surplus money could be taken from.  One reason that might explain why CDBG money has not been used is there are certain projects, like big streets and large sewer districts, where the City could claim area wide benefit.  In these instances, the City did not have to document incomes and do what is called "direct beneficiary documentation".  He said on something like this, there may have been a policy or regulation in place at HUD that would have required that the City document the incomes of every individual who was going to receive new sewer service to ensure they would meet income eligibility requirements.  He said that may still be the case.  Mr. Hancock said they could check into it and see if the City could claim some area wide benefit.  Otherwise, it would be similar to rehabilitation projects where the income is documented of everyone affected, not just a house that happens to be in the eligibility area.  He said a fine line exists and suspected that was what the City ran into years ago when they decided to use the utility.  Mr. Hancock said he could get something back to the City Manager pretty quickly.
    Mr. Beck asked if they would have to use a different right-of-way procedure when CDBG money is used.  Mr. Hancock replied that was correct.  Mr. Beck said the process is much longer and additional items would be required, which would add quite a bit of overhead to projects.  The City had been attempting to use CDBG money on projects where overhead could be kept down.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if all of the property owners had been notified.  Mr. Patterson said to the best of his knowledge they had.  There have been some ownership changes since their first discussions, but attempts were made to see that everyone received all of the information on the project.  Mrs. Crockett asked if the owners knew how much their portion of the bill would be.  Mr. Patterson said they did.  Mrs. Crockett understood the only replies received were from the owners of the two large tracts and they were supportive of the project, just questioned the amount of the tax bill.  Mr. Patterson said this was the only feedback received since it had been recommended that the project be divided so the district would not be as large as had been discussed earlier.  He said they felt, based on the responses, that it seemed to address the concerns.  He noted that by dividing the project, it decreased the tax bills on these properties.  Mr. Patterson felt they had done everything they could.
    Mr. Janku asked if it would be possible to get a report on the alternatives, either through utilizing CDBG funds or other proposals that would deal with this individual's concerns.  He was reluctant to give approval to proceed without seeing all of the options.  Mr. Beck said they could address how CDBG money could be used for this project, and the procedures and processes that would have to be followed.  To join enough money for this purpose together with the project, Mr. Beck said there might be a timing problem unless it was deferred a while longer.  He said they could work with it in the last list that was recently sent to the Council, but they would have to cut back on CDBG funds elsewhere.  Mr. Janku said he had a suggestion for the upcoming Seventh Street project where they might find some funds.
    While examining options, Mr. Campbell said he would like to have the green line looked into.  He said he had some concerns about windfall profits to absentee owners and others that might come about.
    Mr. Harline said there had been a project on St. Charles Road where one lot had a particularly high tax bill, but that particular owner was not going to be bankrupt by the project.  He thought either green lining or looking at some sort of CDBG policy, where applicable, would be worthwhile.  He said a tax bill that size might force someone to subdivide their land and do something with it they did not ever want to do.  He realized they would be gaining a benefit to their property.
    There was a discussion about tabling the issue.  Mrs. Crockett felt the people involved were supportive, except for the two that were concerned about the cost.  She thought if these people were wanting this new district, the Council should proceed so it could be put on the schedule and built.  Mayor Hindman asked if tabling the issue would affect the ability of getting it done during the next building season.  Mr. Patterson said the next step would be to set the public hearing, and then they would have to get the documents in order and be ready to call for bids.  He said they would also have to acquire right-of-way which has become a lengthy process.  Mr. Patterson said they had been pushing the project forward so it could possibly be built this summer.  He felt the project would not be completed this summer if delayed very much at this point.
    Mayor Hindman asked if the district was established, whether the City would be precluded from looking into other funding mechanisms.  Mr. Boeckmann said if they established the district, other options could still be pursued.  Mr. Beck said when the resolution is passed setting the public hearing as to how the project would be funded and what the estimated cost would be, was the point when looking into other mechanisms would be precluded.  He pointed out that the only thing before the Council now was whether or not they wanted to change the boundaries of the district to exclude part of the property.  He added that would not be very logical.  Mr. Beck thought the district should be established and, after that time, a public hearing could be scheduled to address the funding mechanism.  Funding from different sources could be provided to the Council then.
    Mr. Harline thought that sounded like a logical way to proceed.  He knew the City had approved loans with CDBG money at little or no interest.  He said a $15,000 tax bill could make a very big difference to a person.
    B25-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B26-97     Confirming the contract for the Seventh Street improvement project, and appropriating
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that five bids had been received and the low bid had been $247,932.66, submitted by the Don Schneiders Excavating Company of Jefferson City.  He said the bid was for a concrete street and would be paid for from CDBG funds, the sanitary sewer utility, and special tax bills.  The sanitary sewer utility funds were being used because of a sewer adjustment on the project.
    Because of the work described, Mr. Janku asked why funds were not taken from the storm water utility.  Mr. Patterson said this project had been set up as a CDBG project.  In the past, the City traditionally and consistently does not use storm water money for items that are associated with street construction in CDBG areas.  Mr. Patterson said that was a policy matter, but the Council could change it at any time if they chose to do so.  Mr. Janku said there were a lot of demands for CDBG funds and there was storm water money available.  He said things could be done with CDBG funds, like housing and recreational projects, that are not possible with storm water funds.  He thought the City was limiting its flexibility.  His suggestion was that they start looking toward the utility, even if projects are in CDBG eligible areas.
    On the other hand, Mr. Campbell pointed out that there were many areas that are not eligible for CDBG funds that are eligible for storm water funds.
    Mr. Beck said the Council could establish guidelines for the staff to use.
    B26-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B27-97     Calling for bids on construction of a parking lot at the northwest corner of Fourth and
                  Cherry Streets.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the proposed bid date was March 12.  The project would provide 35 parking spaces in the Flat Branch area adjacent to where it is hoped to have the MKT trailhead park developed.  He noted that landscaping had been provided to meet the regulations, plus some.  The estimated cost was $76,000 and would be paid for from parking utility funds.  Mr. Beck said the reason they were trying to move ahead on this project was because spaces would be needed when construction begins on the parking garage at Sixth and Cherry.
    Mayor Hindman asked if the plan was showing all of the landscaping.  Mr. Patterson said it shows the landscaped areas with the trees along the front and the green areas along the back.  He said it was in accordance with the original plan they had at the public hearing.  Additional landscaping would cut into the parking.  He assumed quite a bit of landscaping would be done in the adjacent areas as part of the trailhead.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if this would be a permanent parking lot.  Mr. Beck said it would be permanent.
    Mayor Hindman said he had been at the headquarters of the Edward D. Jones Company in St. Louis and explained how they placed boxed trees in between the center parking angles.  He said they had not lost any parking places using that process.  Mr. Kruse said they had done that at the Galleria as well.  He said compact cars tend to use those areas for parking as the spaces are decreased by a few feet on each side.  This being a park, Mayor Hindman thought landscaping should be stressed and made a model of what could be done.
    Mr. Janku suggested working with the adjoining property owner where it was shown to be asphalt to the north.
    Mr. Kruse asked if the parking spaces in the middle were 20 feet.  Mr. Patterson said they were usually 18 feet by 9½ feet.  Mr. Kruse thought there would be room for another three or four trees.  He said there were a lot of cars that could get by with 15 feet.
    Mr. Harline commented that quite a few developers go well beyond the landscaping requirements.  He would like to see the City do the same thing which would set a good example.  He suggested that this be the temporary alignment and once the garage was built, landscaping could be added which might result in the loss of a space or two.
    Mr. Janku asked if parking was going to metered.  Mr. Patterson said the tentative decision was for metered spaces.  Mr. Janku said it would obviously be tied into the trail, particularly long-term once the new garage is built.  He asked if the meter time would be long enough so people could use the space for the entire day.  Mr. Patterson said they were thinking about four hour meters, but there was no reason why the meter could not be set for whatever the Council felt might be appropriate.
    Mr. Campbell said he liked Mr. Harline's suggestion about proceeding with this plan now, and adding more landscaping after the garage is built.  Mayor Hindman asked if landscaping was added after the fact, whether it would be very expensive.  Mr. Patterson said he thought that would be an appropriate way to handle it if the project is to be expedited.  They could come back at a later time with tree wells and do some adjustments.
    Mr. Janku asked that consideration be given to a mix of parking times.
    Mayor Hindman suggested that the Council approve the bill as presented with the proviso that after the garage is built, consideration is given to additional landscaping.  The Council was in agreement.
    B27-97, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B28-97     Calling for bids for storm drainage construction and improvements in the Jackson Street
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained that this was one of the voter approved storm water utility projects in the five year plan.  The estimated cost was $73,000.  Mr. Patterson explained that the project would consist of the construction of a reinforced concrete box culvert under Jackson Street which would allow the conveyance of a 100 year flow.  It would also include installation of street inlets, piping, and gabions to provide for erosion control and to maintain channel stability.  Mr. Patterson said staff tried to address all of the concerns on the part of the property owners in the area.  Staff met with property owners and they were provided with information regarding the project.
    B28-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B31-97     Authorizing an agreement with the State of Missouri to develop a park at the MKT trailhead
                  at Fourth and Cherry Streets, and appropriating funds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the Parks and Recreation Department applied for a grant and $40,000 had been approved.  The required match from the City was 50%.  He noted that it would be adjacent to the parking lot in the Flat Branch area, between Fourth Street and Flat Branch.
    B31-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B34-97     Amending Chapter 27 of the City Code regarding utility accounts and billing.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this amendment would clarify the intent of the ordinance and continue the current practice observed when users move from one location to another within the City.  He said staff reviewed the existing ordinance and the feeling was that because a new billing program is being installed, to make a lot of changes to the existing system at this point would just be an added expense.  Staff felt it would be more feasible to continue the current practice and when the new system is put in place, the question could be addressed relating to pro-rating utility bills.  Mr. Hargrove has been working with the person who brought this to the attention of the staff.
    Mr. Hargrove said there were some other questions with regard to additional changes that may be needed at the same time this would be implemented.  He said it was their intent to bring all of the information back to the Council after the new software is up and running.  The anticipated time for start-up was around the beginning of the fiscal year.
    Mr. Janku asked if there was a transaction fee for initial hook-up or for moving to another location.  Mr. Hargrove said there was not a charge for the initial hook-up, but if one transfers he thought there was a $4 transfer fee for the book work and related costs.  He said that did not cover the cost of sending somebody out to read meters and turn them on.
    Mr. Harline asked what the amount was for the redundant fee.  Mr. Hargrove said each fee was under $5.
    Mayor Hindman asked if he understood correctly that it would be quite expensive to modify the old system, which is about to be discarded.  Mr. Hargrove said it would take a good deal of programming time.
    Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, said he and a lot of other customers who have moved within the City have been charged for basic utility service that really was not used.  He said the minimum monthly fees for water, electric, and sewer were billed at the entire amount, and yet the first or last bill did not cover a full period.  He said the solution was to pro-rate these three minimum monthly charges.  This would be consistent with what other utilities in the area are doing.  Mr. Lane said he received a refund in the amount of $7.80 that had been overcharged.  He said the citizens of Columbia had been overcharged a long time on these particular items.  He thought it should be brought to a halt now and the Council should not pass this amendment.  Mr. Lane said he thought the City had a moral obligation to those people who would be moving between now and October 1.  He suggested that the bills be manually reviewed and adjustments made.
    Regarding Mr. Lane's suggestion about reviewing accounts manually, Mr. Janku noted that when students come back in August, there are incredible lines of people waiting to have utilities set up and transferred.  Mr. Janku suggested that they may want to consider a termination date on the ordinance in order to show their good faith that this situation would change.  His suggestion was for November 1.  Mayor Hindman asked if the pro-rating portion of programming would be in effect when the new system comes on line.  Mr. Hargrove said that would depend upon who would want to review the rates.  He said it might be optimistic to say they could do all of the reprogramming that would be necessary within 30 days of bringing the system on-line.  He said he would like to have the advice of the MIS people.
    Mrs. Crockett asked how many complaints had been received up to this point.  Mr. Hargrove said there had only been one.
    There was a discussion about adding a section stating that the City would begin pro-ration of these bills at the earliest feasible date.  This would state the City's intention, but would not lock them into a date certain.  Mr. Boeckmann said the record would be clear that it was the Council's intention that this amendment is temporary and it would be changed as quickly as possible.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that Section 27-18 (d) be amended to say that this shall be temporary and that the minimum monthly charges would be pro-rated as soon as practical.
    Ms. Coble asked if it would be easier to vote the issue down, leave the system as is, and have it continue until it would be practical to change it with the new computer system.  Mr. Janku said that would give people an opportunity to request a refund which would mean paperwork.  Ms. Coble asked if people were entitled to a refund.  Mr. Hargrove said the bookkeeping system would have to be revised in order to do that and keep track of it.
    The motion made by Mayor Hindman was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
    There was a question as to whether or not the change would be in the Code.  The response was that it would be in the Code and would have to be taken out later.  Mr. Boeckmann said he would not recommend putting it in the Code that way.
    Mayor Hindman withdrew his motion.  Mr. Kruse withdrew his second.
    Mr. Harline made the motion that B34-97 be amended by adding a new Section 3 reading, "This shall be temporary and that we will prorate the minimum monthly charges as soon as practical."  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    B34-97, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  HINDMAN, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE.  VOTING NO:  COBLE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B35-97     Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code to regulate tattoo establishments.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that there had been some community concern about the risk of infection so the Board of Health examined the issue and recommended the proposed amendment to the ordinance.
    Ms. Coble asked if there was any clear distinction between a dermagraphic technician and a tattooist.  Mr. Boeckmann said the term operator was defined as a dermagraphic technician or tattooist, so although they have been defined differently, he  did not think the term was used except in the definition of operator.  This was added because some people did not want to be classified as tattooists.  Mr. Sanford said mechanically there was essentially no difference in the tattoo applications, there were different reasons for the procedures and they are done in different places, but the mechanics are the same.  He said there was some sensitivity on the part of the dermagraphic technician's and they did not want to be lumped in with the tattoo people.  He said the easiest way to get around that was to call them all operators.
    Mr. Janku said he was supportive of the general concept of the ordinance and that people under the age of 18 should have the consent of their parents.  Regarding Section 11-364, Mr. Janku said it read "whenever there was doubt about such age the operator shall obtain proof of age before the procedure is done."  In terms of clarity of the responsibilities of the operators, he thought they should strike the language whenever there is doubt about such age so it would read that they would be required to obtain proof of age.  He assumed a driver's license or something similar would be acceptable.  Mr. Janku made the motion that they amend B35-97 by striking the above language (whenever there is doubt about such age).  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Harline thanked the Board of Health for all of their recent efforts.  He asked if body piercing was regulated in any way.  Mr. Sanford said ear piercing had been discussed and he thought it would be reviewed by the Board at a later time.
    Regarding Section 11-363 (a), Ms. Coble said it was referring to the Director of a tattoo establishment and then switched to the personal pronoun "he".
    Ms. Coble made the motion that they further amend B35-97 by striking the word "he" in Section 11-363 (a) and inserting the word "director" in its place.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    B35-97, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

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

B29-97     Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B30-97     Appropriating funds to conduct a tree inventory of selected areas of the city.
B32-97     Accepting conveyances for underground electric and water utility purposes.
B33-97     Accepting and authorizing a grant of easement for electric purposes from the University of
R11-97     Setting a public hearing on special assessments for street maintenance work on Brighton
                  Street from Ripley Street to William Street.
R12-97     Setting a public hearing regarding installing fiber optic cable in the City.
R13-97     Authorizing a contract with the Missouri Department of Public Safety.
R14-97     Authorizing application to the Department of Social Services for an emergency shelter

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

R15-97     Renewing a contract with the Central Missouri Humane Society.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this was an ongoing agreement the City has with the Humane Society.  He said this provided the Humane Society with about a 3% increase in the annual budget.  This year's total contract was approximately $86,000.  Mayor Hindman said he thought they did a terrific job.
    Ms. Coble said she was not able to find reference to animal neglect or cruelty in the contract.  Mr. Sanford said he did not believe that was addressed.  Ms. Coble said she had recently called to make a report to Animal Control and they referred her to the Humane Society because they do not handle issues of animal cruelty or neglect.  She said that had been an ongoing point of confusion for her.  Mr. Sanford explained that the ordinance gives the responsibility for that to Animal Control.  As a matter of convention, what had been worked out over time was that the initial investigations on alleged cruelty will be handled by the Humane Society.  If there is any enforcement to be done, then Animal Control officers would become involved.  Ms. Coble said she would feel better about it if it was mentioned somewhere in the contract, but said she did not want to slow down the process.
    The vote on R15-97 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE.  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:
(B36-97 and B37-97 removed until introduction at next meeting)

B38-97     Approving the Final Plat of E.A.'s Acre.
B39-97     Rezoning from A-1 to R-2 property at 2968 Northland Drive.
B40-97     Appropriating funds for priority medical dispatch software.
B41-97     Accepting a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to hire two additional police officers,
                  and appropriating funds.
B42-97     Accepting engineer's final report and tax billing for work performed on Brighton Street from
                  Ripley Street to William Street.
B43-97     Authorizing a right-of-use permit allowing the University to install utilities underground
                  through the Hitt Street and University Avenue right-of-way.
B44-97     Accepting water utility conveyances.
B45-97     Accepting RCC Consultant's report on telecommunications and adopting a plan to
                  implement some of the recommendations.

(A)     Closing Alley for Downtown Trash Compactor.
    Mr. Beck said the Public Works Department had been working with the Special Business District and the Central Columbia Association to resolve some of the refuse situations that have been occurring in the alleys with dumpsters.  He said in this particular location, the east/west alley between Broadway and Cherry and Eighth and Ninth Streets, they have had problems locating a place to put a compactor.  They are requesting a temporary closure of the alley so the compactor could be placed there.  Mr. Patterson said they were asking for a trial period of six months so staff could evaluate how it was working.  It will also provide an opportunity, as plans develop for the Eighth and Cherry renovation, to examine any alternatives that have not already been looked at.
    Mr. Harline said it looked like almost all of the property owners were in favor of the proposal.  He said one of the owners had been talking about enhancing recycling downtown.  He asked if the alley is closed, would there be a chance to put in a cardboard dumpster for recycling in the alley as well.
    Jack Waters, member of the Special Business District Board of Directors, said there were a couple of cardboard containers in the alley at the present time.  He said the owner was willing to let them remain there.  Mr. Waters said the compactor was a good solution for this alley as there is a lot of food waste generated at this location.  Mr. Waters thanked the Council for their consideration of the issue.
    Mrs. Crockett said the compactor would clean up the alley a great deal.  She asked if it would be possible to get the alley resurfaced at the end of the trial period and, if this was possible, who would pay the cost.  Mr. Patterson explained that the alley maintenance belongs to the City.  He was not sure it would be necessary to wait until the end of six months before this could be done.  He thought staff could look at what improvements were needed on the appearance of the alley and, if any are required, these should be done during the project.  Mrs. Crockett thought that was what they should do.
    Mr. Janku asked about grease storage in the alley and said he understood there was more than one container.  Mr. Patterson said he was not aware of how many there were, but the purpose of the project was to try to consolidate rather than have multiple facilities in the alley.
    Ms. Coble made the motion that they authorize the City Manager to close the alley for a six month period to evaluate the affects of placing a roll-off compactor for refuse service.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Beck said normally he would oppose the closing of a downtown alley.  He understood this was being done on a temporary basis and also understood the downtown people were working to see how they would handle deliveries and other issues.

(B)     Intra Departmental Transfer of Funds.
 Report accepted.

(C)     Supplemental Report on Historic Preservation.
    Mr. Beck thought this particular ordinance needed some staff review.  A determination would have to made as to whether or not this is a type of overlay zoning, or if it would be a separate free-standing ordinance.  He said it looked like it would require action by both the Planning and Zoning Commission  and Council.
    Mr. Campbell said it was an excellent report, but nevertheless needed careful examination.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that option two be pursued, to examine the report.  The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman.
    Mr. Harline said either way the staff would need to comment on it.  He said the question was whether or not any more input from the Council was necessary before it goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission.  He said his goal was to have a chance to act on it, but that was not going to happen.  He said there were some issues that needed to be looked at which included how this would work with the urban conservation district.  He thought the next step should be for Planning and Zoning to look at it, while utilizing the technical comments of the staff.  He wanted to see option number one followed.
    Mr. Janku spoke in favor of the motion made by Mr. Campbell.  He said he would like to see comments from the staff.
    Mr. Kruse said he would like to see it move along.  The Council agreed.
    The motion made by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Mayor Hindman, was approved unanimously by voice vote.


    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the Council adjourn to a closed meeting on February 13, 1997, for the purpose of discussing litigation and real estate.  This meeting would immediately follow the work session.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Motion passed.
    In light of the Council's earlier decision regarding initial renovation plans of the Daniel Boone Building, Ms. Coble asked if there would be an opportunity to get a staff report to informally discuss options for attempting to retain some of the historic character of the lobby.  She was specifically referring to alternatives for painting the ceiling, removing the historic railings, and potential changes to the main stairwell which would enclose it because of fire code regulations.  She asked about a staff report indicating how alternate bids or other changes might enable the City to keep some of the historic character of the building.
    Mr. Beck said he thought the City was ready to call for bids.  He said they were proceeding with plans and specifications to bring the stairwell down from the west side to comply with fire code regulations.  He thought the Council approved the painting of the ceiling.  He asked staff to prepare an alternate bid which would exclude painting the ceiling if the Council made that decision.  Regarding the railing, he thought the bid currently provided for replacement railing.  Replacement railing was advised by the architect because of safety concerns.  Ms. Coble recalled the railing being a design issue, not a safety issue.  Mr. Harline said he remembered it being both.  Mr. Beck asked Mr. Patterson about the bids.
    Mr. Patterson said they were very close to putting the bids out.  The final specifications and plans were currently being reviewed.  A pre-bid date has been set in two weeks.  Mr. Patterson asked if they were considering changes other than the ceiling paint.  Mr. Beck said the railing was another item.  Ms. Coble said the lights had been an issue as well.  Mr. Beck said there was also the stairwell which was intrusive to the lobby.  He was not sure there were many alternatives.  He thought when the architect discussed the lobby, his impression had been that they were talking about making it a more modernized setting than what currently exists.
    Mr. Patterson said he thought their objective was to bring the building into compliance in the most economical manner possible, while still maintaining an attractive facility.  That was what they tried to accomplish in the lobby.  He thought one of the issues with the railing was to be in compliance with current codes which require four inch horizontal and vertical spacing.  The stairwell, which would have significant changes, was a requirement for fire exits.  The architect had been told to examine this building, as if it were any other privately owned building, in regard to what would be necessary to meet code requirements.  He thought they were talking about some essential features.  The cosmetics, as far as refinishing or painting, could possibly be submitted on an alternative bid.  If the Council was considering changing stairwells, railings, and other more structural features, there would probably be a significant delay.  Mr. Beck agreed that it would be a big change in the plan that had been worked on.  Mr. Patterson said the detailed plans were finished.  Mr. Beck said there might be a possibility of an alternate bid on the railing.  He said they did not have anything to replace it with, but maybe they could obtain a unit cost.  Mr. Patterson said he was sure they could and, if there are still serious questions, it might be appropriate to have another meeting with the architect.
    Ms. Coble asked about the lights in the specifications.  Mr. Patterson said they planned drop lights that would provide additional lighting on the floor of the lobby area, and would probably shield the ceiling more.  This was one of the issues regarding the paint, the reflection of the globe lights in the lobby would shield the ceiling from light anyway.  The lights would be suspended and have more candle power than what is there presently.
    Mr. Harline said when the design was presented to them, they looked at things with only safety issues in mind.  He thought currently they have two choices; to continue the project on a very tight budget and sacrifice a great deal of the historic character of the building, or stall the process and not make a 50 year mistake.
    Mr. Kruse said he agreed and thought they should do whatever it took to do it right.  He said the citizens needed to feel good about it.  He pointed out that Ms. Shields had offered 25 hours of her time as a volunteer consultant.  He thought, at a minimum, staff should meet with her and talk about the options before going any further with the project.
    Mr. Kruse made a motion that the staff be directed to meet with Ms. Shields to discuss options before proceeding with bidding.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble.
    Mr. Campbell said one option would be to ask the staff to break the bids into as many components as possible.  Part of the process is to look at the building not just as a package, but rather as options.  He said he would like to know how much some of the options were going to cost and whether the City can afford to do some of the things that might be suggested.
    Mayor Hindman said he was concerned about the dilemma Mr. Patterson was going to find himself in because of the contract with the architect and now the Council is requesting a different consultant.  Mr. Patterson said if the Council wanted to examine the alternatives, he thought it would be appropriate for the consultant to work with the architect who is preparing the plans and specifications.  The main objective is to incorporate suggestions on a bid tabulation form that would give options on the bid acceptance.  He thought it was very important that those persons interested in historical preservation work directly with the architect.  He did not think the architect would donate additional time.  He said if the Council wished to authorize it, he would contact the architect and give directions.  Mayor Hindman asked what sort of additional expense might be incurred.  Mr. Patterson was reluctant to guess and said he would have to get that information from the architect.  Any response would probably be somewhat dependent upon the outcome of initial meetings.  Mrs. Crockett asked what the current hourly charge was for the architect.  Mr. Patterson thought it was somewhere around $65, plus expenses.
    Mr. Beck pointed out that there may be a difference in opinion between the architect and the historic people as to what direction the City wants to go with the lobby.  He said someone needed to establish a direction for them to follow.
    Ms. Coble said they called it the unifying theme.  Part of the reasoning behind it was about bringing light into the room because the City could not afford to replace windows, and because they were not going to alter the front of the building.  Also, if a less expensive laminate is used, a more up-to-date color scheme would be needed.  She said it was all about design on an inexpensive budget.
    Mr. Janku said he liked the idea of looking at other options.  He said the community may also have a stronger interest in this issue after hearing this discussion.  He suggested that they look at it again before making a commitment.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if they would actually be tearing out very much.  Mr. Patterson said presently the work they were doing was moving the glass partitions in the lobby area.  He did not think they were removing that much with regard to the initial characteristics of the building.  The only things he felt was significant, as far as the appearance was concerned, were the stairway, the railing, and the ceiling.  Mr. Patterson noted that the stairway was a code necessity.  He said he did not know whether or not there might be options to examine for the railing.  He said there were options on the appearance and the decor.  Mr. Patterson said Ms. Coble was correct in that their mission has been restricted by the budget they were given to work with.  He said they had tried very diligently to come up with a solution within those budget figures.  Mrs. Crockett understood they would not be tearing out any beams.  Mr. Patterson said they would not be.  Mrs. Crockett said it was her feeling, since they have come this far, they should meet with the historic preservation people.  It should be kept in mind that everything done thus far has been due to the cost.  Nobody knew if ten years from now the building might be torn down in order to start from scratch.  She said if it was decided City offices should stay in this building, it might be possible to bring the building back to its natural state if that was wanted.  Ms. Crockett said in the meantime, they will have gotten by with the bare necessities and would have met the code.  She said they spent a considerable amount of money on an architect, and it would take a considerable amount more to meet with Ms. Shields.
    Mr. Kruse said they did not really know that.  He was suggesting that Ms. Shields have the opportunity to meet with the architect and the staff.  He felt that the record was clear, based on this discussion, that the Council wanted to approach it cautiously.  Mr. Kruse said he was willing to spend some more money on it.
    Previous to the failure of the ballot measure to provide funds for the restoration of this building, Ms. Coble said it was the same architect who had plans for the full restoration of the building.  This included replacement of the windows that had been bricked over.  She said it was not that there was an adversarial relationship with the architect, but current decisions have been influenced by budget constraints.
    Mr. Harline wanted to make it clear that nobody was blaming the architect.  He understood that they were asking for one member of the Historic Preservation Committee to meet with the architect to see if there are ways, because of a change in attitude on the Council's part, to try and incorporate more preservation.
    Mr. Kruse reworded his motion, seconded by Ms. Coble, to say that the architect would be asked to meet with Ms. Shields, and staff would report back to the Council with the results of the meeting.  The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote.
    Ms. Coble said that would not preclude any other members from the Historic Preservation Committee from being involved.  Mayor Hindman noted that it was understood that this would delay the bids.
    Mr. Campbell said they had an excellent meeting with the Cultural Affairs Commission at the pre-Council dinner.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed with drafting the necessary ordinances as a follow-up to the Commission's earlier report.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Harline and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Regarding Creekwood Estates off Route PP, Mrs. Crockett explained that the public school buses park on the lot adjoining the subdivision.  She said people in the area are complaining about the buses running excessive hours, although residents understood why this was being done.  She said the buses run on a rotating basis to ensure they will start in the morning.  When this is done, black smoke rolls out of the diesel buses and collects in the form of black soot on the side of homes in the area.  Mrs. Crockett spoke to the school board about the situation and nothing had been done.  She asked yesterday if the buses could be pulled in, rather than backing them into the area, and was told that was not feasible.  She did not know what the answer was, but she felt sorry for the people that live in the adjacent homes.
    Mr. Janku said he thought the school board should be contacted.  Mr. Kruse asked if it was about time to get together with the school board.  Mayor Hindman agreed it was probably time, and he did not think the Council had met with the Board since he was elected Mayor.
    Mr. Beck said he would try to get in touch with the Superintendent and get a report back to the Council regarding the situation.
    Mrs. Crockett commented that she had been on KFRU last week and people called stating it was difficult to cross Broadway from Hitt Street.  It was also reported when traveling north on Hitt, it was almost impossible to make a left hand turn on to Broadway.  Drivers were having to pull out quite far in order to see.  She asked about the possibility of painting a pedestrian crossway in that location.  Another concern was voiced about going west on Broadway and the road goes from two lanes to one.  This had come about when Tenth Street was made a two-way street.  Another caller complained about going east on Broadway, past the theater and in front of the Church, where large vehicles are parking.  She was told cars were having to move over toward the other lane in order to dodge them.
    After removing the one-way street system downtown, Mr. Harline said they were supposed to get a traffic study.  He asked about the status of the report.  Mr. Patterson said he was hopeful to have it within the next six weeks.
    Regarding annexations, Mr. Harline asked that the Council memos indicate who would be the service providers to those residents.
    Regarding the Arts, Mr. Janku noted that other buildings utilize art work from local artists through the Columbia Art League.  He said these items were basically on loan.  He asked the staff to find out if we could do that sort of thing in our public buildings.
    With respect to historic preservation, Mr. Janku said he had come across an article about St. Louis and how they funded  some of their projects.  Apparently they used certain monies, possibly CDBG funds.  Mr. Janku will give the article to staff and he asked them to find out what the source of the funds had been in St. Louis.  He thought maybe the City could utilize similar sources to facilitate historic preservation.
    Earlier this year, Mr. Janku said the Council had authorized the beautification along Business Loop 70 in front of Hickman High School.  He said that was also one of the priority areas for Class A sidewalks.  Since the landscaping has been delayed, he asked if the landscaping and sidewalks could be tied together.  Mr. Beck said a memo had been written on that.  He thought he may have received a response today.
    Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, referred to his earlier conversation with the Council regarding the pro-rating of utility bills.  Mr. Lane felt that since the City made a refund to him, it would only be fair that everyone involved receive a refund.  He would like to see a program where a refund could be offered to any citizen who would come in and apply for it.  He realized City staff were occupied with their present work and offered to volunteer his time.  He said he would be willing to work in the utilities, accounts, and billing office and take applications.
    Mr. Harline thanked Mr. Lane for his attention to such matters.  As someone who would be eligible having moved recently, Mr. Harline would rather the staff work on putting in the new system.
    Mr. Janku suggested asking for a staff report on the issue of accepting this type of volunteer service and how it would fit in with the City's ability to manage the operation.
    Mayor Hindman pointed out that it would be contrary to the ordinance that was just passed regarding refunds.  Mr. Harline commented that they said the City was not going to pro-rate bills, they did not say anything about not allowing refunds.   Mr. Campbell said they already had this discussion and were only talking about a few months of intervening time.  The City could be getting into all kinds of fiscal liability and other issues that could potentially occur if a volunteer was involved in the financial affairs of the City.
    It was decided that a report was not in order.
    The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
                                                                                         Respectfully submitted,
                                                                                         Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                         City Clerk