JANUARY 5, 1998

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, January 5, 1998, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri.  The roll was taken with the following results:  Council Members KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, and CAMPBELL were present.  The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Departments Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of December 15, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Campbell.

    Mayor Hindman noted that R13-98 would be removed from New Business.
    The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mayor Hindman and a second by Mrs. Crockett.



B348-97     Amending Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordinances to establish new regulations for
                    communications antennas and towers.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that an amendment sheet had been prepared further clarifying definitions.  The amendment provided for landscaping around equipment regardless of the zoning district, in addition to several changes relating to disguising support structures.  Mr. Beck further explained that the amendment would also allow for conditional uses in O-P and C-P districts.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion to amend B348-97 per the amendment sheet.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Janku asked how this ordinance would work in O-P and C-P districts.  He asked specifically about the towers.  Mr. Hancock said if the Council wanted to include towers as conditional uses in planned districts, a couple of things might happen.  He said, hopefully, towers would be constructed in an area where there is already a plan approved by the Council.  He said then the applicant would need to apply for a conditional use permit from the Board of Adjustment.  Assuming this is approved, Mr. Hancock said it could be treated like a minor revision to a plan and either be signed by the Planning Director, or go on to the Planning and Zoning Commission if there is a need for additional public input.  Mr. Hancock reported if it involved an area zoned C-P but there was no plan approved by the Council, he supposed a plan would be required.
    Mr. Janku asked if the public's notice would be at the time of the conditional use application before the Board of Adjustment.  Mr. Hancock said he believed that was correct.  He reiterated that once a conditional use permit is approved by the Board of Adjustment, it would then be forwarded to Planning for processing as a revision to an approved plan and, depending upon the situation, this would either be approved in the Planning office or it would be sent to the Council.  Mr. Janku said if this involved a disguised structure that was unobtrusive, it conceivably would not have to come to the Council.  Mr. Hancock and Mr. Boeckmann agreed.
    Mr. Kruse noted there was nothing in the ordinance that would require coordination of the City's review and approval of communication towers with the County Commission.  He suggested that when applications are received, that they be coordinated with the County because of the opportunity of co-locations.
    Mr. Boeckmann pointed out that some of the factors the Board of Adjustment is to consider relates to the location of other towers.  He said this is not limited geographically to within the City limits.  Mr. Boeckmann said Mr. Kruse's comment was well-taken, and that the staff would keep in mind the locations of the towers in the County.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku said the Council would still need to deal with the issue of when towers become obsolete.  At some point, staff will have to come up with a way of determining which towers are not being used.
    B348-97, as amended, was read with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.   Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B356-97     Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code as it relates to plat submittal requirements and
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this amendment outlines the number of plats that needs to be submitted to the City staff, and the required paper size.  He said the other portion deals with sidewalks to be constructed along unimproved streets.  He noted that this issue had been discussed at least twice during public work sessions, and had been reviewed again earlier this evening. Mr. Beck felt staff had a good idea of what the Council is looking for.  Rather than trying to draft something on the spot, he said the Council had talked about tabling this issue for more rewriting.
    Mr. Beck said the way the ordinance is currently written it would require the subdivider to either build a permanent sidewalk, or deposit an equal amount for building that sidewalk.  It would be noted on the plat that the money had been deposited.  He said this way it would be noted that whomever bought the lot would no longer be obligated to pay for a sidewalk along that particular street.  Mr. Beck said the amount of the deposit would be based on the City's previous two year's cost experience on building sidewalks.  Since the ordinance had been drafted, Mr. Beck said the issue of through lots had come up.  This is a situation in which someone is required to pay for a sidewalk on an interior street in a subdivision, and would still pay for a sidewalk along an unimproved street.  He said the City encourages lots not to face collector and arterial streets with driveways.  Mr. Beck said staff is looking at something similar to what is done with streets where there is a through lot.  In those cases, the City allows a credit so that only a portion of the cost is to be paid.  Mr. Beck stated staff also wanted to look into how to handle the temporary sidewalk situation.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Bill Crockett, an engineer with offices at 1414 Rangeline, requested that all of the engineers/surveyors and developers who deal directly with this issue have the opportunity to look at the revisions.   He said the original draft had concerned him, and he could not understand parts of it.  He thought tabling the issue was the right thing to do.
    Mr. Janku noted the Council is struggling with the issue of temporary sidewalks and how to deal with them.  He said the goal is to have something in place to serve people during the interim until permanent improvements could be made.  He said the problem of different grades is a real tough issue.  Mr. Crockett said it could be an extremely expensive problem if a sidewalk had to be built twice.
    Mr. Crockett suggested that the intent be established first, and then build the ordinance around that intent.  He said if it is intended to build sidewalks along unimproved streets, that is how the ordinance should read.
    Mayor Hindman said it was his personal view that one of the important intents to the ordinance is to establish safe pedestrian situations along the unimproved roads when development occurs.  He said there are too many unsafe conditions that currently exist.
    Mr. Crockett said he thought that is a good goal, but added that the way the ordinance is written presently, it has an intent to build an escrow account for sidewalks anywhere in the City of Columbia.  He thought this should be further distinguished.
    Steve Wendling, 3703 Watts, a builder, supported the idea of tabling the issue in order to come up with something more workable.  His biggest concern was that the ordinance be something simple.  Because of the different grades, location of improvements, and running utility lines, he did not see temporary walks being very likely from a practical point of view.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that B356-97 be tabled to the February 2, 1998, meeting with the public hearing being continued until then.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B357-97     Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code to clarify provisions relating to landscaping
                    requirements for parking lots constructed in District C-2.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this issue had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on a 9-1 vote.  He said the Council had requested this amendment to assure uniform administration of landscaping parking lots to include downtown parking lots.  Mr. Beck reported this amendment targeted areas with more than five parking spaces.
    Mr. Janku asked about someone wanting to establish a private parking area, not necessarily associated with a building.  Mr. Hancock explained that the ordinance established that parking areas in loading and unloading areas in any zoning districts shall be subject to the provisions contained in this section.  To clarify, he read buildings or additions to buildings that have parking associated with them also have to conform.  Mr. Janku asked if someone coming into the downtown area would be subject to the same landscaping requirements as the City would be subject to.  Mr. Hancock said that was the way he read it.  Mr. Boeckmann asked if he was referring to existing lots.  Mr. Janku said no.   He was referring to someone who might buy a piece of property for the purposes of operating their own private parking lot, not necessarily associated with a particular building.  Mr. Boeckmann said in this situation, the person would be subject to the ordinance.
    Mayor Hindman said there were some lots in the downtown area that are basically used as parking lots, although it does not appear that is to be the permanent fate of the property.  He asked at what point should the landscaping requirements be met, and if this ordinance addressed that situation.  Mr. Boeckmann said it did not distinguish between temporary and permanent uses.  He said if someone starts using a piece of property as a parking lot, then he thought this individual should be obliged to meet the requirements.
    Mr. Campbell said there were a number of lots in the University area that have been converted into parking lots.  He understood these would be subject to the same landscaping requirements as those located anywhere else.  Mr. Boeckmann said if it involves private property, it would be subject to the ordinance.
    Regarding Section 29-25 and how it is interpreted and enforced, Mr. Coffman brought up the issue of where trees are required.  He understood that a tree is required for every 4,500 square feet of parking space, not necessarily within each 4,500 square feet of space.  He asked if that was how it was being interpreted -- the trees could all be located on the outside of the parking lot.  Mr. Kruse said trees would not have to be "reasonably distributed".  Mr. Campbell said the Council had lengthy discussions regarding this subject.
    Mr. Kruse said he recalled the intent as being to have trees throughout a parking lot, and the number would be equal to one for every 4,500 square feet of vehicular surface area -- in addition to the trees on the perimeter near the right-of-way.  He said what usually happens is that most of the trees end up on the fringes of the parking lot.  Mr. Coffman said it seemed to defeat the purpose when the trees are placed on the perimeter.  He thought it could be corrected easily.  Mr. Coffman reported he had received numerous comments about the new theatre, and people would like to see more trees in the parking lot.
    Mr. Janku said when this issue was discussed earlier, developers had said they needed flexibility (in terms of organizing the parking) regarding the landscaping of trees.  He said the thought had been if the Council arrived at a number of trees, the developer could figure out how to allocate them.
    Mayor Hindman suggested that the staff look at the issue again.  He asked Mr. Coffman to bring it up under comments at the end of the meeting.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B357-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B344-97     Approving final plat of Heritage Meadows, Plat 3, a major subdivision.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman explained that this item had been tabled to the March meeting, but the owner had requested that it be discussed again at this meeting.
    Mr. Beck said this issue had been tabled primarily because there had been a change between the preliminary plat and the final plat, which related to stubbing a street rather than having a cul-de-sac.  He noted the applicant had not been available to answer questions of the Council at the last meeting.
    Roy Rogers, 1614 Whitburn, the developer, explained that preliminary plats are submitted on pieces of property far in advance of what actually happens.  He said this happened to be a 120 acre plat, with the preliminary plat having been submitted about 2 1/2 years ago.  He said the saving of trees prompted the changes on this final plat.  Mr. Rogers explained the original plat that had been displayed at the last meeting.  He said the plat crossed the creek and used more trees, whereas the new plat would use the creek as a natural area and nothing would have to be done to it.  He said when this issue had been discussed at the last meeting, he was surprised to hear that there was a problem with it because he assumed it was acceptable.  Mr. Rogers saw nothing wrong with the plat, and added that he had brought his engineer along to answer any questions.
    Mr. Campbell said that one of the questions had been how all of the roads would fit together.  Mr. Rogers said estate lots containing one to two acres are planned for the 40 acres south of this plat.  He said the development would have two entrances and exits, and would have no need for extra signs.  The construction plan is for this spring.  He displayed an overhead of the development.
    Mayor Hindman asked about a pedestrian connection between the two cul-de-sacs.  Mr. Rogers said there was none.  He said if the homeowners on either one of the cul-de-sacs requested the developer to put a connection between them, he would do that.  Mayor Hindman said he did not think that was likely.  Mr. Rogers said there was no public easement for one.  Mayor Hindman said it would create circulation within the neighborhood which would be very good.
    Mr. Campbell said he did not think there were any destinations people would be looking for in this situation.
    Mr. Janku said it was very helpful to see the other plat.  Mr. Campbell agreed and said Mr. Crockett's overall rendering had been very helpful.  He encouraged, whenever possible, that these plats be submitted so the Council can see how the bits and pieces fit together.
    B344-97 was read with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CAMPBELL.   VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  ABSTAINING:  CROCKETT.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B358-97     Authorizing amendatory agreement #2 to the Associated Electric interchange agreement.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the Water and Light Advisory Board and the staff recommended approval of this ordinance.  He said the agreement would trade power equipment between Associated Electric and the City so there is no duplication of lines.
    Mr. Campbell asked why the City is dealing with this group rather than Union Electric.  Mr. Malon explained that the City's interchange agreement is with Associated Electric Co-op.  He said that is where all of the power exchanges are handled -- no matter who the arrangement is for, it is arranged through Associated.
    B358-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B359-97     Appropriating funds for water main project across I-70.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Malon said a question had come up regarding the amount appropriated.  He said the actual bids taken were for the construction.  He said he had given the Council an outline of the actual cost estimate for this particular project.  Two of the three bids for the project are within the appropriation.  Mr. Malon explained that this particular project is for approximately 2,400 feet of 16" and 12" water main under I-70, including a 30" casing, as well as easements, engineering, inspections, labor, equipment, materials and contingencies.  The total for the project is $370,000.
    Mr. Malon reported there had been a question as to whether or not a previous appropriation had been made.  He said staff thought there had been, but after going through HTE reports they were unable to find it.  He said funds were placed in a revised budget at one point, but apparently these had never actually been appropriated.  Because the appropriation does not show on the books, staff had no other alternative than to bring the project forward for an appropriation.
    Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, noted that he had been the person who brought this issue up at the last meeting.  He had been concerned about an overstatement in the amount of the additional appropriation.  He was appreciative of the response.  Mr. Lane explained where he had gotten his information from and had assumed he was working with good data, although apparently this had not been the case.
    B359-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows;  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B360-97     Accepting donation of land located in the upper section of Harmony Branch.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said some time ago the issue of building a sidewalk along West Worley had been discussed.  Part of the frontage for this sidewalk runs along property on both sides of Hominy Branch Creek in northwest Columbia.  In discussions with the property owner, Mr. Beck said this individual had indicated a willingness to deed an eleven acre tract of land along the Creek to the City, if the City would pay the sidewalk tax bill -- which amounts to $6,700.  Mr. Beck said he imagined if the Silvey's deeded this land to the City, it would be left as open space.  There is no intended use for it other than open space along one of the waterways.
    Mr. Janku asked if the sidewalk had been built.  Mr. Beck replied that staff is getting ready to build it.
    Mayor Hindman thought it seemed like a fair trade.
    Mr. Campbell thought it was a generous gift and made the motion that the Council go on record as thanking the family.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    B360-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B361-97     Amending Article III of Chapter 11 of the City Code pertaining to beverage containers.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    As written, Mr. Beck said the bill would postpone the enforcement of the deposit ordinance for existing establishments selling applicable beverages after the property is annexed into the City.  Mr. Beck explained the Mayor had requested an amendment sheet to be prepared which would change the beginning date of the five year period -- it would begin at the signing of the agreement rather than after the annexation.  Mr. Beck stated the amendment would set more of a date certain as to when time would run out.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that B361-97 be amended per the amendment sheet.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.
    Mayor Hindman said as the land is not in the City now, then obviously the deposit law would not apply.  Since nobody knows exactly when the property might be annexed into the city, he felt this amendment would be a fair approach to the situation.  Mayor Hindman reported it could be assumed it would be a period of time before annexation occurs because the property is not adjacent to the City.  At this point, he said the owners have not been agreeable to voluntary annexation.  If the clock starts running now, the exemption would only apply for the remainder of the five years.  However, if the property is not annexed into the City for more than five years and the ordinance is not amended, the exemption would go into effect immediately upon annexation.
    The motion to amend, made by Mayor Hindman, seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Waldo Palmer, 414 Alexander, thought the ordinance was not fair.  He said the original ordinance should be eliminated and, now that the cans are aluminum, he said it was a free source of cigar money.  He said if the Council wants to eliminate the cans, eliminate the ordinance, otherwise it would be giving a newcomer into the City cash savings over present merchants.  Mr. Palmer said that was a disgrace. Referring to B364-97, Mr. Palmer said one of those people would be getting a double break -- a can exemption and an exemption to the sign ordinance.
    Mr. Campbell commented that he could read the ordinance several different ways.  Regarding Subsection "3" and the five year provision, he understood the ordinance to mean that would be when the exemption would begin.  He said it had not been specified when the exemption would stop.  Mr. Boeckmann explained that Section "a" starts out saying that, "The provision of this Article shall not apply to any sale on recently annexed property."  He said then the question is what is meant by "recently annexed property".  Mr. Boeckmann said that is defined in Section "b", and one of the elements for recently annexed property is that the property has been within the City limits for less than five years.  He said if the property has been annexed for longer than five years, it no longer meets the criterion of being recently annexed property.  Mr. Campbell said that was true, but as far as he was concerned that was not a clear statement.
    Mr. Campbell suggested that this section read to say, "the exemption, if granted, shall not be for more than five years".  Mr. Coffman suggested making an addition to the amendment.  He said the Council could add Section "d" which could say, "to no extent shall this exemption last any longer than five years from the date of the agreement signing."  He thought it might be redundant, but did not think it would hurt anything.
    Mayor Hindman asked if that addition would make Subsection "3" ambiguous.  Mr. Boeckmann said if he were reading it, with no background, he would be wondering what that statement meant.  Mr. Janku said if the same thing is stated twice, it would make people think that one of the sections was indicating something different.
    Mr. Janku wondered about the merit of tabling the issue again for further clarification.  He was concerned that the ordinance could be challenged.  At the end of five years, Mr. Campbell said if he was an owner of a business he would be taking it to court.  Mr. Boeckmann said if that were the case and the Council was of the same mind as exists now, he would think the exception would be repealed so it would be clear.  Mr. Campbell said he would prefer to make it clear from the start.
    Mr. Beck asked Mr. Patterson if he saw a problem with the Sewer District if this issue was tabled for two weeks.  Mr. Patterson said he did not see a problem as far as construction is concerned.
    Mr. Coffman asked if the phrase "annexation agreement" refers to the same thing as the pre-annexation agreements that have been previously discussed.  Mr. Boeckmann said the agreements have all been called annexation agreements, although some people call them pre-annexation agreements.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if the ordinance would allow the exemption for five years beginning now, or if the exemption would be permitted, regardless of the time.  Mayor Hindman explained that this ordinance would provide a five year exemption from the deposit ordinance from the date of the signing of an annexation agreement.  He further explained that if the property comes into the City before five years, an exemption to the deposit law would continue for the difference between the time that it was brought into the City and five years from the date the agreement was signed.  He said if the property was not annexed into the City within the five year period, the exemption would not apply at all.  Mrs. Crockett said if a business came into the City after two years, they would then be exempt from the container deposit ordinance for three years.  Mayor Hindman said that was correct.  Mrs. Crockett did not feel the deposit ordinance should be waived when there are businesses in Columbia that have dealt with the mess associated with the cans and bottles year after year in their stores.  She was hoping the health hazard that has been created in the stores would be addressed with the solid waste issue.  She saw the exemption as the beginning of a major problem.
    Mr. Kruse said the Council should keep in mind that this amendment to the ordinance only applies to existing establishments at the time of annexation.  It was decided this would not preclude someone from establishing a business before the actual annexation.  Mayor Hindman suggested that there be some type of established business that would meet some criteria for having been in operation for a period of years.
    Mr. Campbell said he was concerned about an existing convenience store being under the five year provision, while a new one that might be built just down the road would not be eligible for the exemption.
    Mr. Janku thought the Council should make it clear that it is not the deposit ordinance causing the problem, but rather the annexation laws that do not allow proper planning for annexation.
    Mr. Kruse asked how staff had arrived with the five year number.  Mayor Hindman said he suspected there was nothing magic about the number of years, but was probably considered by the staff to be a reasonable time.  Mr. Kruse said he was comfortable with the seven years on the fireworks activity because it was not an ongoing activity everyday of the year.  He thought maybe the five year exemption from the deposit ordinance was too long.
    Mayor Hindman suggested that the Council table the issue in order to discuss it at a work session.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that B361-97 be tabled to February 2, 1998, and that it be scheduled as a topic for the January 26, 1998, work session.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
    Mr. Patterson asked if tabling this issue would prevent the other agreements from preceding.  He saw this ordinance as affecting only one piece of property.  Mr. Boeckmann thought there would be a problem.  He believed the interconnection agreement with the Sewer District was contingent on the three annexation agreements.  He said the Council could authorize execution of all of the agreements because it would be up to each property owner on whether to sign the agreements prior to action on this ordinance.
    Mr. Campbell asked that the staff explore different time periods, one, three, five, etc.
    The motion to table, made by Mayor Hindman, seconded by Mr. Kruse, was passed unanimously by voice vote.

B363-97     Authorizing Change Order No. 1 and the engineer's final report for the William and
                    Anthony Drainage Project; and appropriating funds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the project has been completed at a cost of approximately $138,000, with $112,000 to be paid for by the stormwater utility funds, and the remainder of $26,270 to be paid for by sanitary sewer funds.
    B363-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B364-97     Authorizing execution of annexation agreements with Evans, Putnam, Putnam and
                    Storey; authorizing interconnection agreement with Boone County Regional Sewer
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck commented that this is the issue that had been previously discussed regarding the beverage containers exemption.  He said this bill would authorize staff to proceed with annexation agreements.
    Mayor Hindman asked about the free-standing animated sign that does not comply with the sign ordinance.  He asked if it would be permanent, or if the sign would have to come in to compliance at the end of the amortization period.  Mr. Boeckmann said the agreement did not deal with that.  He said this was basically a contractual obligation, not an exercise of the City's police power because the sign is located outside of the City limits.  He said the property owner would be agreeing to comply with a lot of City standards, but on this particular issue, the agreement allows construction of a sign that does not meet the sign ordinance requirements.  Once the property is annexed into the City, Mr. Boeckmann said grandfathered rights have been established under the sign ordinance.  He said the business would be subject to the sign ordinance provisions on non-conforming signs.  He believed some sign ordinance amendments would be coming through and, at that point, he was anticipating the issue would be dealt with.  Mr. Boeckmann thought basically that would mean treating this sign as all other signs in the City -- meaning that in the year 2007, all of the free-standing signs are supposed to be brought into conformance with the sign ordinance.  He said there is a pending issue the Council has not addressed regarding the sign ordinance, and variances that have been granted by the Board of Adjustment.  He said the Board suggested some time ago that the ordinance be amended.  When the Board granted variances, they were under the impression that those signs would have to come into conformance at the same time that all of the other signs in the City did.  However, the way the ordinance is written this is not covered.
    Mayor Hindman suggested that it be made clear at the time of the signing that the City takes the position that it will have the right to deal with the issue, and that this is not a situation where the City cannot later regulate the sign.
    Waldo Palmer, 414 Alexander, said he learned that this whole issue involved building a sewer line up through this property.  He said if these people put up a $15,000 sign, they were not going to want to take it down in a few years.  Mr. Palmer said it appeared the City was bribing this person in order to put a sewer line through his property.
    Mr. Beck said this agreement is not tied to the City's right to obtain a sewer easement.  Sewer easements can be acquired through eminent domain.  Mr. Beck reported this issue pertains to the pre-annexation agreement in which certain individuals have agreed to annexation under certain provisions, and sewer service is one of those provisions.  He said part of the land that is to be sewered is Lake of the Woods, but this will be handled through an agreement with the Boone County Regional Sewer District.  Mr. Beck said there are four or five groups involved and, if one or two of them decide not to be involved, someone else would have to pay a lot more.
    For clarification, Mr. Patterson described the history of the project.  He said the Pin Oak sewer project served the golf course, and the subdivision was developed as a Neighborhood Improvement District by the Boone County Sewer District.  In doing so, the pump station force main was designed and sized for that sewer district.  Then the opportunity to include the Storey, Putnam, and Evans properties came about when these individuals agreed to pay the Sewer District additional costs for enlarging the pump station and putting in the additional lines.  Mr. Patterson said the Sewer District has a contractual agreement with these three parties to put money into the project, and they also have a Neighborhood Improvement District to pay for the Sewer District tax bill assessment.  He said the City is not putting any money in to construction of sewer lines, it is being entirely done through Boone County Sewer District financing of the construction.  He said the option here is, if these three parties are not included in the agreement, going back to a much smaller project and still having lagoons and improper treatment in the area.  He said the idea is to get the area cleaned up.
    Mr. Palmer asked why the City had to give the one business an exemption on the deposit ordinance and the sign ordinance if it was the Sewer District building the sewer lines.
    Mayor Hindman said the annexation agreements do not provide any exemptions for the deposit ordinance.  He said this issue pertained to the free-standing sign, which would not apply on this land that is currently outside the City anyway.
    Mr. Campbell said he was in favor of going ahead with the agreements because, in essence, these people are grandfathered in with their sign.  He said the question that would have to be addressed is the rebuilding of it.  He said it is an interesting question, but is also part of the cost of annexation.  He said people would be coming in under grandfathered rules.
    Mr. Kruse said if this business had been in the City and had the animated sign when the sign ordinance was amended making such signs illegal and, therefore, existing signs were made non-conforming, they would have been given until the year 2007 to stop the animation.  He said the sign would not necessarily have to be torn down, they would just have to eliminate the moving lights.  He thought it seemed fair to allow them to have at least that period of time also.
    Mr. Janku said if this property becomes contiguous before the free-standing sign is constructed, the City Manager could petition for annexation.  He said at that point, the business would not have the authority to erect the sign.
    B364-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  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.

B354-97     Approving final plat of the Curtis Rollins Subdivision; Block 2, a major subdivision.
B355-97     Approving final plat of Renaissance Meadows, Plat 1, a major subdivision.
B362-97     Declaring the necessity to proceed with land acquisition for a recreation trail along Bear
                    Creek Phase II.
R1-98         Setting a public hearing regarding differential payment for a 12-inch water main in
                    Richland Heights, Phase 1 & 2.
R2-98         Setting a public hearing regarding differential payment for an 8-inch water main serving
                    Richland Heights, Phase 1 & 2.
R3-98         Setting a public hearing on voluntary annexation of property located on the southwest
                    corner of Vawter School Road and Old Mill Creek Road.
R4-98         Setting a public hearing on voluntary annexation of property located south of Thompson
                    Road, east of and adjacent to Garden City Subdivision.
R5-98         Setting a public hearing on voluntary annexation of property located west of Bearfield
                    Road and south of Nifong Boulevard.
R7-98         Approving amendment to the 1996 Emergency Shelter Grant Program contract.
R8-98         Authorizing agreement with Ms. A's Express Delivery to deliver and receive baggage at
                    Columbia Regional Airport.
R9-98         Authorizing execution of annual certifications and assurances required by the Federal
                    Transit Administration.

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

R6-98         Setting a public hearing for street construction on Brown Station Road.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck commented that this is a major project in northeast Columbia, with an estimated construction cost of $1.68 million.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if the street would be built in one phase.  Mr. Patterson said one contract for the entire project may be possible, but the construction would be phased.  Mrs. Crockett asked if the work would begin in 1999.  Mr. Patterson said construction can begin as soon as the right-of-way is obtained.  He said it appears that Route B will be finished by then, and it is currently thought that the south end still will not be torn up so they should be able to get this done in between the two projects.
    Mr. Janku said at the time of the public hearing, he wanted to address the issue of landscaping at the Brown Station Road/Route B intersection.  He said it would be a good area for an Adopt-a-Spot agreement.
    The vote on R6-98 was recorded as follows;  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, JANKU, CROCKETT.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R10-98     Requiring removal of an elevated walkway adjacent to Eighth and Cherry parking facility.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck reminded the Council that rehabilitation work is planned on the Eighth and Cherry facility upon the completion of the new garage in the southwest corridor.  He said currently, there is a connecting overhead walkway between a private structure north of the alley and the garage.  Mr. Beck said the agreement calls for giving one year notice to discontinue the use.  He said there was concern, because of the way the structure will be redesigned, as to what additional costs might be involved in connecting the walkway again.  Mr. Beck explained this would be contingent on what kind of siding was installed, and other things of that nature.
    Mayor Hindman indicated he would like to know what the cost for the walkway would be because he thought it was a good idea to provide access to the second floors.  Mr. Patterson said staff had no idea at this point as to what it might cost, but there would be additional design costs.  He thought he could safely say it would be a couple of thousand dollars worth of work.  He said pre-case concrete panels will be put on the exterior of the garage rather than the metal vertical panels.  While walkways could be accommodated, he said there would be considerable expense to remodifying the design and performing the construction to allow a walkway at this location.  Mr. Patterson did not think it should be a City expense if it was to be used for a private purpose.
    Mayor Hindman asked if the plans had been designed without consideration of the walkway.  Mr. Patterson said that was correct.  He said this was a long, drawn-out project and had been delayed several years in order to get the other parking structures in place.  He said this project went through a design process and public hearings had been held.  Mr. Patterson said there also had been a video made of the garage that was used as a demonstration.  He said the contract had come up at the time.  It was very questionable whether there were assignable rights under the agreement.  Mr. Patterson said staff did want to provide the courtesy of what the notice would have required from the original holder of the contract.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if the owner of the walkway had been notified that the garage was being redesigned, so this individual could have some input.  Mr. Patterson said the owner of the contract at the time was no longer there, and it had been an individual agreement.  He said they were aware that the walkway still existed and, in an effort to give full consideration of the contract, a full year's notice was given in accordance with the original contract.  Mr. Patterson pointed out that the walkway was not a required exit of the building, but an accommodation.
    Bruce Beckett, an attorney for Joan Menser, the owner of the buildings served by the walkway, said he had sent the Council a letter establishing his client's comments regarding the situation.  He said Ms. Menser had an architect, Mr. Connell, look at the walkway, and those comments had been forwarded to the Council just this afternoon.  Mr. Connell spoke with Protective Inspection and learned that the elevated walkway is not a condition of continuing to use the buildings in their present fashion.  However, it was indicated if the use ever changes, a second access would be required.  Because these buildings extend all the way to the lot lines, Mr. Beckett said the only method of obtaining a second access to the upper levels of the building would be to bore a stairway down through the lower floors.  He said that would be exceptionally expensive to do.  While the buildings could continue to be used without this elevated walkway to provide a second access, it was easy to see from purely a safety consideration and most certainly from a convenience consideration, the elevated walkway is very important to the upper level apartments.  Mr. Beckett asked that the Council not terminate Ms. Menser's right to continue to use the elevated walkway.  In addition, it had been indicated that Ms. Menser would volunteer to pay any additional design or engineering expense which might be incurred in connection with trying to incorporate this walkway into the renovations of the parking garage.  Mr. Beckett asked that the issue be delayed long enough for them to study the issue to determine what all would be involved.  He pointed out that the first Ms. Menser knew of this situation was from a letter sent by City staff dated December 19, 1997, which she received some time later.
    Mr Janku asked Mr. Beckett if he knew of any other property owners in the other adjoining buildings that might have an interest in participating in access, or providing an access to their buildings.  Mr. Beckett said there had been no inquiries made in that respect.  He said this was the only elevated walkway he knew of over into the parking garage.
    Mr. Campbell noted that Mr. Beckett's letter stated that his client would be willing to pay for any additional engineering and design work.  Mr. Beckett said that was correct.  Mr. Campbell asked if that would also include construction work.  Mr. Beckett said before Ms. Menser could agree to do that, some idea of the approximate cost is necessary.  He said his client is willing to put money where her mouth is -- to a reasonable degree.
    Mayor Hindman asked if the Council tabled this issue, whether that would affect the one year notice.  Mr. Patterson said staff could give the notice at any time.  It will take about a year for the rehabilitation, and the walkway would be down during that period of time.  He wanted it understood that the process would be the removal of all of the concrete decks, ramps, and everything in the structure.  He said the walkway would not exist during this construction phase.  Mr. Patterson said it would require Mr. Connell working with the City's consultant, and having anything being proposed reviewed to make sure it works with the design of the structure.
    Mr. Janku thought it would be interesting to know if there were other opportunities for access that might be beneficial to the garage and to the people trying to access Broadway.
    Mr. Beck said he was smiling because he remembered the great debate when Dave Baer come in to make the connection.  He said he knew this day was coming.
    Mayor Hindman said he liked the idea of the access to the garage, and said he agreed with Mr. Janku in that he thought it would be beneficial to look at every possible access.
    Mr. Beck said it was a question as to how much the utility picks up for a private purpose.
    Mr. Campbell said while this is true, the Council has long had the policy to encourage mixed use of the downtown area and wanted to encourage residential areas.  He said just as a parking garage will encourage the business use of downtown, he thought the Council should also encourage a residential use of downtown.
    Mr. Janku said if someone could go through a store to get to Broadway from the garage, he did not see why a store owner would object to that because of the foot traffic that would be generated.
    Mrs. Crockett made the motion to table R10-98 to January 20, 1998.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.

R11-98     Authorizing agreement with Crescent Meadows Association for City to provide sanitary
                  sewer services.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this issue is a follow-up to a work session held some time ago regarding the pump station that serves the Juvenile Justice Center.  He said authorization of this agreement would provide service to the mobile home park, with the provision that the existing sewers are brought up to standards.
    The vote on R11-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R12-98     Authorizing release of Deed of Trust on property located at 1104 Rangeline Street which
                  secures a CDBG rehabilitation loan.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the new owner of this property is requesting that the Council forgive a loan previously made to another owner.  The amount owed is $27,960.  Mr. Beck is concerned about starting a trend of this sort unless specific conditions could be established for forgiving these kinds of loans.  He said there had been many of these types of loans granted in the 80's.
    Mr. Janku asked how the City normally recovered loans.  He asked if it was taken care of at the sale of the property.  Mr. Hancock said some are amortized, and the older loans are due at the time of the sale.  Mr. Janku asked if the transfer title occurred with the tax sale in this case.  Mr. Hancock said that was correct.  Mr. Janku understood then that the City had no opportunity to recover the money.  Mr. Hancock said apparently the City did not, and when the home was redeemed by the other property owner, that was when the issue came up and she realized there was a loan against it.   She felt that the City should forgive the loan so she can make some repairs to the house.  Mr. Janku asked if the City had the ability to step in and foreclose on the property.  Mr. Hancock said that had been possible if the City had been notified of the sale, but notification does not always occur when in second or third position.  He said the City did not have a policy or a program to step-in and redeem it, or even to make a bid on the Court House steps.
    Mr. Beck said he would like to see the house fixed-up and occupied.
    Mr. Hancock said he had presented the Council with a letter from the new owner with a cost estimate on repairs, and a realtor's opinion of what the property is worth.  He said staff would like to sit down and work something out, but the owner is pretty insistent that the City forgive the loan -- and expects it to happen.
    Mr. Janku asked if there was any guarantee that the owner would use the property for a single family home ownership.  Mr. Hancock said the individual had first indicated that the home might be used as rental property, but then there had been the indication that she might live in it.  Mr. Hancock said staff is looking for the Council to deny the forgiveness, but continue to have staff work with the owner to bring something back to the Council.
    Mayor Hindman asked if there was any reason why the City could not just foreclose.  Mr. Hancock said it was not an amortized loan, so nothing is in arrears.  He did not know of any provisions that would allow the City to foreclose.
    Mr. Campbell asked if this loan made in 1983 was against the property, regardless of how many times it was turned over.  Mr. Hancock said technically, whoever is doing the title work notifies the City of the sale.  He said the City collects $60,000 to $70,000 per year from sales of these homes.  Mr. Campbell said if this home was sold, then technically the note is due.  Mr. Hancock said this is correct.  Mr. Campbell said he thought the City could foreclose.
    Mr. Boeckmann thought this home was sold at a tax sale, and he did not know what the language of the note was -- whether or not that would cover it or not.  Mr. Campbell said it was also sold from one owner to another.  Mr. Campbell said he was not suggesting that the City foreclose.
    Mayor Hindman felt a certain obligation to the public treasury, and he could not see forgiving a $27,000 loan on a piece of property that has significant value without doing further investigation.  He said while the Council is anxious to see rehabilitation of property, the City also needed to receive a fair value.
    Mr. Campbell said there was another public trust he felt strongly about -- the rehabilitation of as many properties as possible.  He said if the Council forgives this loan, that money cannot be used for rehabilitating any future properties.  He said if the loan is paid back, the money could be used to fund other projects.  Mr. Campbell reported the goal is to encourage and help maintain the housing stock in a wide area of the City.
    Mr. Janku mentioned there have been other previous situations where social service agencies have had liens on their property, and those had been transferred to the new property.  He said there was a question of precedent if the Council begins to forgive loans.  He said single family ownership is trying to be encouraged in this central city area.  Mr. Janku said that issue is also missing from this discussion.  He had talked to this woman a number of times on the phone, and has gotten ambiguous responses to that question.  He thought the Council should defeat the resolution and have Mr. Hancock try to work something out.
    The vote on R12-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  NO ONE.  VOTING NO:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  Bill defeated.

R14-98     Authorizing human rights enhancement agreements.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that $3,000 had been included in the FY98 Human Rights Commission budget for Human Rights Education and Outreach programs.  He said this resolution would authorize four agreements with local agencies to provide that service as recommended by the Commission.
    Mark Epstein, 1201 Paquin, Vice-Chair of the Human Rights Commission, offered to answer any questions about the proposals.  He said the Commission had been very pleased with the number of proposals received, and that this had been the first time that the amount of money requested was more than what could be given.  He said the Commission was able to give full funding to one of the proposals, and only partial funding to some others.  Some proposals were not recommended for funding.
    Mayor Hindman thanked the Commission for all of their work.
    Mr. Janku noted that the agency providing services is supposed to provide a report to the Office of Community Services within 30 days.  He asked that the Council receive a copy of this report when it is submitted.
    The vote on R14-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R15-98     Stating the City's position on state and federal legislative issues.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck indicated that this is the list the Council had discussed earlier, and had met with the State legislators to review.  He explained that this resolution would formalize the list so it could be forwarded to the City's legislators.
    Mayor Hindman commented that he personally did not agree with everything on the list, which made it difficult, but overall it was acceptable.  He did not think the Council could debate each issue individually, and said he was willing to support the resolution, although there are some areas that he did not agree with the exact language.
    Mr. Coffman said if the Council voted on it with that general understanding, it would help him also.
    Mr. Kruse asked that the letters "ML" be placed in front of item G.
    The vote on R15-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R16-98     Authorizing agreement with Sprint Spectrum to conduct radio tests at the downtown water
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said this is the company that wants to utilize the water tower for their radio antennas.
    The vote on R16-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R17-98     Authorizing settlement agreement with OFW Corporation.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that staff had been meeting with representatives of the OFW Corporation and had arrived at, what had been felt to be, a fair settlement.  This agreement is subject to Council approval.  He said the recommendation is to approve a settlement of $74,361.50, most of which is for extra width and thickness of streets and extra sized water mains.  He added that nearly all of the work would be done in any City subdivision in accordance with current policies.
    The vote on R17-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R18-98     Authorizing sale of surplus property to Roy and Joyce Calvert.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained there is a home near an 800 acre tract of ground the City owns in north central Columbia that has been land banked.  He said the home owners have been having problems with their private sewer system, and have been working with the Water and Light Department to obtain one and one-half acres from the City on which a small lagoon would be built to serve their property.  Staff review indicated there would be no problem disposing of that amount from the tract, so staff is recommending approval of the sale for $4,500.
    The vote on R18-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R19-98     Authorizing participation in a Federal Communications Commission proceeding to
                  pre-empt enforcement of House Bill 620.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that last year the State Legislature passed HB620 which severely restricted the ability of cities in the state involved in telecommunications systems.  He said a number of cities have joined together to challenge some of the decisions that have been made -- primarily Springfield, Missouri.  He said the Council had asked the staff to talk to the City of Springfield about a pro-rated amount, less than 50/50.
    Mr. Campbell understood that the City would be contributing one-third of the attorney's fees.  Mr. Boeckmann said $1,700 is what the smaller cities have contributed.  He said there may be more, but he said he would not count on it.  He said Columbia would pay basically one-third.  Mr. Campbell asked about the City's liability.  Mr. Boeckmann said it was slightly less than $5,000 and slightly less than $10,000.  Mr. Coffman understood it was not expected to be more than $15,000.
    Mr. Boeckmann explained that HB620 basically limits the ability of the cities to engage in telecommunication systems; however, there are exceptions in what cities can do regarding issues related to medical and educational purposes on the Internet.  The Federal Telecommunications Act passed in 1996 basically summarizes that no state or local government can pass legislation which prevents any entity from engaging in telecommunication services.  Mr. Boeckmann said the issue is whether or not any entity includes a city.  He said another issue is whether or not a state can limit what its political subdivisions do.  He explained that Columbia is a Charter City, which means we have all of the power the legislature can give us, except what is limited by the constitution, our own Charter, or by the legislature.  Under that state analysis, he said the legislature has limited what the City can do, and it is a question of whether or not the federal government can pre-empt and mandate that.  Mr. Boeckmann said the proposal is to file an action with the Federal Communications Commission that would pre-empt HB620 to prohibit the State of Missouri from enforcing that statute.
    Mr. Coffman said when HB620 was passed, discussions revolved around whether cities should be able to provide telephone service.  He did not know if that was really the role the City of Columbia should be in.  He had not heard that any city indicated that was what they wanted to do.  To the extent that Columbia might have excess capacity on lines that have already been built, Mr. Coffman thought HB620 went too far by preventing cities from leasing this excess out to other small telecommunications competitors that might want to use that space.  He thought the City could provide a lot of benefits to the citizens by providing additional facilities that could be leased out to anyone.  Mr. Coffman thought the law suit was important to keep the interest of the citizens in the forefront.
    Mayor Hindman considered it extremely important that Columbia be in a position to provide opportunities for communications.  He thought the kinds of businesses and institutions that the City tries to attract may need very advanced communications.  He was not sure that the private sector would necessarily find it profitable to do that and, if that is true, the City may need to be in position to do it to keep Columbia competitive -- the way it should be.  Mayor Hindman thought it would be well worth the investment and effort.
    Mr. Coffman reiterated that the Council is not suggesting that the City provide telephone service, just providing facilities that other companies could lease for use.
    The vote on R19-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

PR20-98     Establishing a policy on spending City funds for playground equipment on public school
    Mr. Beck explained because this is a policy resolution, it requires being held over to the next meeting.
    Mr. Janku mentioned that he had an amendment for this policy that would address the situation where there is income disparity between schools.  He said some schools are more easily able to raise funds where other schools are not.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the Council amend PR20-98 by adding another factor for consideration which would say, whether the school is in a CDBG eligible area or has a significant percentage of students from a low-income background. The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. Campbell said he agreed with Mr. Janku, but said the Council did not want to preclude people in those areas from attempting to help themselves.
    The amendment, made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mr. Campbell, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

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

B1-98         Authorizing construction of a skateboard facility in Cosmo Recreation Area.
B2-98         Authorizing land acquisition to construct sidewalk along the north side of West Broadway.
B3-98         Authorizing land acquisition for roadway corridor for Southampton Drive/Green Meadows
                    loop connection.
B4-98         Authorizing payment of differential costs between the construction of a 12-inch and an
                    8-inch main serving Richland Heights, Phase 1 & 2.
B5-98         Authorizing payment of differential costs between the construction of an 8-inch and a
                    6-inch main serving Richland Heights, Phase 1 & 2.
B6-98         Approving engineer's report and authorizing payment of differential costs for an 8-inch
                    water main serving Bedford Walk, Phase 6.
B7-98         Calling for bids for construction of a flood intake structure at Wetland Treatment Unit No. 3
                    in the McBaine bottoms.
B8-98         Approving final plat of Hyde Park Planned Commercial Subdivision, Block 1, a major
B9-98         Amending Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordinances relating to the S-R District (Scenic
                    Roadway Area Overlay).
B10-98       Rezone property located on the north side of I-70 Drive NW and west of Garden Drive from
                    A-1 to R-1.
B11-98       Approval of revised PUD Plan for Highlands, Phase 8, and variance to the subdivision
                    regulations relating to maximum cul-de-sac length, and street closure.
B12-98       Approval of replat of Lot 83 of Country Club Villas III.
B13-98       Approval of replat of Lot 73 of Country Club Villas III.
B14-98       Assessing special tax for weed cutting to abate a nuisance at 2016 S. Deerborn Circle.
B15-98       Calling the municipal election to be held April 7, 1998 to elect the Mayor and Council
                    members for Wards 3 and 4.
B16-98       Authorizing acquisition of the Boone House located at 10 N. Fourth Street; authorizing
                    assistance to raise funds for restoration.

(A)     Traffic Accidents - Stadium Boulevard, I-70 Drive NW and Business Loop 70 West.
    Mr. Beck explained that the police department had prepared this report spanning a three year period in which there had been 42 accidents at this location, and 14 of them involved injuries.  He said a total of 22 people had been injured, but there had been no fatalities.  Most accidents were shown to occur between 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
    Mr. Janku thanked the staff for their prompt response.  He said the numbers were incredible and he was thankful there were no fatalities.  He said the people living in that area had pointed out that drivers making left turns at that intersection (north of I-70), and cars waiting to make a left turn located in the inner most lane, basically obstructs the sight line of other vehicles coming from behind and in the lane closer to the curb.  He said residents are requesting some sort of protected left turn.  Mr. Janku assumed it would have to be a restricted left turn.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the staff be directed to contact the Highway Department to see if they would be amenable.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(B)     TreeKeepers Volunteer Program.
    Mr. Beck explained that this would involve a six week training period, one night a week.  He said people involved would then donate 36 voluntary hours for a City tree care/tree maintenance program.
    Report accepted.

(C)     Old 63 South Speed Limits.
    Mr. Beck noted that the Public Works staff had conducted some surveys and had come up with a recommended speed limit to keep things as uniform as possible.  The recommendation is that the speed limits be lowered to 35 mph and 45 mph.  The next step would be for the Council to indicate whether or not an ordinance should be drafted for review.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the staff be directed to prepare an ordinance for Council consideration.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D)     Transfer of Funds Report.
    Report accepted.


    Mrs. Crockett asked at what point new employees begin receiving health insurance.  Mr. Beck said new employees are eligible for insurance after six months.  Mrs. Crockett asked if insurance can be purchased during the interim.  Mr. Beck said this is not possible under current guidelines.  Mrs. Crockett thought the State, the University, and the County of Boone had a provision that employees could purchase insurance from day one, or at least apply for it.  She asked that the City look into this situation to make sure employees have insurance.  Mr. Beck said he knew staff is looking at trying to close the gap somewhat, and this issue is being reviewed.
    Mr. Janku said he did not know that the City should only provide insurance for purchase to new employees.  He said if the City is trying to recruit good people, he did not know why someone would take a six month gap in insurance coverage to come work for the City.  Mayor Hindman did not realize this situation even existed, and thought new employees should be provided insurance immediately after being hired.  Mr. Campbell said University employees have insurance from day one.
    Mrs. Crockett noted from the new Highway 63 to Old 63, around the Broadway Market Place, the traffic lanes change and narrow down.  She had been asked why this is, and could it be changed to have the same number of lanes.  Mrs. Crockett asked the staff to contact the state to see if there could be the same number of lanes all of the way between the two highways.  Mr. Patterson said the staff had been in contact with the State, and had also looked at other options to temporarily help some of the turning point movements at this location.  He said the state does not have funding for the project and it is not in their short term action plan.  He said it would be quite some time before the state could do anything.  Mrs. Crockett said she wanted it brought to the state's attention.
    Regarding the sign ordinance, Mr. Kruse said he had been in discussions with the Chamber of Commerce and a couple of sub-committees regarding some additional revisions to the sign ordinance he proposed about 18 months ago.  He had met with representatives of the Chamber a few weeks ago, and their position at this point is that they do not wish to see any amendments to the sign ordinance considered.  Mr. Kruse reported this included what he considered to be administrative amendments that would clean up some inconsistencies in the current language, dealing with the issues discussed earlier regarding amortization and annexation.  Mr. Kruse said he told the Chamber at the last meeting that he would not be pursuing any amendments at this point in time, although there are some obvious adjustments that need to be considered.  He thought the approach at this point may be to schedule this issue for a work session.
    Mr. Coffman raised the issue discussed earlier regarding the landscaping of parking lots and how the Council might revise the ordinance to better express the intent to evenly distribute trees throughout a parking lot.  He wanted to see something that would require trees within the interior of the parking lot.  Mr. Coffman asked the staff to report back on how this might be accomplished.  Mr. Janku said the City's ordinance was drawn up with the flexibility to allow people to plant trees and not take away parking.
    Mr. Coffman made the motion that the staff be directed to report back on the issue.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Janku commented on how successful First Night had been.  He thought the organizers needed to be commended.
    Mr. Janku noted that the Council had received a report from Enterprise Development Corporation about the housing program.  He said there had been a great success last year in new home ownership in the City.  In St. Louis, the St. Louis Equity Fund has been developed, which is a way of getting tax credits for businesses that support similar type programs.  He said large insurance corporations have made major contributions in other communities.  He suggested that the staff look into how that happened in St. Louis, with the thought in mind of getting other companies to participate.
    Mr. Janku explained that in Jefferson City, they have established something called the Downtown Fitness Mile, which is modeled after similar fitness programs that exist in shopping malls.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the Parks and Recreation Department work with the Downtown Association to determine if a fitness walk through downtown Columbia could be established, maybe linking some of the sights, the new trailhead park and the Boone Home.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mayor Hindman said regarding the Grant School playground situation, he thought the City's participation is a good thing.  He said the schools are a good target for this type of opportunity because it is public property that is scattered around different neighborhoods.  He suggested that ways be sought to encourage this type of neighborhood facility.  He also thought the Council should be thinking about the opportunity of doing similar things in small tracts of land around these neighborhoods, not necessarily limited to schools.  Mayor Hindman said there was a donation of land earlier this evening, and maybe a small portion of it could be used for playground equipment.  He said the City could end up with a lot of small areas where mothers could take their young children to get out of the house.  Mr. Campbell said neighborhood pocket parks are part of the City's current system.  He said there were some scattered around the City now, but the Council has not been pushing them as of late.  Mayor Hindman said what he was talking about did not need to be even a single lot, just a fraction of a lot.  Mr. Janku said it was a good point and perhaps it could be done in conjunction with established homeowner associations, and they can provide the maintenance.  He said pieces of land people want to donate could be used for that purpose.  Mr. Janku stated he would like to see a report on ways to do it, and also incentives the City could establish to get neighbors to participate.  He reported the City would have to provide some financial help, but would also like to get something back in the way of an agreement to maintain or contribute to it financially.  Mr. Janku thought perhaps tax credits could be provided through some kind of neighborhood improvement district.
    Mr. Janku said the City has received a donation of land before, and there is one case in which the developer donated the land and it is not being developed.  He said if the City promised to put equipment in within a year or two, he thought a developer would be much more likely to donate property because it would help them market the residential area.
    Mr. Campbell pointed out that donating a lot, in certain parts of the City, is a very expensive kind of activity.
    Mayor Hindman said donations may not be practical and, in some cases, the idea might be for the neighborhood to get together and acquire a small tract that is too small to be used as a lot.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the staff report back on the issue.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.

                                                                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                             Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                             City Clerk