JANUARY 4, 1999

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, January 4, 1999, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri.  The roll was taken with the following results: Council members JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, and COBLE were present.  The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of December 21, 1998, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mrs. Crockett.

    Upon his request, Mr. Kruse made the motion that Mr. Coffman be allowed to abstain from voting on R9-99.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    The agenda, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Ms. Coble and a second by Mr. Campbell.

1.     Gloria Seabaugh, Human Resources Director, recognition for her 21 years of City Service.
    Mayor Hindman read a resolution of appreciation, signed by the Council, and presented it to Mrs. Seabaugh.
    Mrs. Seabaugh said she is proud to have served the City of Columbia.  She added that she has enjoyed her stay with the City and that Columbia is fortunate to have good employees and a great citizenry.
    Mr. Beck commented that Mrs. Seabaugh has done an outstanding job for the City.  He was sure all City employees appreciate the services she has provided over the years.


B352-98     Rezoning 1809 Vandiver Drive from O-1 to C-P.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman explained that a letter from the applicant was received today requesting that B352-98 be tabled to the February 15, 1999, Council meeting.
    Mr. Hancock explained that the zoning request is for C-P planned business on the tract, with office uses plus an allowance for retail and wholesale jewelry sales.  He said some other uses had been discussed at the Planning and Zoning level.  The Commission recommended denial of the request.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that B352-98 be tabled to the February 15, 1999, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B379-98     Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code to modify provisions relating to sidewalk
                    requirements in industrial zoned districts and along expressways and marginal access
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the current ordinance does not provide for sidewalks along expressways in industrial zoned areas.  During earlier Council discussions, the staff and Commission had been asked to review whether or not other areas should be included for sidewalks.  He said the Council had asked for an amendment to the recommendation made by the Commission.  Mr. Beck stated the amendment would require sidewalks along both sides of expressways and frontage roads, unless the Council determines that potential or existing pedestrian volumes do not necessitate sidewalks to safeguard public health, safety, and welfare.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, was interested in the language relating to "potential or existing pedestrian volumes".  He assumed there are standard ways of measuring this, and wondered what it might be.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Hancock explained that this language has probably been in the existing ordinance since subdivision regulations came to be.  He said it is likely a vestige of a time when sidewalks were not determined to be absolutely necessary in all industrial areas, and provided some criteria to the Planning Commission to judge whether or not sidewalks were needed.
    Mr. Janku thought it is positive that potential volumes are mentioned because obviously, until the sidewalks are built, a lot of times no one would know the need exists.
    Mayor Hindman said he also thought that was the point of the language.  He said if the determination is made not to build a sidewalk because there is no existing pedestrian traffic, that is a bad mistake because one of the reasons there is no pedestrian traffic is because it is basically uninvited.  He said a positive thing is that sidewalks will be constructed with this amendment unless the Council makes an exception.  The only way to improve on it would be to stress there be fairly exceptional conditions.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that B379-98 be amended per the amendment sheet.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    B379-98, as amended, was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE.   VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B384-98     Authorizing construction of a 12-inch water main serving Rocky Creek Subdivision;
                    payment of differential costs above those to install a 6-inch water main.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this project is located in south central Columbia and is in accordance with City policy as to who pays what portion of the water main.  The main is approximately 1,060 feet long, with an estimated cost of $10,300 to be paid out of the Water and Light fund for the improvement.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B384-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B388-98     Establishing R-1 permanent zoning on property located on the north side of New Haven
                    Avenue, east of Lemone Industrial Boulevard.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted this is where New Haven School is located, with the property being owned by the Columbia School District.  The Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Planning staff recommend approval of the request.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B388-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B389-98     Establishing R-1 permanent zoning on property located on the east side of Strawn Road,
                    south of I-70 Drive S.W.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this 1.9 acre tract of land is also owned by the School District.  Again, approval is recommended by both the staff and the Commission.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B389-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B391-98     Rezoning property located at the northwest corner of Nifong Boulevard and Forum
                    Boulevard from R-1 and R-3 to PUD-5 and C-P.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman noted that a request had been received asking to table this issue until February 1, 1999.
    Mr. Campbell noted that he had been contacted by some of the people in opposition and he had told them he thought the issue would be continued.  Mayor Hindman said he had experienced the same thing.
    Mr. Hancock explained that this is a fairly complex request for commercial, office, and residential zoning.  He said quite a bit of information had been provided to the Council on the issue.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that B391-98 be tabled to the February 1, 1999, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B390-98     Granting a variance to the subdivision regulations so that sidewalks will not be required
                    along Walcox Drive and Sinclair Street for certain lots in Grand Oaks Subdivision, Plat 2.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the Commission voted 5-4 against the motion to deny a variance.  He said that meant the Commission was recommending that a variance be granted.  He said the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission recommended that the sidewalk be required.  He explained the reason for no sidewalks presently was because it is an unimproved street and sidewalks were not previously required along unimproved streets.  Now that the policy has been changed, Mr. Beck stated it is necessary to obtain a variance.
    Mayor Hindman asked if it was acceptable for a developer to put in a temporary sidewalk where the street will, perhaps, at some date be brought up to standards.  Mr. Hancock explained that the street has been there for quite some time in an unimproved fashion, and the plat came in during 1995 -- when there was no policy requiring sidewalks along unimproved streets.  Now, however, the owner is requesting building permits on the lots, and given the Council's emphasis on sidewalks along unimproved streets, the staff is suggesting a variance be sought.  Mr. Hancock has not spoken to the builder about a temporary sidewalk of any type.  He reported staff has seen quite a few of these variance requests for sidewalks along unimproved streets, and he suspected they would be seeing more as a result of no longer relying on the past policy.
    Mr. Beck asked if that was the policy of previously platted lots.  Mr. Hancock said the road was in place and when the plat came through in 1995, it was just an unimproved street and the developer had been allowed to plat along an unimproved street.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if Walcox Drive is on the CIP plan.  The reply was no.  Mrs. Crockett noted if a sidewalk is required, there is a chance the walks would get torn out when Walcox Drive is improved several years down the road.  Mr. Patterson said if the street was built, it would be done by tax bill (petitioned to do so by property owners).
    Mr. Janku asked about Sinclair and the potential for improvement.  Mr. Patterson said that Sinclair is an unfunded, long-range project on the Master Thoroughfare Plan.      David Hetzler, 3823 Cedar Lane, explained that he is the owner of the lots, not the developer.  He has major concerns about Sinclair because where Walcox turns off of Sinclair, it only goes to the back of his lot (Lot 9), and then basically becomes a gravel road leading to one more home.  He explained that he has built two homes on Walcox (Lots 4 and 5).  Mr. Hetzler reported the neighbors are concerned that if he has to build sidewalks on two of the lots, the entire neighborhood would have to build walks.  He noted the subdivision was older and he referred to it as a country subdivision.  Mr. Hetzler relayed that the owner of the recently sold home does not want sidewalks either.
    Regarding a temporary sidewalk, Mr. Hetzler said that involves a lot of money for constructing something that will not be done right.  He noted there are very specific requirements for sidewalks, and every time a street is put in, the centerline changes somewhat (as do the elevations), so the sidewalks most likely would not match up and would have to be torn out.
    Mayor Hindman thought the Council had been allowing sidewalks to be constructed that are setback further from the curb.  Mr. Patterson said that is correct, the specifications and standards being referred to are in the design standards, but the City has looked at alternatives and if something is proposed that is a deviation from the standards, variances had been granted from that in the past.  He said staff would be more than happy to look at anything that could be brought in.  Mr. Patterson thought Mr. Hetzler was saying that if the walk is set back further, he would be getting back further into the lot and the sidewalks would be very close to the buildings.  He said Mr. Hetzler may have to be confined to the right-of-way and that could limit some of the things he can do.  Mr. Patterson explained it is staff's position that this plat was not given a variance when it was approved by Council, therefore, it is subject to the requirement unless Council grants a variance to the sidewalks.
    Mr. Janku asked what the front yard setback was.  Mr. Hetzler replied that the setback is not an issue, they still have the 25 foot easements.  He reported if sidewalks are constructed to City specifications, there would be an unimproved street, a four-foot ditch, and then a sidewalk.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if these would be the only sidewalks in the subdivision.  Mr. Hetzler said that was correct.  Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Patterson if he was saying, when the street is reconstructed to City standards, the sidewalk would be built at that time and it would all be tax billed.  Mr. Patterson said a sidewalk could be built at that time and tax billed against the property owners.  He said the City would be limited to what could be billed, only the local residential street portion of the project could be tax billed.  He said it was possible the sidewalks could be done separately at some point, but it is unlikely the street would be improved in the foreseeable future.  Based on what has been said tonight and what she read in the Planning and Zoning minutes, Mrs. Crockett said she is in favor of granting the variance.  She saw no value in having sidewalks in front of four or five lots.
    Mayor Hindman said he understood the arguments for granting a variance, but he was concerned about the potential of Sinclair becoming a significant carrier of traffic as time goes on.  He said there is no way of knowing when it might become an improved street, which may be years and years away.  He stated those are the very areas where there are no shoulders, but there are pedestrians and cars.  Mayor Hindman thought that to be a serious problem, and the City is trying to properly tackle the business of walkways along unimproved streets.  In many ways, that is where sidewalks are needed the most.
    Mr. Campbell said if Sinclair is ever built, it will be a very major project.  He said what is being discussed would constitute probably less than five percent of the sidewalk for this particular area.  He said when the street is improved, that would be the time to address the whole sidewalk structure.
    Even if Sinclair Street is built north of Nifong, Mr. Kruse asked where it would go.  He asked if there was a subdivision.  Mr. Campbell said there is a house in the area and then bluffs.  Mr. Kruse observed the sidewalk would not go anywhere then.  Mr. Campbell said it would not, unless a bridge is built.
    Mr. Janku said the Council could separate the issue and approve the variance for the walks on Walcox and not on Sinclair.
    Ms. Coble said it did not seem to make sense to have an unimproved street, a big ditch, new sidewalks that go nowhere and connect nowhere, and then if the road is improved, the sidewalk would be torn out.  She said the list of negatives did not seem to fit any good purpose.  She did not think it would set a precedent  that could never be recovered from in terms of sidewalks along unimproved streets.  Ms. Coble noted the entire Council is in agreement that sidewalks are important, but she did not see this was as the one to take a stand on.
    Mayor Hindman argued that each time the Council is confronted with one of these variances in which the sidewalk does not go anywhere, they are assuring that it will not go anywhere if the variance is granted.
    Mr. Campbell said he looks at a sidewalk and evaluates what the potential is for the remaining structure to be built.  In this case, most of the subdivision is already constructed.  He said they are dealing with a little tip at the end of it.  Mr. Campbell explained if the sidewalk in question pertained to an entire area, that would be a different thing, but it is not the case in this instance.
    B390-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, COBLE.  VOTING NO: KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B392-98     Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code to prohibit parking on both sides of Clark Lane
                    from the U.S. 63 connector to Crump Lane.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained this is the newly paved area on Clark Lane where there should obviously not be parking.  He said cars are parking along the road and it is creating sight distance problems.  Both the Public Works staff and Police Department agree parking should be eliminated.
    Mrs. Crockett commented that she has received phone calls about some of the employees of the businesses in the area parking on the shoulder.  She said the Police cannot do anything unless signs are posted.
    B392-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B393-98     Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code to authorize the sale of parking permits on the
                    former GTE parking lot located at the southwest corner of Cherry and Fifth Streets.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said the decision was made to buy all of the property on this block and then make a portion of it available for the garage and the rest for the Health Adventure Center.  He said this particular area is paved, and until such time it is utilized for something else, it was felt it should be rented out monthly for parking permits.  It was determined there could be 28 spaces and each space could be rented for $25 per month.
    Mr. Janku understood the property was purchased through the Public Improvement Fund.  Mr. Beck said he thought it was a combination and probably has been pro-rated -- that which is on the parking utility and that which was not on the parking utility.   Mr. Janku thought if the funds to purchase the property came from something other than the parking utility funds, then maybe some of the rental funds should go back into the other account.
    Mrs. Crockett asked why the rates were so inexpensive.  Mr. Patterson explained that is the surface parking rate for all uncovered surface areas.  He said staff felt the City should charge the same rate as had been applied to the other lots.
    Ms. Coble said she is bothered by this because the City has just built two new parking garages and leased this land.  She observed while nothing is happening at this particular location, they are fussing in other parts of downtown about precious land.
    B393-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B394-98     Authorizing the City Manager to execute a supplemental urban agreement with the MO
                    Department of Transportation for installation of sidewalks along Route B at US 63
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this would fill in a potential gap along the east side of 63.  He said a sidewalk has been built north of the overpass.  This section is at the overpass itself, about four-tenths of a mile in length.  The estimated cost is $30,000 which would come from the capital improvement fund in the budget, with the monies from the one-quarter percent sales tax earmarked for sidewalks.
    Mr. Janku asked if the City could apply to the state for funding from the successor to ISTEA, as opposed to being paid out of the general fund.  Mr. Beck thought applications for that is in February.  He said it is another item staff could take up with the Council.  It was Mr. Beck's understanding that sidewalks are not a real high priority where City's have Public Works Departments.  Mr. Beck is not sure why that would separate Columbia from other cities; but in smaller cities, sidewalks might be a higher priority when applications are made.
    B394-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B397-98     Confirming the contract for the construction of the MC-7 Trunk Sewer serving Thornbrook
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck commented that nine bids had been received with the low bid coming from Sterling Excavation and Erection, Inc., out of Jefferson City, in the amount of $110,972.50.  He said it would be paid for from the sewer utility fund.  The engineer's estimate was about $150,000.
    B397-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B398-98     Confirming the contract for the construction of the Glen Eagle Drive storm drainage
                    improvement project; appropriating funds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that seven bids had been received on this project with N-J Wilson being low bid at $125,000.  The engineer's estimate was  $120,000.
    B398-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.   Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B399-98     Confirming the contract for the construction of the H-4 Trunk Sewer.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that seven bids had been received with the low bid of J. C. Industries being recommended at $139,960.50.  The engineer's estimate had been about $173,000.
    B399-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES:  JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B401-98     Appropriating funds to return local use tax money to the Missouri Department of Revenue.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck reminded the Council that $2,192,000 of use tax monies had been allocated in the budget, and he had recommended that $798,000 of it go into a public improvement fund, but not designate it for any specific project.  He said the state has now asked the City to pay back an additional $208,942.81.  This reimbursement will come out of the public improvement fund that was not shown for a specific project.  Mr. Beck reported there would still remain over $500,000 not designated for a specific project.  He indicated that with the old Police and Fire Building, which is being converted into the Police/Joint Communication offices, additional money would be needed over and above the preliminary estimate.  He said that would come out of the remaining $589,000 of unspecified funds.  Mr. Beck pointed out that the City saved $23,458.50 on interest by making the payment in June.
    Mr. Coffman asked if the additional amount owed was caused by a recalculation.  Mr. Beck said that was the explanation given by the State Department of Revenue.   Mr. Coffman was hopeful this would be the final amount.
    B401-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE.  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.

B385-98     Approving the engineer's final report; authorizing payment of differential costs for water
                    main serving Stoneridge Estates, Phase 1 & 2 (Part 1); accepting a conveyance.
B386-98     Approving the engineer's final report; authorizing payment of differential costs for water
                    main serving Arcadia, Plat 4 (Part 2); accepting a conveyance.
B387-98     Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B395-98     Approving the engineer's final report for the 1998 sidewalk project.
B396-98     Acquiring easements and land in fee simple for the construction of the North Parklawn
                    Court storm water drainage project.
B400-98     Confirming the contract for the improvements to Conley Road from I-70 Drive to the
                    northern terminus.
R1-99         Setting a public hearing: sidewalk, curbing and parking area construction south of the
                    new downtown fire station.
R2-99         Setting a public hearing: construction of sanitary sewer Wetlands Treatment Unit No. 4.
R3-99         Setting a public hearing: construction of the Bear Creek Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail,
                    Phase III.
R4-99         Setting a public hearing: water main upgrade along the north side of Mexico Gravel Road.
R5-98         Authorizing execution of annual certifications and assurances required by the Federal
                    Transit Administration.
R6-99         Authorizing amendment No. 3 to the fiber optic agreement with the Curators of the
                    University of Missouri.
R7-99         Authorizing contracts with home health care agencies for homemaker/personal care

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

R8-99     Authorizing an agreement with Show-Me Central/Habitat for Humanity for a grant of CDBG
                funds for the development of Haden Park Subdivision.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that $40,000 had been allocated to Habitat for Humanity to be used primarily for infrastructure.  Mr. Beck stated Mr. Hancock had worked with the group, and this agreement is a result of those meetings.
    Referring to the statement of work in the agreement, Mr. Janku noted the language read, "installing streets, sidewalks, and water lines".  He asked if there was any assurance that sidewalks would actually be installed as they would not technically be required because this property was platted prior to the present sidewalk requirements.  Mr. Hancock said the staff would require them if that was the stipulation in the agreement, and the walks would have to be installed according to City standards.  Mr. Janku said all of the comments he has heard have been to the contrary.  Also, he noted this property abuts the Bear Creek Greenbelt and there has been a big question about access to the trail for the potential residents of this 15 lot subdivision.  Mr. Janku asked if that had been addressed.  Mr. Hancock replied that a subdivision plat had not been prepared for staff review.  He said that is a point that has been made in the past, and staff would at least discuss it with the applicants and their engineer when they saw a plat adjacent to the greenbelt and it looked like there was an opportunity to provide some access.  Mr. Janku understood this property had been preliminary platted years ago, and that there is no requirement that a preliminary plat be brought back.  Mr. Hancock said his department focuses more on the final plat on things like that.  He said the Council would see a final plat, and that is the point to focus on the sidewalks and the trail access.
    Mayor Hindman asked if the Council would be in a position to reject it as a final plat.  Generally speaking, if the applicant meets all of the requirements of the subdivision ordinance, Mr. Boeckmann said the Council has to pass it.  Mr. Janku circulated a copy of the plat that had been provided him.
    Bill Marshall, project engineer of Marshall Engineering, noted that development has been final platted.  He said it had been completed back in the 70's by Raymond Freeze and some other developers at that time.  As far as he knew, the owners were intending to provide sidewalks because Habitat plans to develop this property as a community which would have children in it.  Mr. Marshall noted that the problem would be that the sidewalks would not continue out of the 15 lots over to Northland.  At this particular point, Mr. Marshall said there was no real fire protection in the area and development of the water lines would provide fire protection for at least those residents on Haden Drive, as well as those in this particular part of the subdivision.  He reported they would supply basically everything that is required today.  Mr. Marshall noted Habitat realized the requirements in the 70's are not what would be required of them today.
    Regarding the access to the trail, Mr. Marshall said it could be accessed, if someone were to climb down the hill.  He explained that it is very steep at this point on the property and would be almost impossible.  Mr. Marshall stated if the trail were to come to the south side, which would be on this property, he said it would be a different story.  His understanding was that the trail would be on the north side of Bear Creek.   He noted there is also a potential that Habitat may never develop the three northern lots because of the topography.  He said those lots would be suited for walk-out basements, and Habitat has not spent that kind of money in the past (constructing a basement under a house).  Mr. Marshall stated Habitat could sell those tracts to someone, but he did not know what they would do with the lots.
    Mr. Janku asked Mr. Marshall if he has the authority to make commitments on behalf of Habitat.  Mr. Marshall said he did not.
    Annette Weaver, 2738 Northland Drive, explained that she lives in the neighborhood just adjacent to this proposed subdivision.  She understood that block grant funds are used to benefit low income neighborhoods and low income families.  Ms. Weaver stated this is a middle income neighborhood with no low income families.  She said Habitat would have to move the low income families in to make it a low income neighborhood to benefit them.  Ms. Weaver reported residents are concerned that the money should be used to benefit the entire neighborhood in such a way that everyone would profit from amenities such as sidewalks, storm sewers, and public access to the greenbelt.  Providing the infrastructure costs could benefit the entire neighborhood, not just a tiny segment of it.
    Mr. Janku asked Ms. Weaver if she had been involved in any meetings when the sidewalk issue was discussed.  Ms. Weaver said she had, and her opinion was that the applicants felt this was a finalized plat and sidewalks were not required on it -- walks are expensive and Habitat needed to keep costs down.  She reported she does not attend their board meetings because she is not allowed to go.
    Sharon Pike, 1203 Haven, President of the Haden Park Neighborhood Association, said she was speaking as an individual this evening, not for the neighborhood.  She concurred with the remarks made by Ms. Weaver.  She said that she and her husband see greenspace as a major neighborhood asset, and for that reason, they now own seven of the 13 bluff lots.  She reported they are checking into options for donating these lots for permanent greenspace.  Ms. Pike noted Habitat owns the three remaining bluff lots.  She stated they would be willing to trade two lots for the bluff lots.  Ms. Pike reported the property to the east is owned by Barb Larkin, who has also expressed willingness to donate her land for permanent greenspace.  She explained that she and her husband, being walkers, are looking forward to the trail.  However, that is not the only reason they want neighborhood access to the trail.  Ms. Pike noted, at present, the only way to Oakland Park and to the school is along Northland, which is a narrow blacktop road with no sidewalks.  She stated residents like the way it looks because it adds to the rural beauty, and as there are no plans in the future to widen the road, they need a safe way to get to the school and the park.  If an access was provided along the back over to the trail, they would have that safe way.   Ms. Pike wanted to see the block grant money benefit the entire subdivision and not just the 15 lots.
    Ken Pike, 1203 Haven, thought it perfectly feasible, with proper planning, to go down through Habitat's back lots to get to the trail.  He said it would take some inventiveness, but it was doable.
    Harold Anderson, 2900 Northland, spoke in favor of spending the money on greenspace because it would be a continuation of the space the City has already paid for.
    Because the subdivision was final platted in the 70's, Mr. Campbell asked what the Council could do as far as changing it.  Mr. Boeckmann said generally the way they have treated the issue is if property has been final platted, the applicant can develop it as it was platted.  He said he would have to study the subdivision code to see if there is any flexibility.  Mr. Boeckmann indicated he was not sure how the subdivision looks in terms of how it would comply with the current standards.
    Mr. Campbell asked if the whole area is eligible for Community Development Block Grant Funds.  Ms. Coble said the property is was not in the census tract.  Mr. Campbell asked how the money could be spent there in that case.  Mr. Hancock said it is possible because the subdivision will be occupied by Habitat clients:  buyers who will qualify for low to moderate housing.  He further explained that every now and then, Habitat  rehabilitates houses outside of the eligibility area because there are direct beneficiaries, i.e., the low to moderate income resident of the house.  Mr. Campbell asked if the project has been approved in principle.  Mr. Hancock explained that it has changed a few times.  He said $40,000 was allocated by the Council to Habitat for Humanity and, up until last week, he had been told this funding would be used for sewer lines, now it has changed to streets, sidewalks and water lines.  Mr. Hancock reported that is spelled out in the agreement being discussed this evening.  He noted the funding has been approved since late '97 or early '98.
    Mr. Janku said he knew the Council approved the money, but did not think it was for a specific program.  Mr. Hancock said for a while, Habitat was using it to buy lots.
    Mr. Beck explained that money was set aside for Habitat to use in Columbia.  He said Habitat brought up the prospect of using it in this subdivision.  Ms. Coble noted that had been after the Council denied funds to build an office, and after Habitat was told to spend the $40,000 from last year.  She pointed out that nobody from Habitat is present tonight to speak to the issues -- the fact that there is no plan, the property is not technically in the census tract area for CDBG funds, their message is inconsistent, etc.  She said there is no agreement saying the sidewalks will be built.  Ms. Coble did not think the City would allow any other group who came in with no plan, no representation, and no details, and still give them $40,000.
    Mr. Beck said the Council's control in this is what is in the agreement.  He said if the Council wants 50% of the money used for sidewalks, that needs to be stipulated in the agreement.  He would not rely on what was or was not included in the old subdivision plat from some years ago.  Mr. Beck observed the Council's control is over how the $40,000 is spent.
    Mr. Janku said he found this issue somewhat troubling and had tried to contact the President of the local Habitat group over the Holidays, but he could not reach her.  He has had discussions in the past with representatives, and the comments heard this evening about sidewalks are fairly consistent.  He said sidewalks are certainly not a priority, but whether or not that has changed, he did not know.  Mr. Janku stated he never got a commitment about the greenspace issue either.  He remembered in depth discussions several years ago about how the City could support Habitat.  Mr. Janku said he is a supporter of Habitat, and he thought the City should assist in their attempts to provide affordable housing, but should also make sure that the communities that are being built are quality developments consistent with other public improvements where those type of funds are used.  Mr. Janku would like the funds used to enhance the development so years from now, when new families move to the area, it will be a quality subdivision in the long-term.  He thought it was unfortunate that a representative was not present to talk about the issues, and believed they could come back in a month or so and have everything resolved.  He wanted to see a long-term plan of how the subdivision could be built in a quality way.  Mr. Janku asked Mr. Boeckmann if sidewalks were stipulated in the agreement, whether that would bind Habitat to build sidewalks.  Mr. Janku would also like to add language about greenbelt easements, etc.  Mr. Boeckmann said if the Council wanted to require sidewalks, the agreement could be rewritten to more easily construe that the City has given Habitat $40,000 to be spent on the items mentioned.
    Mr. Hancock said the City would not reimburse anybody until sidewalks are shown on the plan.  He reported there was an agreement drafted some time ago that addressed the greenbelts, carports, and sidewalks.  Mr. Hancock stated when staff proposed it to Habitat, a letter was received indicating the City could keep the money because they were not going to do that.  Over the past few months, it has been indicated that Habitat needs to get the money spent, and they needed to get going on the Haden Park project.  Mr. Hancock explained what is being discussed this evening is a fairly bare bones agreement which he drafted, and Habitat made a few changes to a couple of things.  He intended to get formal input from the Council on what it is they want in the subdivision.
    Mr. Campbell is concerned about the lack of specificity, and said he would like to see more clear definition.  Another area of concern for Mr. Campbell is the compatibility with the neighborhood.  He thought whenever possible, funds should be used to benefit the neighborhood and also the people who will be residing in the houses.  He did not think the Habitat houses should be "one size fits all", but rather houses that fit within the compatibility of the neighborhoods.  As the plan moves forward, Mr. Campbell was hopeful these things would be addressed, otherwise, he could not support it.
    Mrs. Crockett asked how much the sewer was going to cost.  Mr. Marshall said the sewer plans have been approved, the job bid, with the contract going to Emery Sapp and Sons for $53,000.  Mrs. Crockett asked if that was to bring sewer to 15 lots.  Mr. Marshall said that was correct.
    Mr. Janku said he would like to see them try to resolve some of these issues within the next month.  He is personally supportive of the project if it is done right.  He would be willing to commit, if possible in future years, additional funds to put in better houses or better infrastructure so it is done well.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that R8-99 be tabled to February 1, 1999.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
    Ms. Coble noted that some of the things that need to be clarified were what the money would be spent for, is it going specifically to sidewalks, what are the housing plans and would the money be spent there, greenbelt space, and how many housing plans.
    Regarding the housing plans, Mr. Janku said he understood Habitat has made some changes in terms of improvements and amenities.
    The motion to table, made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mr. Kruse, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

R9-98     Stating the City's position concerning utility related issues before the Missouri General
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that two resolutions were prepared on the same subject with the first one dealing primarily with utility issues.  He said that Councilman Coffman felt he should not vote on issues regarding utilities.  Mr. Beck noted that most of the items shown have come from the Missouri Municipal League, and several relate specifically to the City of Columbia.  Mr. Beck said he and several staff members have been working on proposals that might be utilized by cities throughout the state.  He personally has been working with the MML on legislation dealing with utilities and cities working on right-of-way ordinances. Mr. Beck said they had come to a conclusion on a proposed right-of-way ordinance that might be used by cities throughout the state.  He said staff is not supportive of having a right-of-way ordinance adopted by the state legislature because they thought each city should have the opportunity to deal with their right-of-way requirements as it relates to the use of utilities, as long as it falls within general guidelines adopted by the group.
    The vote on R9-99 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  ABSTAINING: COFFMAN.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R10-99     Stating the City's position concerning issues before the Missouri General Assembly.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman asked about the present limit on municipal liability.  Mr. Boeckmann thought currently it is up to $1 million ($100,000 per person, $1 million per occurrence).
    Mayor Hindman asked about opposition to exempt any governmental entity from being subject to requirements to contribute to the TIF allocation fund.  He explained that TIF stands for tax increment financing and, as he understood it, the idea is to allow a project to be built with a waiver of the taxes that the project would bring in.  He said the theory was that without the project, they would not get the taxes -- so nothing was actually being given up.  Mayor Hindman viewed this as false economy.  Mr. Janku understood that the revenues actually go to fund the project as opposed to going back into the broader community.  He said infrastructure is paid through the revenues, so instead of going to the school system or the general fund, it would be built into the infrastructure.  Mayor Hindman said that is true, but presumably it pays for things that they would otherwise have to put in.  He questioned whether or not it would be fair to the school system.  He thought it could be detrimental and wondered about the fairness of it and whether or not the City should be taking a stand on it.
    Given the fact that the City is not generally interested in it and it is used by other communities to out-recruit us, Mr. Janku was not certain we would want to be seen as defending it.  He would not object to deleting this item from the list.  Mr. Coffman agreed.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the item be removed from the list.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    The vote on R10-99, as amended, was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R11-99     Authorizing an agreement with Boone County to provide nursing and clerical services.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this would extend the present agreement for two months tp provide nursing and clerical services at the jail.
    The vote on R11-99 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

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

B1-99     Authorizing water main upgrade along the north side of Mexico Gravel Road, utilizing city
B2-99     Accepting and approving work by J.C. Industries; approving the engineer's final report for
                the 16" water main installation on Route PP.
B3-99     Authorizing an agreement with Boone County concerning road improvements to Scott
                Boulevard between Bellview Drive and Brookview Terrace.
B4-99     Authorizing sidewalk, curbing and parking area construction south of the new downtown
                fire station to be performed by city employees.
B5-99     Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code to change the speed limit to 40 mph on Nifong
                Boulevard from Glen Eagle to west city limits.
B6-99     Authorizing the acquisition of easements for construction of the Defoe Drive storm water
                drainage improvement project.
B7-99     Authorizing Change Order No. 2; approving the engineer's final report for the downtown fire
                station project.
B8-99     Calling for bids on the Mill Creek/Rockbridge Subdivision drainage improvement project.
B9-99     Accepting conveyances for sewer, drainage and construction purposes.
B10-99   Approving the final plat of Wellington Manor, Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.
B11-99   Renewing an agreement with the Missouri Department of Health for HIV prevention
                services; appropriating funds.
B12-99   Calling the municipal election to be held April 6, 1999 to elect Council Members for Wards 1
                and 5.

(A)     Old Village Road Sewer NID.
    Mr. Beck explained that NID stands for Neighborhood Improvement District.  He said a request had been received to make interconnections between the City's sewer system and the Boone County Regional Sewer District, where they are proposing to establish NIDS.  He noted that the policy now requires that people desiring to connect to the lines must request annexation to the City if the property is contiguous to the City.  If the property is not contiguous, the owner must sign a pre-annexation agreement.  He said that discussions have been held with these neighborhoods and, in some cases, the residents would like to have the sewer but are not agreeable to signing annexation agreements or pre-annexation agreements.  The question being raised by the County is whether or not the City would allow the interconnections, or waive the need that 100% of the residents must sign agreements with the City.
    Mr. Patterson explained that the Boone County Regional Sewer District just wanted the City to establish some clear definition of what the policy will be with regard to the issue.  The staff suggestion to having 100% sign-up was a policy that would allow for interconnection agreements when annexation or pre-annexation agreements were obtained by the BCRSD for the same properties that participate in the formation of the NID.  He said that would assure that at least 65% of the area encompassed by the NID would be annexed at the appropriate time.
    Mayor Hindman asked whether he understood correctly that if the NID was organized, there would be a sewer system established within it and it would connect to City sewer.  Mr. Beck said residents would be allowed to interconnect to the City sewer system.  Mayor Hindman asked if 65% of the people in the NID sign a pre-annexation agreement, whether 100% of the people in the NID would actually get the sewer.  Mr. Beck said that was correct.  Mayor Hindman saw the big advantage to that is the City would be contributing to the sanitation in the county by allowing our sewer system to serve those people.  Mr. Beck said it would also eliminate deficient facilities, but he noted there were probably new ones being constructed throughout the area.
    Mr. Campbell said that 100% participation is an unrealistic expectation, but he thought two-thirds was a reasonable number.  He said many of the City's ballot issues are passed by that percentage, or less, and everyone receives the benefits of the ballot issues.
    Mr. Janku asked what rate these people would be paying.  Mr. Patterson said they would be District customers and the City would be charging wholesale treatment rate.  Mr. Janku observed residents would not have an incentive to convert over.  He asked about the differential.  Mr. Patterson said individual City customers living outside the City pay 50% more than those inside.  The interconnection agreement with Boone County is for centralized facilities where there is maintenance, and the only service the City will provide is the treatment.  Mr. Janku said he would have a real concern about anybody who has unimproved property that might want to hold it out of the City and get sewer service.  He thought the Council should may want to require annexation.  He said if it is unimproved real property, he thought it should be agreed to.   Mr. Beck thought the Sewer District is trying to make a determination as to whether or not to interconnect with the City, or if a collection system of some type would have to be installed.
    Mr. Patterson said Mr. Janku's point was well-taken as the NIDS are not intended for undeveloped property, nor has the City ever attempted to promote them in any way to the District.  He said the real purpose of a NID is to deal with areas where there are congregations of developed properties on septic tanks and lagoons.  Undeveloped property, as it goes through a platting process, is where the City will get those as they develop -- as residents want to connect to the City's sewer system.  He said the platting process for a NID is reviewed by the City.  According to City policy, Mr. Patterson said they are required to become City customers.  The only ones that would remain as District customers would be those that are out there now, as of a certain date the NID is established or the agreement is made with the City.
    Mr. Beck asked if that would be true of vacant lots in an already platted subdivision.   Mr. Patterson said there would be some of those, but he thought Mr. Janku was referring to undeveloped tracts.  He said the goal is to not use them for undeveloped properties.
    Ms. Coble suggested a work session on the issue rather than trying to iron out details during the meeting.  Mr. Beck said it could be discussed next Monday at the Council's work session.  Ms. Coble suggested that the staff talk to the County before that time.  Mr. Patterson believed the Sewer District would like to see NIDS completely excluded from any requirement pertaining to annexations being a condition for a connection.  He thought the District would like to view that as a separate issue in itself.  Mr. Patterson said the staff has been taking the position, since last spring, that the policy passed by City Council requires that it be addressed by the Council and a determination made -- whether it be a 100% petition for annexation, or whether it be some lesser amount.  He did not think it is a question of the District wanting to say 80% is okay, they would just like to see it excluded.
    It was decided the issue would be further discussed at the work session next Monday, and if the Council needed more time, it could be discussed at the pre-Council dinner on the 19th.  Mr. Beck said he would so advise the County.

(B)     False Alarm Report.
    Report accepted.


    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the staff hold a closed meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, January 11, 1999, for purposes of discussing litigation and personnel matters.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Motion passed.
    Mrs. Crockett asked about the status of the four-way stop on William and Windsor.  Mr. Patterson said the staff had gotten the accident reports, but was not sure if they had received traffic counts.  He will check into it and report back.
    Mr. Campbell complimented the City staff for going above and beyond the call of duty in clearing the streets of snow.  He encouraged citizens to do the same with their sidewalks.
    Mr. Kruse commented that the Council has talked in the past about establishing a traditional neighborhood development ordinance, and he thought they decided that could occur if a developer was interested in a traditional neighborhood development under a PUD, or something similar as to what is being proposed at The Village of Cherry Hill.  He said that type of development is uniformly supported by the Council, yet developers still have to go to the Board of Adjustment because the Subdivision Regulations do not allow them to do what they want to do in terms of setbacks and other issues related to lot size and density.  Mr. Kruse understood that some cities have separate sections in their subdivision regulations for traditional neighborhood developments, so if a developer wanted to have a particular development with different setbacks, alleys, and different density than what would otherwise be permitted under the Code, that would be permitted.  He said the developer would simply make a choice and if the idea did not sell, the market obviously would not support it.  Mr. Kruse asked the Planning Department to prepare an update on the idea of establishing a separate traditional neighborhood development ordinance in the City Code.
    Mr. Kruse said the Council has discussed in the past about a north slip lane at College Park Apartments and Carter Lane.  He noted a developer had previously contributed $25,000 toward the cost of it.  Mr. Kruse stated a few months ago he had asked for an update from MoDot on what their plans are for this intersection.  He reported he had recently read an article regarding a restaurant going in just south of College Park Apartments, which would create more traffic.  He thought it is to the point where a serious look at this particular intersection is necessary.  Mr. Beck said the staff would get something back to the Council on it.
    Mr. Kruse said he had read about shrub invasion going unchecked along the MKT Trail.   The article said it was a non-native bush, honeysuckle, which takes hold and blocks out any opportunity for any other native shrubs and flowers to grow.
    Mr. Kruse made the motion that the forestry committee (made the recommendations on the grapevines) examine the issue and report back to the Council.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Ms. Coble said a year ago the Council discussed recent changes in the federal Brady Law, the gun control laws.  At that time, she brought up the point that there are two separate laws that prohibit sale of guns to those who have been convicted of a domestic violence felony or misdemeanor, or those who have a valid order of protection in existence against them.  The previous difficulty, she explained, was that gun vendors do not have access to that information, and until the November 1998 clarification in the Brady Law, they did not know about hand guns or long guns and what to do about them.  Ms. Coble reported that has been clarified now to include all guns.  She pointed out that gun vendors in the City of Columbia and in Boone County do not have access to that information.  She said they can call in to the federal registry, however, valid orders of protection for Missouri are not included in the data base as the State of Missouri does not report convictions of misdemeanor or felony domestic violence cases.  Ms. Coble understood there was no community in the State of Missouri that has a system worked out.
    Last year when this issue was brought up, Ms. Coble reported the City had a signed agreement from Presiding Commissioner Stamper and the Council passed a motion to form a group to look at what could be done to get this information.   She said now the Courts have recognized it, as has the Federal Government, but the people who are held responsible at this point, the businesses, need to be able to get the information.  She noted this information will not be available from the one-stop FBI check, and it was going to take a lot of work on the part of the Boone County Sheriff's Department, the Columbia Police Department, the Boone County Prosecutor's Office, and the vendors.  Ms. Coble observed it would not be easy, and that is why it is not in place anywhere in the State of Missouri.
    Mr. Janku explained a complaint received from a resident at Vandiver Village Trailer Park with water running from a drain pipe across a road.  He said someone from Protective Inspection had been to the location before the big storm, and there had been a sheet of ice -- making the road very unsafe.  He questioned what types of regulations are needed to prevent situations like this.  In this case, it was the mobile home lot owner putting in a drainage pipe that directs running water across the street in the middle of the winter.   He wondered if the ordinance needed to be amended or if it was an enforcement issue.  Mr. Janku asked for a staff report.
    Mr. Janku noted that the Disabilities Commission had presented some recommendation on issues, particularly with respect to Business Loop 70 and sidewalks and access to and from Rusk Rehabilitation.  He asked that a response  be prepared  regarding the type of pedestrian improvements needed.  He knew discussions had been held with the University, but did not know of any with the Highway Department.  Mr. Janku asked for a report.
    In relation to that, Mr. Janku said he was disappointed to hear the comments about the Highway Department apparently not allocating additional monies to cities like Columbia for sidewalk improvements.  He understood those funds would all be going to smaller cities.  Mr. Beck said staff had learned that from preliminary discussions heard by Mr. Hancock.  Mr. Hancock explained that the Selection Committee met to revise the criteria pertaining to TEA-21, replacing ISTEA this past year.  He said sidewalks were not as important as they had been under the prior bill, particularly in towns that have the capability to build sidewalks.  Mr. Janku thought there was separate funding set aside by the Highway Department for items such as sidewalks in conjunction with their projects.  Mr. Hancock said the Highway Department is going to keep a good portion of the extra enhancement monies that will be coming to the state, and then they will pick the projects they want to do to enhance the highways and bridges.
    Mayor Hindman asked if there was a policy with respect to the size of the community on that part of the money.  Mr. Hancock said he could not answer that, but the last time he talked to them they thought there might be a process by which we could possibly avail ourselves of some of the money, or at least we might have input into what kind of a project they may want.   He did not think anything was definite.
    Mr. Janku said he would like to take a look at what could be done to access funds for the Business Loop project.  He asked if there was a way for the City to have input into the Commission's decisions.  Mr. Hancock said they could look into it and get something back to the Council.  Mr. Beck said it seemed that the City should have some input.  In conjunction with the need expressed by the Disabilities Commission, Mr. Janku thought it would make a good linkage in terms of public interest.  He said it was not just an abstract question, but there is a real demonstrated need at this particular location.
    Mr. Janku said he had brought up the question about the Sutherland sign which still exists on Paris Road.  He was under the impression that within a certain period of time after a business closes, the signs need to be removed.  Apparently, there is a gap in the sign ordinance because a lot of signs tend to remain.  Mr. Janku reported even the pole, as opposed to the sign itself, tends to remain sometimes.  He asked for a report on what needs to be clarified in the ordinance to correct the situation.   Mr.  Janku reported that he had been contacted by the developer of Homeview Properties (his zoning request had been denied by the Council).  He said the developer indicated he had some suggestions to ameliorate some concerns.  He asked for a report from the staff on whether or not there are particular things that can be done to address the concerns legally -- what the legal methods are in terms of platting, as well as restrictions on platting or a PUD.  Mr. Janku wanted to see something that could be drawn up in a way that might conceivably address those concerns and would be an enforceable agreement.
    Mayor Hindman noted a gap in the sidewalk system on Chapel Hill.  He asked that the staff look into the situation.
    Mr. Beck spoke about an article in the American Fire Journal, written by George Glenn, the City's former Division Chief who had just recently accepted a position as Fire Chief in another community in Colorado.  He explained that the article was about Columbia's Fire Department and Mr. Beck will forward copies of it to the Council.
    The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

                                                                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                             Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                             City Clerk