APRIL 7, 2003

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, April 7, 2003, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN and HINDMAN were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of March 17, 2003, as well as minutes of the special meeting of April 2, 2003, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. Janku.

    Mayor Hindman noted that an additional street closure request had been added to Report B.
    The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously on a motion made by Mr. John and a second by Mr. Hutton.



    Mayor Hindman welcomed two Boy Scouts from Troop 707 who were in the audience to observe the meeting.

B74-03     Voluntary annexation of property located on the west side of State Route 763, south of Brown School Road; establishing permanent zoning.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman noted that a request to table B74-03 had been received from the applicant.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that B74-03 be tabled to the April 21, 2003, meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B84-03     Voluntary annexation of property located on the south side of Vawter School Road, approximately 1,750 feet east of Scott Boulevard; establishing permanent R-1 zoning.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained this to be an approximate 11-acre tract located in south central Columbia. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B84-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B85-03     Amending the Stoney Creek C-P Development Plan.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained the applicant was asking for an additional 468 square feet of wall signage on the southeast side of the hotel. Both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission felt the request was excessive and recommended denial.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mayor Hindman agreed with the staff recommendation in that the requested signage was too excessive.
    Mr. John concurred and said a well placed sign on the one wall would probably be acceptable, but not one as large as what is being requested this evening.
    B85-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON. VOTING NO: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. Bill defeated.

B94-03     Authorizing construction of improvements to Stephens Lake Park.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that in November of 2000, the park sales tax ballot issue was passed which provided for the purchase of Stephens Lake Park and the future development of the tract. He asked Mr. Hood to explain the phases.
    Mr. Hood reported that $670,300 in funding from the ¼ cent parks sales tax was included in the FY 2003 budget. He noted that $2.5 million had been set aside for the park's development and it was to be spread over four budget cycles (budget years 2001 through 2004). In the past two years, a total of $1,225,000 had been appropriated for the project.
    Mr. Hood reported the 2003 allocation is proposed to be used for improvements in seven different areas within the park. The largest expenditure will be in the day camp shelter area with improvements including a closed shelter, a sand volleyball court, playground and related amenities such as parking, utilities, etc., at an estimated cost of $360,800. Approximately $133,500 will be spent on improvements to the Broadway entrance area with plans for construction of a medium shelter, a small shelter (will also function as a warming hut for the sled hill), a playground and improvements to the roads and parking in the vicinity. Mr. Hood indicated that $50,000 has been set aside for use in the aquatics area to allow for the installation of utilities, sidewalks and site preparation for the future water fountain or water play area. An additional $13,500 has been budgeted for park amenities such as benches, signs, drinking fountains, lighting and trash receptacles. He stated that $10,000 has been budgeted for landscaping improvements throughout the park and $7,500 is set aside for site administration expenses, including some architect/engineering fees and demolition costs. Mr. Hood noted staff's recommendation that $95,000 be held in contingency. That amount, with the small contingency set aside from FY01 and 02 funding, results in an approximate 6% contingency for the project. He said they anticipate using contract and force account labor to complete the project.
    In order to proceed with the proposed improvements, Mr. Hood related that staff needs Council approval on three unresolved Master Plan issues. The first involves the restoration and location of the Pop Collins Cabin. Staff proposes that the cabin be relocated to Nifong Park where it can be restored and operated under the cooperation and direction of the Boone County Historical Society. He added that the Society has expressed a strong interest in creating a historical village in Nifong Park. Staff believes the cabin would be an excellent start to that concept. Mr. Hood noted that the Society has also expressed interest, and has the resources and experience, to assist in the restoration of the interior of the cabin and to open it to public viewing. The City has set aside funding to restore the exterior of the cabin. If it is relocated to Nifong Park, an agreement would be established between the City and the Historical Society which would outline all the responsibilities for the location, restoration, operation, maintenance and public use of the cabin.
    Mr. Hood reported the second issue concerns the location of the amphitheater. Since the Master Plan was approved about a year ago, staff has looked at three possible sites for such. He stated that it is staff's opinion the best site to be north of the lake in the west end of the park. He said it is a natural bowl area which has very attractive physical features for an amphitheater. Staff believes, with the proper design, construction, berming and planting, that they can mitigate much of the concern over noise. He noted that construction of the amphitheater is not included in this phase of improvements; however, the location needs to be confirmed so they can coordinate it with the earth work going on at the swimming area.
    Mr. Hood stated the final unresolved issue is the removal of the cement block boathouse. He pointed out that a structural review of the building found serious deterioration which would cost in excess of $100,000 to repair. While the lake is drained, staff recommends installing a foot wall and boat ramp next to the new boardwalk as it would be a potential site for a future boathouse if it is determined a replacement should be built.
    Mr. Coffman asked if he understood that money had been set aside for the Pop Collins cabin. Mr. Hood replied that both the FY 2001 and 2002 budgets included funding for restoration of the cabin's exterior. He believed the amount to be $75,000. Mr. Coffman assumed that approval of the ordinance would include approval of the three department recommended issues. Mr. Beck said that would be correct.
    Mr. Hutton inquired about the trail on the far north edge of the park and discussions that it be located as close to Walnut as possible because it was going to serve as a sidewalk as well. Mr. Hood responded that staff agreed to relocate the trail closer to Walnut Street. Mr. Hutton's recollection was that the trail would be moved northward as much as possible, working with the physical characteristics of the land without making drastic changes. Mr. Hood concurred. He added that he believed there was some discussion about crossing that trail in front of the parking lot and then swinging it up and having it follow the tree line. Mr. Hutton asked about funding for the trail. Mr. Hood replied the trail project would be included in the 2004 budget because they have been working on the interior of the park first. Mr. Hutton questioned the schedule for the trail project. Mr. Hood indicated this fall would be the earliest the work could be undertaken.
    Mr. Coffman sensed the community's opposition to moving the Pop Collins cabin has a lot to do with the loss of Gordon Manor and the idea the cabin is the last historic thing in the park. He asked if there is any plan for a historical marker to commemorate the Manor. Mr. Hood explained that Stephens College indicated an interest in working with the City to develop a historical marker that outlined the entire history of the property. He mentioned that staff has not been contacted recently by the College with respect to such, but they believe such a marker would be appropriate. He said it could be included in the final phase for funding.
    Mr. Coffman asked about the boathouse and whether a replacement would be in the final phase of park improvements. Mr. Hood responded that staff had not included funding for a replacement structure in the 2004 budget funding. However, they tried to identify a location where a boathouse could be added if it becomes a priority so that the lake would not have to be drained again.
    Mayor Hindman asked if the proposed facility would accommodate self-launching of boats. Mr. Hood said there would be two places; one near the boardwalk and one near the dam on the east end of the lake.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    David Sapp, 1025 Hickory Hill, President of the Boone County Historical Society Board of Directors, explained that they have supported the move of the Pop Collins cabin to Nifong Park for some time. He said they began looking at ways to preserve and recognize the historical significance of the cabin and the Manor prior to the City's acquisition of the property. Mr. Sapp reported that the Society would like to work with staff on the relocation and the restoration of the cabin. He noted they could provide volunteer docents so the cabin would be open to the public, whereas now it is stranded and unavailable to the public. He indicated the Society would also like to furnish the cabin with some appropriate period pieces to add an educational component. Mr. Sapp pointed out that they could provide significant security as well.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mayor Hindman commented that the planning for the Stephens Lake Park property has been a very thorough and participatory process.
    B94-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A)     Voluntary annexation of property located on the west side of Providence Outer Roadway, approximately 100 feet south of Corporate Lake Drive.
    Item A was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained this to be an approximate 19 acre tract located in south central Columbia (current site of the Crestvale Mobile Home Park). The applicant is requesting R-3 permanent zoning at the time of annexation.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Bill Arendt, 3100 Brown Station, reviewed the existing conditions of the tract. He said most of his lots are quite small and that it has been 20 plus years since a mobile home has been built that will fit on them. In order to continue in its present use, the park needs to be completely redeveloped -- something he cannot afford to do. Mr. Arendt indicated that this proposal will bring about redevelopment which will convey significant improvement to the property.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

R59-03     Approving the preliminary plat of Miles Manor Block 3; granting variances to the Subdivision Regulations.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this issue had been continued from the last meeting and that since then a letter was sent to the Council from the developers.
    Mr. Dudark reported that the property has been zoned R-3, multi-family, since 1971. He said the staff report indicated there are a couple of variances necessary; one being the length of the cul-de-sac going into White Oak Lane. He noted the City's limitation on cul-de-sacs being 750 feet. He said there was some discussion as to whether or not Planter Road is a through street which actually serves as a cul-de-sac as well as leading to Stadium. Staff believes this to be subject to debate as to whether or not the measurement occurs at Planter Road or Stadium. If measuring from Planter Road, Mr. Dudark said the length would be within the limitation so a variance would not be necessary. The other issue relates to the size of a tract in the final platting process. Property zoned R-3 is limited to six acres, and Mr. Dudark reported this tract consists of 8.9 acres. However, there is a provision in that the applicant is including a greenspace easement in the plat that would make less than half of the property developable. Mr. Dudark stated there will be a note on the plat stipulating that the greenspace easement cannot be counted toward any density credit. That would limit the number of units that could be built on the buildable portion to no more than 65 dwelling units. Mr. Dudark noted there are 34 R-1 zoned lots in the existing Miles Manor subdivision, and with the 65 apartment units planned for this tract, the applicant could meet the Subdivision Regulations limit on developments containing no more than 100 units which have only one street access. Whether or not a variance is required, he said one could argue both sides with the practical aspect being that the preliminary plat does meet the ordinance's intent.
    Mr. John asked if the 34 single family lots mentioned were existing units or whether there are other vacant lots. Mr. Dudark thought there are a couple of vacant lots, but did not know if these are buildable as they are near a slope on the west side. Mr. John understood those lots are not part of the City's ownership. Mr. Dudark said that was correct.
    Jim Lowery, an attorney with offices at 111 S. Ninth, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He reviewed the ordinance which stipulates no more than six acres of R-3 zoned land that would permit more than 100 dwelling units. He understood there to be 34 lots in the adjacent subdivision and said with the 60 units the applicant is planning, although they would be allowed 65, would add up to 100 units. For that reason, they do not believe this variance is required. Regarding the 750-feet terminal street issue, Mr. Lowery read the definition of a through street as, "a public street which is not a cul-de-sac and which provides vehicular access from an area internal to the subdivision to the City's major thoroughfare system." They believed White Oak to be the cul-de-sac and Planter Road a through street. Regardless of whether or not a variance is required, Mr. Lowery said they believe they meet the spirit of the ordinance.
    Mr. Lowery passed around a rendering of the project. He explained the proposal to build 60 apartment units. Mr. Lowery reported on the applicant's plans that this will be a very high quality development, and he would spend approximately $1 million more than needed based on existing code requirements. He indicated that architectural shingles will be used, stone and dryvit features will be employed on the staircase columns, and the pool was intentionally placed deep into the development so it would be away from the neighborhood. Mr. Lowery maintained this will be an attractive, high quality development which would attract high quality tenants. He displayed a site plan and pointed out the City-owned buffer land. He identified 5.16 acres of permanent public conservation easement the applicant will dedicate to the City. Mr. Lowery stated that nothing will be disturbed on this site. In addition, the applicant will be dedicating a permanent, public easement along the east edge of the development for public access to the MKT Trail. He noted this property allows for in-fill development, therefore minimizing urban sprawl. Everyone living in the development, as well as residents in the adjacent homes, will have lawful access to the MKT Trail.
    Mr. Lowery noted the applicant requested that the issue be tabled at the last meeting because they learned of the neighborhood's concern for the tract. Until then, they were not aware of any opposition. Mr. Lowery further explained his client purchased the property from people who live in the neighborhood, an association that formed and platted the R-1 lots. He respectfully asked the Council to approve this preliminary plat.
    Ms. Crayton asked about the traffic concerns. Mr. Lowery explained the applicant has offered, at his expense, to install whatever traffic calming device the City would approve and the neighbors believe to be necessary for the area. He pointed out the people his client purchased the property from are the same people that had the tract rezoned from R-1 to R-3 thirty-two years ago. He noted there are some people who do not oppose the development and actually support it. Ms. Crayton asked if those people are current residents of the subdivision. Mr. Lowery responded affirmatively, and these people are also original members of the neighborhood. He indicated that dozens and dozens of cars come out of the MLK area every day which has similar access to what they have on Stadium now. He has not seen MoDOT take any action to do anything that would be detrimental to the neighbors. If the left turn were to be eliminated, he did not believe that to be any undue imposition.
    David Horrell, 1109 Chantilly, spoke in opposition of the development. He explained their neighborhood to be unique having been developed by a group of blacks in the 60's when they were not allowed to move into other subdivisions. Mr. Horrell maintained that 95% of the original owners still live in the neighborhood. He indicated that increased traffic created by a new development would place a hardship on residents.
    Pack Mathews, 1108 Chantilly, Co-Chair of the Miles Manor Neighborhood Association, presented the Council with a petition signed by about 30 residents who are opposed to this development. He asked those who are present in opposition to the proposal to stand. Approximately 30 people stood. Mr. Mathews noted that this property is one of 20 in the city that is listed as having serious access issues. He had a letter from the Forum Development Corporation, the property contiguous on the west side, regarding their concern about the affect the traffic would have on Forum Boulevard. For that reason, residents are fearful the developer will have problems maintaining occupancy which could cause the property to decline, bringing down the value of all properties in this area. Mr. Matthews reported that the Council's decision tonight will also have an affect on how successfully the City will be able to deal with other similar problem R-3 properties. In reference to fire flows, he noted that a development of this size needs access to a water line providing 1,500 gallons per minute. He said the existing water system cannot provide such and the developer has asked for easements from the property to the west so as to access another 8-inch pipe, which was subsequently denied. Mr. Matthews believed it is questionable as to whether the developer would even be able to get building permits to complete the project. He asked the Council to deny approval of the preliminary plat.
    Alma Muer, 1104 Chantilly, spoke about safety concerns of the neighborhood. In addition, she stated there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood to provide access to the MKT Trail.
    Michael Cook, 1309 White Oak, noted that the people who originally built Miles Manor subdivision spent a great deal of time bucking the system to get the neighborhood established. In regard to Planter Road, he said it is not a through street because just after it intersects with White Oak Lane it turns into gravel, and about 15 to 20 feet after that it turns into mud.
    Ken Midkiff, 1005 Bellview, commented on access to the MKT Trail. He said there is currently a path leading down to the trail from Miles Manor, which is too steep to ride a bicycle down. He said there are plenty of access points to the trail and there is no need for another one along this section of the MKT. Mr. Midkiff asked the Council not to be swayed by the developer's acceptance of City staff's request that an access point be provided. Regarding the variances, Mr. Midkiff said the two variances mentioned are not responsive to the concerns about traffic and safety, in fact, he said they fly in the face of those concerns.
    Mary Ratliff, President of the NAACP, was in agreement that Planter Road is not a through street. She asked the Council to deny this request.
    Michael Adrian, 1104 Brookdale, explained that he owns a home on White Oak. He asked the Council to leave the neighborhood as is.
    Mr. Loveless commented that it would be hard to imagine a more poorly placed development for 60 units.
    Mr. Boeckmann pointed out that the proposal before the Council is a preliminary plat which is different from a PUD or a zoning request. If the tract had been zoned A-1 or R-1 and the applicant was asking for an R-3 zone, the Council would have more discretion in whether or not to place that zoning on the property. In this case, the Council is faced with a situation where there is R-3 zoning on the property and the applicant has submitted a request for approval of a subdivision plat. Mr. Boeckmann reported the Court of Appeals has clearly said, on a number of occasions, that when a City is considering a subdivision plat, their job is limited to determining whether all the rules have been followed. The Council does not have the same discretion they have in zoning situations.
    Mr. Boeckmann reported in this case, the applicant apparently meets all Code requirements and the only issue is whether or not to grant the variances. He said the question then is, does the applicant need the variances. Mr. Boeckmann thought it was pretty clear that because the applicant has limited the developable area, this particular variance is not necessary. He said that leaves the issue of the cul-de-sac -- which hinges on whether or not Planter Road is a through street. Mr. Boeckmann read the definition of a through street as being, "a public street which is not a cul-de-sac street and which provides vehicular access from an area internal to a subdivision to the City's major thoroughfare system as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan." Mr. Boeckmann noted that based on staff comments, they construe Planter Road as not functionally being a through street. He thought that was the only legal issue for the basis of denial. Mr. Boeckmann pointed out that five affirmative Council votes will be needed to approve the preliminary plat.
    Mr. John said the developer has gone through and ticked off all the objections the City has to legally deny the plat. Although some may want to deny the plat, he was not sure that was the best way to set policy and procedure for the City of Columbia.
    Mayor Hindman commented on an earlier statement that this is a very unfortunate place to have an R-3 zoning district. Under no circumstances could he imagine the Council approving an R-3 zone at this location due to safety aspects. Although he appreciated what the developer has done, Mayor Hindman said it was just too much for the area.
    Ms. Crayton asked if the neighborhood would have any legal recourse as it is already established. Mr. John pointed out that the rezoning took place some thirty years ago.
    Mr. Janku indicated that the developer must have come to the same conclusion as staff in that the variances are required.
    The vote on R59-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN. VOTING NO: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. Resolution defeated.

B86-03     Amending Chapter 13 and 22 of the City Code as they relate to hauling garbage.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the proposed amendments would more clearly define what is prohibited to be hauled under the City's waste haulers license. He said the revisions would not necessarily change what is occurring in the community at this time, but questions have come up recently under the licensing ordinances and potential conflicts with other sections of the Code. The City of Columbia hauls garbage whether it is in dumpsters or from residential units, unless waived by the Director of Public Works.
    Mr. John indicated that it appears the City is creating a monopoly on hauling garbage and he wondered what problem these amendments would solve. Mr. Beck thought there was a question between the way the licensing ordinance is written and a section in the Code that deals with the handling of solid waste. Mr. Boeckmann explained that another company wants to do some commercial garbage hauling. Mr. John asked why that would be a problem. In viewing this division as a financial entity, Mr. Boeckmann said Public Works did not think it was appropriate to have another company come in and "cherry pick" some of its better aspects. Mr. Beck added the City has the responsibility to ensure that all refuse is properly collected, stored and disposed, even when not collected by our utility.
    Mr. John spoke of his preference in tabling the issue until the Council could get a further explanation from Mr. Patterson.
    Judy Johnson, 1516 McKee, commented that she could see a problem with people choosing who they want to pick up their garbage. She preferred the City's refuse service and being billed for such along with her other utility services.
    Mr. Hutton did not have a problem with the amendment. He was not an advocate of monopolies, but thought it was something fairly important to the citizens of the City and to the City itself. He said the ordinance was created many years back to solve a bunch of problems. If Columbia allows other companies to come in and start hauling trash, he said "cherry picking" would be the first thing to happen, but what it would eventually do is raise rates for other people. Mr. Hutton commented that it is the customers that someone could "cherry pick" off that keep the rates low for the entire utility. As long as the City can demonstrate to rate payers that we do a decent job of refuse collection and that our cost, in comparison to other cities or private vendors, is in line, Mr. Hutton was supportive of the amendments.
    Mr. Coffman understood Mr. John's point, but thought Mr. Hutton's arguments were compelling as well. He said Mr. John's concept would eventually make residential and small commercial rates higher. He was comfortable with the ordinance.
    Mayor Hindman agreed with Mr. Hutton and said the City has a system based on the idea that everybody has to subscribe to it. This has resulted in meeting the goals of a clean city and proper sanitation. He felt the City has been very successful in its solid waste program. Mayor Hindman pointed out that the recycling program is also included as part of this service. He said this particular service is a money loser and is subsidized by solid waste rates. If the City does not have control of waste hauling, it would create an attractive opportunity for "cherry picking" by allowing other companies to provide service and not have to worry about recycling. Mayor Hindman commented that he has heard many positive comments from new residents to Columbia about this being the very best they have seen as far as refuse collection.
    Mr. Beck pointed out that Columbia's service is a complex system, but it is working and is very competitive based on surveys and comments staff has received.
    Mr. Janku asked about the language regarding existing haulers. Mr. Boeckmann said that would grandfather only one business who has been hauling their own trash and compacting it for years. Mr. Beck noted this business has said when their equipment is no longer usable, they plan to switch over to the City.
    B86-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B92-03     Amending Chapters 14 and 16 of the City Code as they relate to definition of cycles, public safety and helmet regulations for persons under sixteen years of age.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Ms. Browning explained that the Safe Kids Coalition had asked the Board of Health to look at the issue of bike helmets for youth in the community. Over a long period of time, the Board met with a diverse group of people interested in the overall health and safety of children which included bike shop owners, the Columbia Bike Club, the Safe Kids Coalition, and hospital personnel. After receiving recommendations, the Board also reviewed a number of ordinances from municipalities around the country. Based on all of this information, Ms. Browning reported the group came up with what they felt were some of the model things to include in the ordinance. She indicated that after the draft ordinance was prepared, a public hearing was held in February. Although the hearing was advertised well in advance and there was a significant amount of media coverage, only seven people were in attendance. All were in favor of the ordinance. Ms. Browning noted that this ordinance would affect children under the age of 16 and helmets would have to be worn when riding bicycles or scooters, skateboarding and when using roller skates/blades.
    Mr. Janku asked about three and four-wheel vehicles. Ms. Browning responded the ordinance defines a cycle as, "any device upon which a person may ride propelled by human power having two or more wheels." She said three and four wheels would apply as well, excluding wheelchairs.
    Mr. Coffman noted that legal guardians would be committing an "offense of absolute liability" if a child is not wearing a helmet. He asked about its significance. Mr. Boeckmann replied that meant there would be no defense if a child was not wearing a helmet. He said the same language is used in trespass which mirrors the State Statute.
    Ms. Crayton wanted to ensure that low income children would have access to helmets. Ms. Browning indicated that last year the Safe Kids Coalition gave out nearly 1,500 free helmets. She said they were prepared to continue that program.
    Ted Groshong, 2600 Limerick Lane, a pediatrician and member of the Board of Health, noted that head injuries are the most serious types of injuries people can sustain from bicycle accidents. He said children are much more likely to sustain serious head injuries than adults, and almost all the fatalities with children in bicycle accidents are due to head injuries. Anywhere from 85 to as much as 95% of these injuries can be prevented with appropriate bike helmets.
    Steven Sapp, 3501 Topanga, spoke on behalf of the Columbia Safe Kids Coalition. He explained the Coalition believes that safety programs have three major components. The first component involves engineering -- can the program prevent injuries from occurring. In the case of helmets, it has. There is an educational component which identifies the necessity for wearing helmets, and both parents and children are included in this campaign. The last component involves enforcement. Mr. Sapp indicated that enforcement can actually be an educational component as well in that parents will be educated about local ordinances and the necessity for helmets.
    Robyn Remington, 503 Taylor, explained that her twin brother received a head injury in an accident when he was a teenager. She said he died 40 years later in a mental hospital as a consequence of that brain injury.
    Dr. Robert Harris, 2505 E. Broadway, explained that he has been a practicing pediatrician for almost 40 years. During that time, seven of his patients were permanently paralyzed and three died from head injuries that would have been prevented by helmets. It was his opinion that this ordinance will significantly increase the safety of kids and will also help decrease medical costs.
    Mr. Hutton commented that he is not a big supporter of legislating such things and felt parents have a responsibility in the safety of their kids, although he understood that does not happen in all cases. After hearing the speakers, he believed the helmet ordinance could prevent permanent injury or even save a child's life. Mr. Hutton thought the Council would be foolish not to pass the ordinance. He was concerned the Police Department would not have a lot of time to spend on the enforcement issue.
    In regard to enforcement, Mr. Janku asked if there was a way to achieve City policy without making it a crime -- a mechanism could be established wherein an education campaign could be conducted. Mr. Boeckmann responded the Council could defeat this ordinance and adopt a policy resolution instead that urged people to wear helmets.
    Mayor Hindman understood the enforcement provisions to be the issuance of some form of citation or notice with the defense being to show that a helmet has been acquired. He said that would be very different from the typical enforcement situation.
    Mr. Loveless asked Captain McCrary if he could envision a scenario where the Police Department would enforce the ordinance. Captain McCrary was hopeful people would comply because he said it would be very difficult to enforce.
    Ms. Browning interjected that enforcement was probably one of the areas of greatest concern to the Board of Health. She said they did not want to create the impression that law enforcement officials are going to look for kids not wearing helmets. The Board was told at earlier meetings that warnings would probably consist of officers telling kids they have to wear helmets. When a citation is issued, Ms. Browning related that the Prosecutor's office will send out a form letter with information about where parents can obtain a low or no cost helmet. The letter will also let parents know when they bring in proof of purchase or acquisition of a helmet, the ticket will be automatically dropped. She said it would be a good tool for parents and would enable them to tell their children it's the law.
    Mr. Beck asked if the fine was discretionary. Mr. Boeckmann said if someone is convicted of violating the ordinance, then the fine imposed by the Judge has to be at least $5 and less than $25. A police officer has discretion as to whether or not they are going to give someone a ticket and the Prosecutor has discretion as to whether or not they proceed with prosecution. If a person is tried and found guilty under this ordinance, the fine with range between $5 and $25.
    Mr. Hutton wondered if a deal has been worked out in that all charges will be dismissed if a parent presents proof of purchase. He noted this stipulation is not in the ordinance before the council. Mr. Boeckmann replied that was something the Health Department has worked out with the City Prosecutor.
    Mr. Hutton asked about the effective date if the ordinance passes. If passed tonight, kids riding their bikes to school in the morning would be illegal without a helmet.
    Mr. Janku was not comfortable with impounding the bikes.
    Mr. Loveless suggested the City post signs on the trails, bikeways and at the skate park indicating that all persons under the age of 16 must wear helmets.
    Mayor Hindman thought that was a good idea and recommended a publicity campaign. He agreed with the point made about the effective date and suggested that it be changed to coincide with the Mayor's Challenge scheduled for May 10th.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that B92-03 be amended to change the effective date to May 10, 2003. The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    B92-03, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B93-03     Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code as it relates to the Environment and Energy Commission.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this ordinance had been prepared at the request of the Council. It would eliminate representation from the Water and Light Advisory Board and the Board of Health from the Commission. It would also reduce the quorum necessary to conduct business from seven to six.
    Mr. John suggested going with the third option, eliminating all the liaison members, reducing the County membership by one and dropping the quorum to six.
    Mr. Loveless suggested making the quorum five. Mr. John concurred. Mr. Janku recommended contacting the County before changing their membership. Mr. John acknowledged they could be notified of the change, but assumed the one County member would not be reappointed when their term expired. Mayor Hindman asked about sending the County a letter telling them what was decided and asking for their comments. Technically, they have had copies of the minutes and the E&E Commission must know about this. Mr. Hutton asked if the Commission was aware of the other alternatives that had been proposed since their initial report to the Council. Mr. Boeckmann said he did not know. Mr. Coffman suggested eliminating the three liaison positions and leaving the County representation as is. Mr. John said it is preferred to have an odd number of members for voting purposes, and also the City/County ratio would be off. Mr. Hutton pointed out that the current chair is the Planning and Zoning liaison. He assumed that member would go off at the end of his chairmanship. Mr. John concurred that as terms expire, that would be the end of the appointment process for that particular position.
    Regarding notification of the County, Mr. John said if the Council makes a decision as to which way they want to go, this ordinance could be passed pending notification or it could be tabled. Mr. Hutton indicated he would be more comfortable if staff notified the County and the E&E Commission as to what it is the Council is thinking about doing.
    Mr. Loveless spoke of his preference of eliminating the P&Z member when his chair term expires. Mr. Boeckmann stated that staff could check with both the E&E Commission and the County Commission for their input. He could also let them know when their terms would expire.
    Mr. John made the motion that B93-03 be tabled to May 5, 2003, and that notification of the Council's preference be sent asking for comments from both the Energy & Environment Commission and the County Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

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

B87-03     Calling for bids for construction of the Grindstone Creek Outfall Sewer Extension.
B88-03     Authorizing acquisition of easements necessary for the construction of Garth Avenue Bridge and Garth Avenue from Thurman Street northward 700 feet to the bridge.
B89-03     Authorizing acquisition of easements necessary for the construction of Garth Avenue from Bear Creek northward to Blue Ridge Road.
B90-03     Accepting easements for sewer, drainage, street and utility purposes.
B91-03     Accepting easements for water and electric purposes.
R63-03     Setting a public hearing: amendments to the guidelines for the convention and Visitors Bureau Tourism Development Fund Event and Festival Program.
R64-03     Setting a public hearing: landscape improvements between Route B and the COLT Railroad south of the Brown Station Road intersection.
R65-03     Setting a public hearing: special assessments for the Spruce Drive Improvement Project.
R66-03     Setting a public hearing: special assessments for the 2001 Annual Sidewalk Project.
R67-03     Setting a public hearing: amendments to the FY 2003 Action Plan.
R68-03     Authorizing an agreement with Boone County for contribution of funds for the design of Eighth Street.
R69-03     Authorizing Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with the Missouri Department of Health for the WIC Program.
R70-03     Authorizing Amendment No. 4 to the agreement with the Missouri Department of Health for HIV Prevention Services.
R71-03     Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Division of Highway Safety for a DWI Enforcement Grant.
R72-03     Authorizing an agreement with Commerce Bank for subordination of CDBG loans for property located at 105 Ash Street.
R73-03     Authorizing an amendment to the agreement with Rafael Architects, Inc. for architect services for the renovation of the Health Facility.

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

R74-03     Approving the preliminary plat of North Hampton Woods, Phase I.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Dudark explained the location of this 82 acre tract to be in northeast Columbia, near State Route B and Oakland Church Road. The plat would create 188 lots, most of which would be zoned R-1. There is one 15-acre lot zoned R-3, and some lots will be dedicated to the City as part of the Bear Creek greenbelt. Mr. Dudark noted that approval of the plat is recommended subject to Woodstar Drive being moved to the west at the time of the final plat.
    The vote on R74-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R75-03     Authorizing City membership in the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission; transferring funds.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this was discussed at a Council work session and would cost the City about $30,000 which would come from the contingency account. It would authorize the Mayor, or his designee, to represent the City on the Commission, and would authorize the City Manager to appoint representatives to the Transportation Advisory and Economic Development Advisory Councils of that Commission. He pointed out there is a City representative on the Board of Directors of the Regional Planning Commission which is appointed by the Presiding Commissioner. Mr. Beck explained membership is necessary in order for the University to apply for partial funding of federal EDA grant money for their incubator project. This project would not be eligible for such funding unless Columbia becomes a member of MMRPC.
    Mayor Hindman commented that he felt the incubator project was the best strategy for economic development in Columbia -- to commercialize, on a practical basis, research that comes out of the University.
    Mr. Loveless was bothered by the heavy weight of Boone County money being put into this program. He noted it is assessed on 30 cents per capita from the County and the same from the City. Mayor Hindman agreed and added that the City would be in an organization where we have one vote. He said it does not seem like a great step forward for us, but was something we would have to do if we were going to have a chance to receive EDA funding.
    The vote on R75-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. 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:

PR76-03   Amending the guidelines for the Convention and Visitors Bureau Tourism Development Fund Event and Festival Program.
B96-03     Voluntary annexation of property located on the west side of Providence Outer Roadway, approximately 100 feet south of Corporate Lake Drive; establishing permanent R-3 zoning.
B97-03     Rezoning property located at the southwest corner of the Smiley Lane and Providence Road intersection from C-3 to R-3.
B98-03     Approving the final plat of Keene Estates, Plat No. 17.
B99-03     Approving the final plat of Pratt's Subdivision, Plat 4, a replat of part of Lot 6 of Pratt's Addition.
B100-03   Authorizing Change Order No. One; approving the engineer's final report; levying special assessments; appropriating funds for the Spruce Drive Improvement Project.
B101-03   Authorizing Change Order No. One; approving the engineer's final report for the Park de Ville and Ash Street Sidewalk Project.
B102-03   Authorizing Change Order No. One; approving the engineer's final report; levying special assessments; appropriating funds for the 2001 Annual Sidewalk Project.
B103-03   Amending Chapter 24 of the City Code as it relates to depositing dirt and other material on city streets and sidewalks.
B104-03   Calling for bids for construction of the MC-6 Sewer Extension, an 80-acre point sanitary sewer serving The Cascades Subdivision.
B105-03   Amending Chapter 27 of the City Code relating to the electric thermal storage rates.
B106-03   Authorizing Change Order No. Two to the contract for construction of a water storage reservoir and high service pump station.
B107-03   Confirming the contract of Combs construction Company, Inc. for construction of water main along Oakland Gravel Road from Starke Lane to Gregory Heights Subdivision.
B108-03   Accepting easements for water and electric utility purposes.
B109-03   Accepting a grant from the State Emergency Management Agency to establish a Citizens Corp; appropriating funds.
B110-03   Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri State Safety Center for the Missouri Police Chiefs Association Step Grant; appropriating funds.
B111-03   Authorizing landscape improvements between Route B and the COLT Railroad south of the Brown Station Road intersection.
B112-03   Amending various chapters of the City Code pertaining to city boards and commissions.
B113-03   Authorizing an agreement with Boone County and Boone Electric Cooperative for support of the geographic information system.

(A)     Inter-department Transfer of Funds.
    Report accepted.

(B)     Street Closure Requests.
    Mr. Beck noted that an addition to the report from downtown churches who request the closure of streets for Palm Sunday activities on April 13th.
    Mr. Coffman commented on the lack of street closures for the Twilight Festival. He indicated that last year, the Twilight Festival planners were told the Council was interested in them exploring the idea of at least some limited street closure - both for safety and for enhancing the event. Along with approving this request, Mr. Coffman asked that a letter be written expressing the Council's desire that the group explore the idea of some limited street closures.
    Mr. Coffman made a motion per his above statement. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mayor Hindman was hopeful something could be worked out where they would close a block or two for a couple of Twilight Festivals to see what happens.

(C)     War on Iraq - Initiative Petition
    Mayor Hindman noted that those present to speak on this issue would be allowed to do so at the end of the meeting.
    Mr. Boeckmann explained that an initiative petition had been filed dealing with the war in Iraq. He said it is not the type of matter that is a legitimate subject of an initiative petition. He explained the Council options outlined in the report.
    Mr. Coffman pointed out that the charter stipulates, "the elector shall have the power to propose any ordinance, except an ordinance appropriating money or levying taxes." He said there is nothing in Columbia's charter or ordinances that indicates how someone would need to draft an ordinance, or that one of this type could not be done.
    Mayor Hindman commented that he has consistently taken the stand that the City Council is not in the position to represent the community on national and international issues. He reported that is not what the Council was elected to do.

(D)     Housing Market Analysis.
    Mr. Beck noted the cost of this analysis to be $45,000. The question to the Council is whether or not staff should proceed toward making the analysis, seeking out contributions from various community groups and considering the use of CDBG funds.
    Mr. Janku commented the issue is an important one, but thought it seemed like an expensive price tag for a study. Mr. Dudark related that is what staff had been told a comprehensive study like this would cost. Mr. Janku asked if we have examples of what other communities have produced. Mr. Dudark responded they have looked at one from Iowa City. Mr. Loveless questioned whether it looked like it would be a useful document. Mr. Dudark thought it would be a good start, but Columbia's proposal would have more information in it than Iowa City's. Mr. Loveless indicated that he would like to see half the cost come from somewhere other than City government.
    Mr. Loveless made the motion that staff be directed to work with local organizations to see what contributions can be solicited.
    Mr. Hutton asked if staff could do further research to get a more definitive estimate of the study's cost. Mr. Dudark thought they could, although he felt it would be a shot in the dark until an RFP is actually issued. Mr. Hutton concurred.
    Mr. John suggested developing an RFP and directing the solicitation of additional funding.
    The motion made by Mr. Loveless, added to and seconded by Mr. John, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

(E)     Bike/Pedestrian Commission recommendations - Rt. WW - Columbia Bicycle Map.
    In reference to Route WW, Mr. Hutton thought the planning process was pretty far underway. He asked if any of the Commission's recommendations are being considered in the plan as it is being developed right now, and if not, he thought the cost for such could be substantial. Mayor Hindman suggested a work session. Mr. Beck thought a pedway was included in the estimate, but it might be on the opposite side of the street from what is being recommended. Mayor Hindman spoke of his preference for diagrams of the plan to assist in understanding the situation.
    Mr. Janku asked about printing the bike maps. Mr. Hutton thought the Commission could print as many as they could afford within their budget.
    Mr. Loveless asked about a public hearing. Mr. Dudark said there would be a public hearing on the WW reconstruction, and these alternatives could come out at that time. Mr. Loveless noted that the Broadway Corridor Sidewalk group had looked at this particular section and came up with some recommendations. Mayor Hindman asked if they were the same as these. Mr. Loveless thought they differed somewhat. Mr. Dudark said they did differ, the Study Committee has suggested seven foot walks on each side and this is nine and six.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the Council consider the issue at a work session or a pre-Council dinner meeting. He asked that they be provided with maps and information as to what has happened.
    Mr. Loveless suggested encouraging the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission to hold off on printing the bike maps until the Council has a chance to look at this corridor. Mr. John pointed out the group is wanting to print a general map for existing conditions. By the time this area of Broadway is improved, more maps will need to be printed. Mr. John suggested letting the Commission spend the $2,000 on maps.
    Mayor Hindman wondered about soliciting advertising for the bicycle maps. The Council was supportive of this idea. Mr. Janku said it would be nice to have the maps available for the Mayor's Challenge on May 10. He suggested they authorize the printing of the maps, using the funding they have.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the printing of the maps be authorized with the intent of having them ready as part of the kick-off for the Mayor's Challenge, using the funds available. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(F)     Energy & Environment Commission Tree Ordinance Report.
    Mr. Coffman asked about the maximum penalty under this proposal if someone were to cut down 1,000 square feet of climax forest. Mr. John said it would be $1,000 for individuals and $5,000 for corporations. Mr. Coffman did not think that was a sufficient deterrent. Mr. Loveless explained there was a potential for a $43,000 penalty for clearing off an acre, multiplied times five for a corporation.
    Mr. Coffman made the motion that a draft ordinance be prepared. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(G)     Proposal to Rename a Segment of Nifong Boulevard Located South of Grindstone Parkway (Rt. AC) to Nifong Corridor.
    If at some time Southampton is going to come around, Mr. Hutton said his feeling was that the section should be named Southampton instead of Nifong Connector. As pointed out, he said at least there would be two street names instead of three.
    Mr. Janku asked about a further extension south and what it would be called. Mr. John said it was probably appropriate to call it the Nifong Connector because he doubted there would be anyone with an address on the little stretch of road. At such time there is a road bringing it from the south, he said they may need to have it renamed.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the unbuilt section of roadway be named Nifong Connector. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(H)     Formal Acceptance of Fire Station Location Study.
    Mr. Beck noted the only question was whether or not the Council wanted to discuss the report any further. Unless the Council decides otherwise, he said staff would bring it up during the budget process.
    Mr. Janku noted that they have already set aside some funds for one site. He thought the Fire Chief had been actively looking for others and he hoped that would continue. Mr. Janku wanted to see things move forward quickly so the City can get a better price before the area develops.
    Mr. John recalled that early last fall he had requested information on what it would take to make the City's Fire Department first responder for everything inside the City limits. He said staff requested that this study be completed before looking further into his request. As a Council, he thought they needed to discuss it as a policy. He said if they are going to have a work session on the issue, they could discuss it at that time. If not, he would like staff to move forward with this information now.
    Mr. John made the motion that the Council acknowledge receiving the report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.


    Mr. Coffman commented that he has enjoyed working with everyone over the past six years.

    Mr. John brought up lighting on Forum Boulevard. He had spoken with the former Fifth Ward Councilperson who had directed that some of the lights be removed, and now he has agreed they should be reinstalled. One of the suggestions was that these be full cut-off type lights. Mr. John stated that is not what is up there now. He wondered about the possibility of Water and Light installing one block of regular lights and one block of cut-offs so the Council can see what the difference is between the two types of lighting.
    Mr. John made the motion that the lights be replaced and the next time the department give the Council a test bed to look at. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Mr. Loveless had been asked if it would be possible to place the audio feed for the Council meetings on the City's web site. Mr. Beck said staff would check into it.

    Mr. Loveless had been contacted by a resident who has to have kidney dialysis every other day. He was told the only place this can be done is at a clinic on LeMone Boulevard. This individual was told there is no Paratransit service to the LeMone area. Mr. Loveless asked for a report on what it would cost the City to provide the transportation. Mr. Beck said he would get the figures.

    Mr. Hutton noted the Council had received a letter pointing out a problem with feral cats. Without spending a great deal of time, he asked that the Health Department respond to the letter.
    Mr. Hutton made the motion that the Health Department report back as to whether or not they think feral cats are a problem and something the City should regulate. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Ms. Crayton noted that a bus stop had been removed from the Mall Route across from Wal-Mart. She explained that passengers are being put out by some bushes. The driver told her the State made the City move the stop. Ms. Crayton asked that passengers be dropped off in a safe location.

    Ms. Crayton reported that the safety poles at the One-Stop Shop on Vandiver have been knocked down. She asked staff to look into the situation.

    Ms. Crayton announced a community meeting that will be held at Douglass School on May 3rd. She said that speakers would be there to explain how city, state and federal dollars are being spent.

    Mr. Janku mentioned the need for traffic calming through Derby Ridge Subdivision.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be directed to explore some kind of traffic calming or stop signs to slow traffic through this residential area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Mr. Janku stated a new motel was being built on Business Loop 70 West, adjacent to an automobile repair facility. He said the repair facility has been an eyesore for a long time and asked if there was something that could be done to clean it up under our existing ordinances. If not, Mr. Janku asked how ordinances could be modified to deal with the situation.

    Mr. Janku noted new businesses on Rangeline, just north of Vandiver, with street frontage. He explained there is a particular business that has always been a problem in that they park cars for sale on the shoulder in continual violation of City ordinances. Mr. Janku indicated that this area is well-posted and that various enforcement efforts are being made. He asked staff to continue enforcement efforts and whether there was anything else that could be done to strengthen those ordinances.

    Mayor Hindman said he has been receiving quite a few complaints about Scott Boulevard. He has been asked that the City look into stop signs on Scott at Gillespie Bridge Road and Chapel Hill. This area has no shoulders and it is a dangerous situation for walkers and bikers. Mayor Hindman asked about the prospect of improvements to this stretch of Scott Boulevard in the near future. If road improvements cannot occur in the near future, he thought the City should come up with a plan to get the cars and bikes off the road, even if it is on a temporary basis. Mr. Beck reminded the Council a design has been completed and the cost of improvements will be substantial. The project is totally unfunded and he said the Council would have to look at some alternative to widen the road short-term. Mayor Hindman thought it should be looked into, including the intersections.
    Mayor Hindman said he has been receiving calls about the removal of a climax forest at the corner of Broadway and Silvey. He asked for a report back.

    Roy Hartley, 1308 Bass, explained that the Cities for Peace Campaign currently obtained resolutions from 163 cities and counties. He noted that over 1,300 Columbia voters signed their name to the Peace Cities Petition. These individuals have clearly made a statement in favor of international law and support peace.

    Robyn Remington, 503 Taylor, also spoke in favor of peace and against the war.

    Rita Preckshott, 1101 Parkridge, thanked the Council for setting aside the initiative earlier this evening. She spoke in favor of supporting the troops.

    Elaine Hartley, 1308 Bass, spoke in favor of peace and against the war.

    Rudy Mendez, 3005 Melody, spoke in favor of supporting the troops. He did not think the Council should be involved in national security.

    William Perventure, 1901 McKee, commented that the petition does not represent the opinion of the entire community. He was concerned what such a message would mean to the people currently serving in the military.

    Betty Acrey, 109 Miramar, spoke in favor of peace.

    Judy Johnson, 1516 McKee, spoke in favor of a united front for the troops.

    John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, discussed "stale zoning". He suggested that property should revert to some kind of neutral zoning if it is not used for the intended zoning within so many years. He suggested that the Planning and Zoning Commission should be directed to form a task force to collect the many perspectives on the issue. In regard to the housing market study, Mr. Clark said the proposed study would not do anything to address the problems associated with the Wyatt Lane issue. He believed the focus would be too narrow and maintained that those involved in the study would consist primarily of developers.

    The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.

                                                                          Respectfully submitted,

                                                                          Penny St. Romaine
                                                                          City Clerk