AUGUST 4, 2003

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, August 4, 2003, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members HUTTON, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU and LOVELESS were present. Members JOHN and HINDMAN were absent. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of July 21, 2003, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Ash.

    Mayor Pro tem Loveless noted that R175-03 would be added under New Business and Report C would be added under Reports and Petitions.
    The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Ms. Crayton and a second by Mr. Janku.



    Mayor Pro tem Loveless relayed greetings from Mayor Hindman from Pittsburgh and gave an update on his recovery.

    Mayor Pro tem Loveless reported on an article he read this weekend regarding a survey of 331 metro areas throughout the country. The survey ranked Columbia ninth in the country based on economics, traffic congestion, weather, etc.

    Mr. Beck displayed an ADA Sports and Recreation award the City received at the opening event of the Show-Me State Games. The plaque expressed appreciation to the City for offering expanded recreational opportunities to people with disabilities.

B237-03     Rezoning property located on the west side of Forum Boulevard, approximately 140 feet north of Chapel Hill Road from O-P to C-P; approving the Limerick Heights Commercial Subdivision C-P Development Plan.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained the plan for this 0.33 acre parcel is to provide parking for an adjacent commercial area. The rezoning is needed in order to complete their plans. Both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission suggested the applicants be limited to C-1 uses if the tract is not used as a parking lot.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    Jay Gebhardt, A Civil Group, 711 W. Ash, spoke on behalf of Mike and Cheryl Kelly and offered to answer any questions.
    Mr. Janku asked about landscaping. Mr. Gebhardt explained there is a screening requirement along Forum Boulevard. He noted there is 230 feet of frontage and eight large shade trees and 15 shrubs are proposed for this area.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    B237-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: JOHN, HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B240-03     Voluntary annexation of property located southwest of Durham Chase at the terminus of Worcester Lane; establishing permanent R-1 zoning.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained this to be an approximate seven acre parcel of land with a request for permanent R-1 zoning. An earlier report had suggested the entire tract be annexed, but the applicant had reasons for not doing such at this point in time. The permanent zoning request has been recommended for approval by both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    Roy Rogers, 1614 Whitburn, property owner, offered to answer questions.
    Bill Crockett, Crockett Engineering, 2608 N. Stadium, explained this tract was inadvertently left off when the southeast part of the quarter section was annexed. Since the beginning of the project, he stated the applicant has always maintained that only three-quarters of the 160 acres would be developed. Mr. Crockett reported that Mr. Rogers desires to keep the southwest 40 acres for his own and has no intention of developing this property other than for one or two family houses for himself and his immediate family. He indicated that if a street was built through this area as has been suggested by staff, a strip in excess of 100 feet would have to be cleared for road right-of-way. Mr. Crockett maintained this would devastate the entire property as there are many mature trees in this location. In addition, the topography in this particular area has an approximate 12% slope.
    Bill O'Sullivan, 1700 Brookfield Manor, remarked that extending a road to Sinclair Road would increase traffic coming through Heritage Estates. He stated there is already an inordinate amount of traffic coming through the neighborhood.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Ash asked about additional costs to the City when annexation occurs in a piecemeal fashion. Mr. Patterson responded it is obviously more desirable to have a comprehensive plan for development of a large area, but many times it is economically infeasible for that to occur. For that reason, it is broken down into smaller areas. Mr. Patterson related that staff does make an effort to review the piece in context with the larger section of property.
    B240-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: JOHN, HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A)     Construction of improvements to Stearman Street.
    Item A was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained Stearman Street to be a platted 50 foot right-of-way that is part of Kitty Hawk Manor, Plat 1 which was approved by the Council in June of 1978. The street itself, however, has never been constructed and is referred to as a "paper street."
    Some time back, Mr. Patterson explained the Council received a request from an individual who owned property adjacent to the platted Stearman Street asking that it be constructed to allow them to proceed with development of their tract. In researching the matter, it was determined that construction of Stearman was a legitimate development responsibility, but the City's enacting ordinances did not specifically allow a mechanism for constructing the street in the absence of the original developer. Mr. Patterson stated that last October, ordinances were amended which provided when streets are not constructed as part of the subdivision requirement, the City would have the authority to build the street and tax bill the abutting properties the entire cost of the street.
    Mr. Patterson indicated that a report and a petition was forwarded to the Council in November which represented, at that time, 40% of the abutting property owners who requested that Stearman Street be constructed by the City. Since that time, Mr. Patterson noted staff received notice from the Burnam Family Properties and Windy Pointe, which are controlled by the same individuals, and they have since acquired 80% of the property abutting the street and they are opposed to the construction.
    If the Council chooses to proceed with the project, Mr. Patterson explained the construction would consist of about 1,080 feet of 32-foot wide street terminating in a cul-de-sac at the City's Bear Creek Park property. The sidewalks would not be constructed with the street, but would be constructed as development occurs and before any certificates of occupancy are issued. Additionally, Mr. Patterson reported it has been determined that a six-inch water line would also have to be constructed to serve the properties abutting the street. The installation of the water line would also be tax billed against the property owners. The estimated cost of the entire project would be about $250,000 for the street, which will result in a not to exceed amount of $116 per abutting foot, and another $50,000 for the water line, resulting in a $24 per abutting foot assessment. At this time, Mr. Patterson pointed out that seven of the platted lots do not have access to another street right-of-way. He indicated that Stearman Street, theoretically, would provide the only access for the seven platted lots. However, some of the lots could be combined through the replatting process to provide access to another street right-of-way, but some of the tracts will still be landlocked without the development of Stearman Street.
    Mr. Patterson stated that if the Council desires to proceed with construction of the street, there will have to be a subsequent public hearing at which time the Council will have to determine and identify special benefits accruing to all abutting properties in order to make the assessment. If the assessments and tax bills are successfully challenged, the City would be liable for the entire cost of the construction of the street.
    Mr. Ash asked about whether a certain percentage of the property owners must support the project before the City could proceed with such. Mr. Patterson replied there was nothing by statute requiring a minimum number. He said the City could initiate this without a request, but the Council has traditionally looked for support from the property owners before making assessments.
    Mr. Janku asked if the street could be partially constructed to meet the need of the petitioners that do not have access. Mr. Patterson explained the project will also provide access to City property at the end of the street.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    Carol Irish, 1402 S. Cedar Grove, explained that she owns some of the property on Stearman Street (Lots 8, 9 and 10). She is very much in favor of the street being constructed for her benefit as well as for the benefit of her neighbors. She noted it will provide a direct route into Bear Creek Park. It will also require the people at the end of the street to cut down their tall weeds and grass. Ms. Irish gave the Clerk a petition signed by those residents who support the construction of Stearman Street.
    Otto Traschel, 3702 Wayside, owner of Lots 4 and 5, said when the Burnam's requested a preliminary plat of Kitty Hawk Manor in 1992, the Council at that time should have made them construct Stinson Street down to Stearman Street and pave Stearman. He had a copy of a letter from Tim Burnam which stated the construction and improvements made to Stearman Street should be assessed against the abutting property. According to an agreement signed in 1992, Mr. Traschel maintained the Burnam's would have to pave the streets by 2010.
    Mr. Janku asked what agreement Mr. Traschel was referring to. Mr. Traschel replied he was referring to R60-92A, adopted on May 4, 1992. He read the resolution.
    David Rogers, an attorney with offices at 813 E. Walnut, spoke on behalf of the Burnam Family interests in regard to this issue. He reiterated the Burnam's now own 80% of the frontage on Stearman Street. At the very least, he felt a new petition would have to be filed since the new ordinance was passed last summer and there are properties claiming to want this street to be built that no longer wish to have it built. Mr. Rogers referred to Sears vs. The City of Columbia in which both the trial court in Columbia and the Kansas City Court of Appeals held that the City cannot tax bill the cost of a street unless there is benefit to the particular property involved. He pointed out that all of the frontage the Burnam family owns already has access to a public street. Mr. Rogers said that giving them a second access to a public street would not benefit them. He commented that the Burnam's do not want the street, nor do they want to pay for it.
    Mr. Hutton asked if the Burnam's were the original developers of the subdivision. Mr. Rogers responded they were not, they bought their lots from the developer. He pointed out that this developer is the owner of one of the lots and has asked that the street be built. When he sold the lots to the Burnam family, he never made any mention of wanting to have the streets built. Mr. Hutton thought it strange for someone to buy a piece of property that was landlocked. He commented that some of the owners bought the property thinking the street was going to be constructed. He asked how a developer could sell property that has no access. Mr. Rogers did not know, but perhaps the purchase price reflected such. Mr. Hutton inquired how 100% of the property owned by the Burnam family could have access to a public street. Mr. Rogers indicated they had access through their own property.
    Mr. Janku understood the Burnam family had gone to other property owners and tried to buy the other lots.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku asked if the City could create a pedestrian access way into the park rather than constructing the street. Mr. Patterson assumed that was possible.
    Mr. Patterson noted that although the Burnam family currently owns six of the ten lots which constitutes 80% of the property frontage, these are still six separate lots and they could each be individually sold tomorrow, thus preventing access to any other public street than Stearman. His point was that even though the lots are owned by the same person, they are still separate properties.
    Mr. Rogers concurred and said the only way the Burnam's have access to a public street is to own the lots in question. If sold to someone else, the tracts would not have access to public streets. At that time, he felt Stearman would have to be paved.
    Mr. Hutton asked how the two Windy Pointe properties would have street access.
    Mike Burnam, 6660 Arrowhead Lake, explained that it would be through a replat of the remaining property they own. Mr. Hutton said they could not cross the right-of-way of Stearman. Mr. Burnam suggested through the replat that somehow Stearman Street would be replatted, redone or abandoned.
    Mr. Rogers could not recall the Council ever supporting construction of a street if more than 50% of the property owners opposed the project. He believed it would be unheard of to do this when 80% of the owners are against it.
    Mr. Loveless wondered about the need for a new petition to initiate the construction. Mr. Boeckmann explained the petitioning process is not part of the ordinance. He said it is a practice that has been developed, probably to save the Council the hassle if the people did not want it. Typically, he said they are not talking about a paper street, but an unimproved street where people actually can drive over a street of sorts. At this location, there is no actual street.
    Mr. Janku asked if the lots owned by Ms. Irish could be replatted to provide access. Mr. Patterson noted that all of the properties on the north side of Stearman Street could probably be replatted to have access to Kitty Hawk Drive. In reference to the lots on the south, unless the Burnam family owns all of them, he said the ability for the two lots to get access to the other properties would require eliminating Stearman Street.
    Mr. Janku understood there would be no problem providing public access to the park on the Stearman Street right-of-way. Mr. Patterson saw no legal reason why the City could not build a pedestrian access on the right-of-way. Regarding the two lots on Parker, he pointed out that before any certificate of occupancy could be issued would require that portion of Stearman to be constructed because it would be adjacent to their property.
    In reference to access to the park, Mr. Hutton asked if staff was talking about dedicating right-of-way or just allowing the cul-de-sac bulb to be built on the Bear Creek Park. Mr. Patterson replied that was correct. Mr. Hutton asked how much the bulb would add to the project. Mr. Patterson said it could be up to$15,000 with the drainage and everything. Mr. Hutton wondered if the City would have some responsibility for that. Mr. Patterson responded the City is the abutting property owner so we would tax bill ourselves.
    Mr. Hutton asked Mr. Boeckmann to respond to the Sears lawsuit question brought up by Mr. Rogers. Mr. Boeckmann explained the Sears case to be factually quite different from this. He said the underlying principle in all tax billing is the property tax billed has to receive special benefits above what the general population or property in the area receives. In the Sears case, Mr. Boeckmann pointed out the project involved a major street and the Court considered that the detriments outweighed the benefits and the City could not tax bill on it. He said the issue here is whether or not the abutting properties would receive a special benefit. While there may be some benefit to the general public, he said the major benefit on this project, if there is one, would be to the abutting properties and that is the real issue for Council consideration. Mr. Boeckmann stated that just because the property owner does not want the street does not necessarily mean the land will not be benefitted.
    Mr. Janku thought the Council generally requires a little more showing of desire on the part of the property owners than is shown in this case. Regarding access to the park, he believed the adjoining neighbors would equally benefit from pedestrian access as from automobile access. Mr. Janku noted that Bear Creek Park is not a park designed to be accessed by vehicular traffic, but is more of a neighborhood park. If the Council wants to provide better access to the park, Mr. Janku thought this could be accomplished by some sort of trail. Although it seems unfair for people to be stuck with landlocked property, at the same time, it is a question of fairness as to how much the City expects someone to pay if they do not want the street.
    Mr. Ash pointed out that the Burnam family previously wanted the street constructed. Mr. Hutton agreed and noted that they requested the construction and tax billing in 1992. Mr. Janku remarked that he was on the Council at the time, but could not recall why that did not happen. Mr. Patterson had no recollection of it.
    If a motion were made to proceed, Mr. Patterson explained that two ordinances would be drafted: one to authorize acquisition of off-site construction easements if found to be necessary, and another to authorize the actual bid call. After construction, he said there would be a formal tax bill hearing to determine special benefits for both the street and water line. Mr. Patterson pointed out that tonight the Council would set the maximum tax bill that could be assessed. If this cost comes in over that set by resolution, then the City would be liable for those costs. If it comes in less, the property owners are only assessed the actual cost.
    Mr. Beck asked if anyone had tried to work this out privately. Mr. Patterson understood it had been attempted and there was no way to do it. If it were to be done privately, he explained the only interest the City would have in the project would be to approve the construction plans and then the inspection of the work.
    Mr. Janku suggested tabling the issue in order to get more information from the staff to see if something could be worked out. Mr. Hutton recommended getting the property owners together to build it for half the cost. He was bothered by the fact that since the petition was signed, the Burnam family has bought two pieces of landlocked property. He wondered about their motive.
    Mr. Loveless asked Mr. Rogers if his clients would work with the neighbors. Mr. Rogers said the Burnam's are trying to buy the other lots, but the property owners want too much money for them. Mr. Loveless asked about getting together to build a road at half the cost the City would have to pay for it. Mr. Rogers said even 80% of half the cost would not be pleasant.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the issue be tabled to the September 2, 2003, meeting to give the parties involved a chance to continue discussions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

R123-03     Waiving the annexation requirement for a sewer connection to Gas Light Acres; denying waiver of the annexation requirement for a sewer connection to Boone Industrial Park.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless noted staff's request to table this item further.
    Mr. Beck reported that a draft agreement has been worked on and needs to be circulated amongst the various parties. He said staff would also prefer that the Council review the draft, possibly at a work session, before putting it up for public discussion.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless made the motion that R123-03 be tabled to no date certain. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B223-03     Authorizing the First Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement with CenterState Transportation Development District.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck stated that all the work has been completed at the interchange of Vandiver Drive and US 63, but the calculations of dirt removal has to be agreed upon between the contractor, the developer and MoDOT as to what would be eligible for inclusion in the TDD. He said they now have the final numbers and felt this ordinance and its companion ordinance are ready for Council action, which would actually close out phase one of the interchange project.
    B223-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: JOHN, HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B224-03     Authorizing an agreement with CenterState Properties, LLC relating to construction of the Vandiver/US 63 Interchange Project, Phase 1; appropriating funds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said he had failed to mention there was some additional cost involved; however, the interest the City earned with the deposit made with MoDOT paid it off. He said there had been no reason to come back for an additional appropriation.
    Mr. Janku asked about the time period for reimbursement. Mr. Watkins replied that the reimbursement from the TDD will be in two phases. Initially, they will sell notes and after Council approval of this he was sure they would hold a TDD meeting to authorize the note sale. He said the City would get back notes in the amount of whatever our share was. As leases are signed, Mr. Watkins explained that the notes can be converted to bonds and can be sold at which time we would get our share of the reimbursement. The formula is that the developer who put up $1 million at the end due to a cost overrun, will receive his reimbursement first and then subsequent to that the reimbursement is on a percentage basis based on one-third. Mr. Watkins said he would not be surprised to start seeing some reimbursement in cash within about two years, depending upon when the Bass Pro Shop opens.
    B224-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: JOHN, HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B225-03     Calling for an election to be held on November 4, 2003 for sewer revenue bonds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the Council, working with the staff, prioritized projects they felt should be brought to the voters.
    Mr. Patterson emphasized the purpose of the ballot issue -- to maintain and upgrade the City's current system, and to continue providing those facilities necessary for the orderly growth of the community within the districts and areas that are currently served. Staff is proposing to do that by: continuing an ongoing program to rehabilitate aging sewer lines, manholes and other facilities; eliminating private common collectors with inadequately constructed lines in older parts of town; improving the collection system to provide relief from excessive flows; and, continued funding for the necessary 80-acre sewer line points for developing properties within the current service area. The specific proposals would amount to a bond issue totaling $18,500,000.
    Mr. Patterson reviewed staff's recommendation as follows: $2.5 million for a sewer main and manhole rehabilitation, $6 million for 80-acre point projects, $750,000 for the elimination of private common collectors, $1.3 million to replace a 20-year old treatment plant centrifuge, and $1.2 million for the Clear Creek pump station, Millcreek outfall sewer relief line, Southwest outfall sewer relief line, Bear Creek outfall extension, work on the University campus for old systems that need expansion and additional capacity, and the South Grindstone outfall sewer. The bonds will also be used to increase the deferred tax bills by $500,000 to continue the City's program of capping tax bills at an affordable level. Staff has also included bond financing as part of the cost.
    Mr. Patterson noted the recommendation that the bonds be financed with a series of rate increases over a four-year period with the first one in FY 2005 being four percent, followed by another four percent in 2006, and three percent in both FY 2007 and FY 2008. The average increase for a residential customer would amount to 61 cents per month the first two years, and would drop to 46 cents per month the last two years. Over the four year period, that would average out to 53 cents per month per year. Mr. Patterson displayed an overhead showing that Columbia is currently on the lower end of comparable sewer rates. With the increase, he said the City would be in the middle (with the assumption that none of the other entities would have rate increases during that period). In summary, Mr. Patterson stated that staff believes this is a well-balanced program that will allow for the continuation of some very important projects over the next five years, and that the proposed financing plan is affordable and the costs being projected are reasonable for the community.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that B225-03 be continued to the August 18, 2003, meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B226-03     Calling for an election to be held on November 4, 2003 for water and electric revenue bonds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Malon noted that if approved, these revenue bonds would cover a number of issues which pertain to the City's capacity and reliability, and also the replacement of some older facilities. He said there are several rather substantial projects that have come up at the same time and that is why staff is proposing an issue totaling $28,300,000. The larger projects include the annual replacement and upgrade of old water mains at a cost of $1.2 million; annual replacement services or upgrades for $2 million; the Water Treatment Plant addition at a cost of $6.3 million, adding capacity and reliability to the northeast pressure zone for $6.4 million; and providing a second 36-inch transmission main from the water plant to the City of Columbia for $6 million. Mr. Malon reviewed other items in the bond issue include the upgrade of four-inch mains in the downtown area, modifying Well #8, drilling wells in the river bottoms, painting the Shepard water tower, closing loops and differential payments, as well as upgrading water system computer controls.
    Mr. Malon reported that staff proposes six rate increases at 3.5% each. These increases would begin October 1, 2004, and continue for six years with the average cost to the residential rate payer being 56 cents per month.
    Mr. Loveless asked for a comparison of water rates for Columbia versus comparable cities. Mr. Malon said there is one in the packet, but he had not brought an overhead chart. He indicated the Columbia is certainly competitive now, and even after the six rate increases, we will remain so. Mr. Loveless asked for an overhead of comparable cities for the next public hearing.
    Mr. Janku made the motion the B226-03 be continued to the August 18, 2003, meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B233-03     Authorizing a development agreement with Virtual Realty, LLC regarding Chapel Hill Extension Project.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained that Westcliffe Subdivision, Stonecrest Subdivision and the property east of Louisville Drive and north of Chapel Hill were originally platted as a single tract of land and a preliminary plat was subsequently prepared. He indicated that a tract split occurred that affected the center of the proposed roadways which, in effect, made them perimeter streets to property that would become final platted. This put them in a different category than they would be as interior streets to a developing subdivision.
    Mr. Patterson related that Section 22-108 in the Code of Ordinances has very specific guidelines for collector and arterial streets within a developing subdivision, and once they are platted outside that, they become a perimeter street and subject to tax billing of only the curb and guttering cost which is a significantly higher cost for the City. The developers' intent was not to circumvent any responsibilities of the subdivision and, therefore, have worked with City staff to develop an agreement to more than fulfill the normal requirements of Section 22-108. Generally, that requirement is that the developer of collector and arterial streets in an interior subdivision will provide all engineering, rough grading, drainage structures and pay, through tax bills, local pavement portion costs of the streets.
    Mr. Patterson stated that in order to allow the developers to proceed with the subdivision and to prevent future tax bills from being assessed against future property owners, the development agreement was brought forward as an alternative. He said it was a sincere effort on the developers' part to prevent a situation wherein property owners with homes built adjacent to a non-constructed street are surprised to learn they have to put in sidewalks or be subject to some tax bill potential for the walks. Mr. Patterson explained the agreement lays out the responsibilities the developer will fulfill. Furthermore, the developers have agreed they will put up the money for the cost of constructing five-foot sidewalks along both sides of the streets to be done in conjunction with the streets so there is no assessment against individual lot owners at some future point. Further, they have agreed to construct Louisville Drive in its entirety without any City participation in the project cost. Mr. Patterson related that this agreement defines a roadway section of 42-feet, back of curb to back of curb, and two, five-foot sidewalks on the inside within a minimum of 80-foot platted right-of-way, which is the arterial designation in the City's current subdivision ordinances.
    Mr. Patterson noted that because Chapel Hill is a minor arterial street and there are no City adopted standards for such, the development of the street had to be by agreement between the City and the developer. The 42-foot width was selected as a reasonable compromise and would provide adequate room for bicycle lanes. That combined with the five-foot sidewalks on each side did accommodate facilities that would reasonably provide amenities for bicycles and pedestrians through this very important corridor. Mr. Patterson commented that the reason it is important to define a section and tie down dimensions is because the developer also has reserved the right, should the City not proceed with construction in a time frame they see desirable, to go in and construct not only Louisville Drive, but Chapel Hill also, at their expense. He said they want to be able to be specific about what they would be required to do. Mr. Patterson noted that staff felt the agreement is fair to the developer and to the City in context with the City's current adopted standards and ordinances. If Louisville Drive is constructed in the manner as outlined previously, the estimated cost will be about $300,000 to the City. He noted this does not include the extension of Scott Boulevard, which would add approximately $2 million more because of storm drainage facilities that would have to be installed in this area.
    Mr. Janku asked with Louisville Drive being proposed to be 38-feet in width, whether that could accommodate bike lanes. Mr. Patterson replied it would because it is the City's collector standard. Mr. Janku wondered if driveway access would be restricted on this street. Mr. Patterson believed both streets were in that category. Mr. Dudark said that was correct, but thought that parking would be allowed on Louisville Drive. Mr. Patterson clarified it would if the Council did not take it off for bicycle lanes.
    Chip Cooper, member of the PedNet Coalition and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission, commented that his concerns had been relieved by Mr. Patterson's explanation of the agreement. Based on those comments, he felt that most, if not all, of the things they advocate may be accommodated already. Mr. Cooper remarked on the importance of the route as it connects to the future Perche Creek Trail. He noted that bike lanes may be the solution to existing traffic problems on Chapel Hill if calming devices are attempted at some point in time.
    Mr. Janku asked if Mr. Cooper was satisfied with the bike lanes as opposed to a pedway, or whether he thought there may still be an opportunity to bring the pedway issue forward. Mr. Cooper said he spoke to the developers and they are open to discussing the pedway issue at the time of the normal public hearing process. Mr. Loveless understood the agreement would obligate five-foot sidewalks on either side and the developer would entertain making one or both pedways if the City would pay the difference in cost. Mr. Patterson felt that was a fair statement, the City would not be precluded from doing more.
    Mr. Janku asked what thought had been given to the issue of traffic calming and pedestrian crossings in the area. Mr. Patterson replied that at the present time, staff is not considering such, they are merely relating the basic framework. He related that those things will be addressed during the public hearing. At that time, Mr. Patterson is hopeful staff will know more about the plans for the property.
    B233-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: JOHN, HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B241-03     Authorizing a development agreement with Forum Development Group, LLC in connection with the Broadway Shops development.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained the primary need for an agreement in this case is the way it relates to the construction of WW between Old 63 and US 63. The developer is wishing to proceed with activity on the property and the City's construction of the street will not occur until some time next year. The agreement provides that the developer will provide to the City, at no expense, the necessary right-of-way for the relocation of Trimble Road at East Broadway, the condition for extending turn lanes on East Broadway that are directly attributable to the developer's project, and assures that sidewalks will be built in conjunction with the East Broadway project so they will not have to be torn out during the process of development. Furthermore, in recognition of the need for the increased traffic handling capability on Trimble Road between the newly relocated intersection and Brickton, the developer has agreed to add a lane along the north side of the property. By agreeing to do that, Mr. Patterson said it cut into property that is currently planned for development. The staff is suggesting, as compensation for that loss, that the City make it up with a trade of 12-feet of excess right-of-way along the north side of Broadway. The agreement also refers to the fact that when Trimble Road is relocated, staff will recommend that the old Trimble Road right-of-way be vacated because it will have no further public use.
    B241-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: HUTTON, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: JOHN, HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B245-03     Vacating a portion of a street right-of-way and utility easement on East Broadway.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson noted that this is the 12-feet discussed in the development agreement for The Broadway Shops.
    B245-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: JOHN, HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

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

B227-03     Accepting a deed of dedication; authorizing payment of differential costs for water main serving West Lawn, Plat 1; approving the engineer's final report.
B228-03     Authorizing payment of differential costs for construction of water main serving Head Motor Company; approving the engineer's final report.
B229-03     Accepting easements for utility purposes.
B230-03     Appropriating funds for Share the Light Program.
B231-03     Appropriating funds for the Memorial Tree and Bench Program.
B232-03     Authorizing application and agreement with the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission for transit operating assistance grants for FY 04.
B234-03     Accepting a right of use permit with LPBW Development Company, LLC allowing the City to operate and maintain a roadway located in The Cascades Subdivision.
B235-03     Authorizing a grant agreement with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for the purchase of a glass crusher; appropriating funds.
B236-03     Confirming the contract of Lehman Construction, LLC for the construction of a sidewalk along the south side of Business Loop 70 from Route B to the west side of Old 63.
B238-03     Vacating a sewer easement located north of Arcadia Subdivision.
B242-03     Approving the final plat of The Broadway Shops.
B243-03     Approving the final plat of Stonecrest, Plat 5.
B244-03     Approving the final plat of Stonecrest, Plat 6.
R154-03     Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the north side of Mexico Gravel Road (State Route PP), approximately 375 feet east of Spring Cress Drive.
R155-03     Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the east side of Strawn Road (State Route ZZ), north of West Worley Street, extended.
R156-03     Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located at the western terminus of Smith Drive.
R157-03     Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the north side of Brown School Road, approximately 3,000 feet west of Range Line Street (State Route 763).
R158-03     Setting a public hearing: setting property tax rates for 2003.
R159-03     Setting a public hearing: setting tax rate for all taxable property in the Special Business District of the City of Columbia for the year 2003.
R160-03     Setting a public hearing: FY 2004 Budget.
R161-03     Setting a public hearing: consider granting a renewal of the franchise of Mediacom Communications Corporation to operate a cable television system in the City.
R162-03     Setting a public hearing: consider a Citizens Participation Plan for the Consolidated Plan.
R163-03     Accepting a donation of a laptop computer from the Local Emergency Planning Committee to be used for the management of hazardous materials incidents.
R164-03     Authorizing Adopt A Spot beautification agreements.
R165-03     Authorizing a film project at Columbia Regional Airport.
R166-03     Transferring funds for implementation of the automated external defibrillator program.
R167-03     Appointing Robert Aulgur as Acting Municipal Judge.
R168-03     Appointing Penny St. Romaine as Acting City Clerk.
R169-03     Authorizing temporary closure of a portion of Stewart Road for boiler repairs at the University of Missouri Power Plant.

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

R170-03     Authorizing an agreement with Show-Me Central/Habitat for Humanity and the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office for The Guitar House property and Norbury Hill Subdivision.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the City put up $62,000 in CDBG funds to work on infrastructure in a proposed subdivision Habitat is planning to build along Oakland Gravel Road. The question came up as to whether or not this would impact The Guitar House, and DNR determined that it would. For that reason, the Habitat project needs to go through some additional review. This agreement specifies the measures that will have to be taken to address the impact of the project.
    The vote on R170-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: JOHN, HINDMAN. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R171-03     Extending the neighborhood response team area to include the Indian Hills neighborhood.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    When the new Community Development Block Grant geographic area was shown in Columbia, Mr. Beck explained that the boundaries were shifted from what they had been previously by excluding the Indian Hills subdivision. The Council asked staff to look into ways to continue to assist the area. Over the years, Mr. Beck noted the City has allocated quite a bit of money for park improvements in the area as well as many other improvements. The staff suggestion is to include Indian Hills in the NRT program. The second suggestion involved steps to make this area eligible for CDBG and HOME monies once again. Mr. Beck related that can occur only after a survey is made of the area to determine if the residents are eligible from an income standpoint. If 51% of the persons residing in the area are low to moderate income, the neighborhood will be included in the CDBG eligible area.
    Mr. Hutton asked whether staff has been in contact with the neighborhood association about doing the survey. Mr. Dudark said they had not, but would do so if the Council chooses to move in that direction. Mr. Hutton was concerned about the requirement of 100% of the neighborhood being solicited and the 80% response rate in order to have a satisfactory survey. He thought it would be a difficult chore to get 100% of any neighborhood solicited. Mr. Hutton indicated that would be putting a large burden on a small group of people. The Council further discussed the length of the survey and how long it would take to complete. Mr. Hutton was concerned about income questions. Mr. Dudark replied that it has to be asked and answered. There was a discussion as to how the survey could be done effectively. Mr. Dudark pointed out that there is no requirement for names to be on the survey form itself. He said the survey does not have to be identified with any person. Mr. Hutton recommended that the City provide an envelope in which people could seal their completed survey form. He suggested that the Council pass this resolution and then work with the neighborhood.
    Mr. Ash requested that in whatever manner the survey is administered, that it be done in the most cost effective manner. He preferred the concept of the neighborhood association helping with such a project.
    The vote on R171-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: JOHN, HINDMAN. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R172-03     Modifying the Employee Homeownership Assistance eligibility area.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained this would expand the eligibility area.
    Ms. Crayton asked whether an employee already living in the area would be eligible for this program even if they are not a first time home buyer. Mr. Dudark replied that person would be eligible. Ms. Crayton inquired about income guidelines. Mr. Dudark said there are no income guidelines. Ms. Crayton wondered about income qualifications for the home maintenance program. Mr. Dudark explained that is a different programs and one would have to be income qualified to use federal funds to improve or purchase a home. This fund, however, involves no federal funds so there are no income requirements and no problem with a City employee living in the area and owning a home already.
    The vote on R172-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: JOHN, HINDMAN. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R173-03     Approving the preliminary plat of Heritage Estates, Plat No. 2.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Dudark pointed out that this is the property the Council discussed earlier in the evening and subsequently approved its annexation and R-1 permanent zoning. The seven acre tract would create six lots for single family use. He noted that the Commission had a split vote on this issue, 3-3. The votes against were because of having one exit out to Sinclair Road. The staff concern was that if is platted with a cul-de-sac, how the remaining property would develop with its own street system which is not connected with the interior subdivision.
    Roy Rogers, 1614 Whitburn, property owner, indicated they never intended that a street would go over west to Sinclair. He said it if the remaining 40 acres is ever developed, the access would be from Sinclair. These six lots would have access through Heritage Estates, Plat 1, which contains 68 lots. If a stub street is extended to Sinclair from these lots, he maintained they would not be saleable and residents to the east would complain about all the traffic. He said they would be able to use it when Southampton is extended all the way to Sinclair, regardless of who pays for it. Mr. Rogers reported that he built half of it and would probably build the other half when it comes time. He showed a pipeline easement and said if he was asked to extend the stub street above it, this would take at least 150 feet of right-of-way which contains mature trees.
    Mr. Ash pointed out the number of other cul-de-sacs in the area and commented that whenever the Council tries to provide connectivity, they hear about excess traffic and cut through streets. On the other hand, he said this is in the farthest corner and does compound safety concerns regarding the one point of ingress and egress.
    Mr. Ash asked about the pipeline easement. Mr. Rogers said nothing could be built on it, so it would grow up in trees. He said his agreement with the pipeline company will transfer to the homeowners when they buy the lots. Mr. Hutton asked if he was referring to structures as opposed to the street. Mr. Rogers said he was.
    Bill Crockett, 2608 N. Stadium, explained the topography of the area. He said the strip between the lake and the south property line is about 300 feet in width. In the strip that slopes toward the lake (between 10 and 12% slope), in order to put a street through there and bring it out, he said would require not only a 50 foot right-of-way to be cleared, but the back slope is on a 3-1. He said they would need to clear 100 feet of wooded area. He said that Mr. Rogers desires to preserve the 40 acres for his personal family use. He explained that west of the lake is a ravine that goes south onto the Sinclair Farm which has a vertical relief of about 55-feet. Mr. Crockett indicated that would make it difficult to extend a street.
    Mr. Rogers pointed out that he intends to annex the remaining 40 acres and zone it A-1. He has not decided how many lots it will contain, but no more than three or four. Mr. Rogers could not speak for whomever may own it 30 years from now and how this person may want to develop it. However, they would insist that access come from Sinclair Road.
    Mr. Janku reminded the Council of looking at the big picture. He said the people that will pay for this to some extent (in reference to traffic) will be the residents living on Muirfield Drive.
    The vote on R173-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, ASH, CRAYTON, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: JANKU. ABSENT: JOHN, HINDMAN. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R175-03     Authorizing an agreement with the University of Missouri for transportation services on campus.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck pointed out that the City has had a working relationship in providing some of the bus service for the University. This will increase services provided by the City.
    Mr. Patterson described this agreement as a very positive thing for the transit system because staff has been trying to further integrate City operations with the needs of the University. This year the University placed a bid call for not only shuttle service, but also for extended evening service (Monday-Saturday from 7:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. and Sunday from 3:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.), as well as their accessible transportation service -- which is very similar to the City's paratransit service. The City was selected for all three of the transit services this year which will essentially more than double the amount of service being provided to the University. Compensating revenues will offset any costs the City may have. The agreement is for one year with two additional one year renewals. If the City is successful with this, Mr. Patterson said staff will continue to try and expand services in the University area.
    The vote on R175-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: JOHN, HINDMAN. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

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

PR174-03     Creating a business area organization program.
B239-03     Amending The Major Thoroughfare Plan.
B246-03     Rezoning property located on the south side of Austin Avenue, approximately 280 feet west of N. Providence Road from C-1 to C-3.
B247-03     Rezoning property located on the south side of Mexico Gravel Road (State Route PP), approximately 700 feet west of Wyatt Lane, from A-1 to R-1.
B248-03     Approving the Auburn Hills 7 PUD site plan; authorizing a reduced perimeter setback.
B249-03     Granting a variance to the subdivision regulations regarding sidewalk construction along the north and west sides of Hinkson Creek Road, adjacent to Lot 1 of the Hunter and Lucas Addition.
B250-03     Approving the replat of part of Lot 2 of Country Club Villas Subdivision.
B251-03     Approving the replat of Lot 19C of Country Club Villas Subdivision.
B252-03     Approving the replat of Lot 37 of Country Club Villas Subdivision.
B253-03     Approving the final plat of Auburn Hills Plat 7.
B254-03     Approving the final plat of Keene Estates Plat No. 16.
B255-03     Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code reducing the membership of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission.
B256-03     Authorizing an agreement with Boone County for the design and construction of a storm water improvement project at Ludwick Boulevard and Goodin Branch Creek.
B257-03     Confirming the contract with Emery Sapp and Sons, Inc. related to the construction of the Rollins Road improvement project; appropriating funds.
B258-03     Authorizing acquisition of easements for the construction of the Rollins-Rothwell drainage project.
B259-03     Authorizing acquisition of property at 505 Mary Street for storm water control purposes.
B260-03     Authorizing acquisition of easements related to the construction of Sewer District No. 156 (Edgewood/Westmount Avenue).
B261-03     Authorizing acquisition of easements related to the construction of the 2003 Annual Sidewalk Improvement Project.
B262-03     Accepting easements for utility purposes.
B263-03     Amending the agreement with R. W. Beck, Inc.; appropriating funds.
B264-03     Authorizing a grant agreement with Public Safety Foundation of America, Inc.; appropriating funds.
B265-03     Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code related to conflicts of interest and financial disclosure procedures.
B266-03     Setting property tax rates for 2003.
B267-03     Setting tax rate for all taxable property in the Special Business District of the City of Columbia for the year 2003.
B268-03     Adopting the FY 2004 Budget.

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

(B)     Street Closure Requests.
    Mr. Hutton made the motion that the requests be approved as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C)     Airline Service at Columbia Regional Airport.
    Mr. Beck explained that staff has been notified that flights into Columbia will be reduced to two mid-day flights. The staff feels it important to have overnight stays with flights in the morning and evening, and they have been looking at alternatives in order to work with the airline on whether or not we could encourage them in some way to continue an overnight flight into Columbia. One of the things being looked at is to work in partnership with the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the REDI Corporation, the Chamber and possibly some of the major businesses in Columbia to determine if it is possible to fund the cost of overnight stays for the pilots and their crews, as well as the transportation costs for them. Mr. Beck reported one of the other alternatives was to try and continue the two flights into Columbia for at least another 90 days to cover previous bookings. He suggested that something be brought back for the next meeting. Mr. Janku asked if the public would be able to comment at that time. Mr. Beck replied affirmatively.
    Mr. Hutton noted there was no firm indication that the airline will restore the early morning flight even if incentives are offered. He assumed the City would not enter into an agreement if the early morning flights are eliminated. Mr. Beck thought that was correct. Mr. Patterson clarified that the report suggests parameters of discussion and if something is brought back to the Council to act on, there would be assurances of their acceptance. He said this is what the staff felt was appropriate to offer.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.


    Mr. Hutton noted that final payment has not been made for The ARC and that the contractor has not actually finished the project.
    Mr. Hutton made a motion that the staff report back on the status of completion of The Arc and final payment, as well as what the outstanding problems are and where staff is with discussions concerning fees and how much money is owed, etc. Further, that staff be encouraged to work expeditiously to get the building completed to the City's satisfaction so final payment can be made. And lastly, direct staff to work with the contractor to make sure the subcontractors get paid in full if these businesses were not responsible for the delays in the construction of the project.
    Mr. Hutton said he was not so much concerned about the large contractor, but with the smaller subcontractors that have not been paid. If there is a penalty levied against the contractor, his fear was that the contractor would not pay the subcontractors or would pro-rate what he does pay them. He wanted to ensure the people who are rightfully owed money get paid.
    Mr. Hutton's motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Ms. Crayton again reminded everyone about tomorrow's National Night Out and encouraged citizen participation.
    Having voted on the prevailing side when B209-03 was defeated at the last meeting, Mr. Janku made the motion that it be reconsidered as the applicant has submitted a revised concept sketch which addressed some of his earlier concerns with the proposal. The motion to reconsider was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Boeckmann said it could be acted on at the first meeting in September and the super majority requirement would still be in effect.

    Mr. Janku provided Mr. Beck with information regarding a contest related to accessability with the prize being $25,000. He asked that staff look into it to see if Columbia could be recognized and receive the award.

    Mr. Janku passed the concerns of a constituent to staff pertaining to runoff from adjoining swimming pools. He wanted to know if it was something that should be addressed in our ordinances and regulations, or whether current ordinances are sufficient but lacking in enforcement.

    Mr. Loveless received a suggestion that Scott Boulevard, from Gillespie Bridge Road to Smith Drive, a narrow two lane section that is often foggy, be posted with "headlights on" signs. He asked staff to look into it.

    Mr. Loveless asked for an update on a request by Mr. Thompson regarding traffic calming on Brewer, between Faurot and West Rollins.
    Mr. Loveless passed along a compliment to Mr. Patterson and his staff for storm drain work done in front of a home in the Fourth Ward. He said the family was very complimentary about the way the City staff dealt with them and their concerns.

    Mr. Loveless told the Council they had been challenged by the City Council of Jefferson City to see which city could collect more blood donations in the "Save a Life Tour 2003" sponsored by the Missouri-Illinois Blood Services Region of the American Red Cross. A Red Cross Mobile Unit will be parked in front of the Student Union on the UMC campus on August 27th. The Council accepted the challenge. Mr. Loveless said he would contact Mayor Landwehr and tell him that Columbia accepts their challenge.
    The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
                                                           Respectfully submitted,
                                                           Penny St. Romaine
                                                           City Clerk