APRIL 19, 2004


The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, April 19, 2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN and ASH were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.


The minutes of the regular meeting of April 5, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. John and a second by Mr. Ash.


Upon his request, Mr. John was allowed to abstain from voting on B90-04 and on the appointment to the Board of Adjustment on a motion made by Mr. Hutton and a second by Mr. Janku.

Mr. Ash asked to have B105-04, B106-04, B111-04 and R71-04 moved from the Consent Agenda to the bottom of Old Business.

The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Loveless.




(A) Paul Albert - Park Naming.

Paul Albert, a native of Columbia now residing in Japan, spoke to the official naming of what has been known for some time as Albert-Oakland Park. He noted that some of his siblings, as well as his mother, were present tonight. When the original 20 acres was donated to the City in 1964, he noted, the agreement stated the park shall be perpetually known as the C.M. Albert Memorial City Park. For many years it had informally been called Albert-Oakland Park in various city materials and state maps. About three years ago, he realized the name "Albert" was being dropped in City reference materials relating to the park. Mr. Albert noted that the Parks and Recreation Department report recommended "Oakland Park" as the name. The reason was based upon the logic that only a portion of the now larger parkland had been donated. He pointed out that the park would not have come into existence if they had not donated the original 20 acres. He felt a donation of this magnitude should be recognized at a slightly higher level than the taxpayer funded additions. Mr. Albert asked the Council to officially name the greater park area as the Albert-Oakland Park and to direct Staff to use the Albert-Oakland name in official business related to the park. He also asked that a program be implemented to reverse the name changes that were made over the past few years in print and web media and to reinstate the usage of the name Albert-Oakland.

(B) John Coffman - Proposal by the Columbians for Clean Energy.

Chris Hayday, 106 Rockingham, submitted an article showing Missouri as the third lowest green energy producing state in the nation. Since the industrial revolution, he said, much of the United States has gotten so much of its energy from coal and oil, but as wonderful as it has been, it has had its downsides. Mr. Hayday noted that Columbians for Clean Energy, a group of clean energy activists, would like the City to adopt a more pro-active stance in addressing our energy future.

John Coffman, 1623 University, distributed copies of their plan. He pointed out that for over a year, they have sought input from many civic groups, consumer groups, environmental groups, and church groups throughout the City and have developed the plan submitted for Council consideration. He called the plan a mission statement and stated it was a plan for the future they felt could set goals for the City by adding to the City's electricity portfolio clean renewable energy that was not as detrimental to the environment. Overwhelmingly, they have heard that people think this goal should be pursued together with the goal of maintaining reasonably priced electricity. Mr. Coffman outlined the plan and asked the Council to give it consideration.

(C) James Pounds - Section 24-9 of the City Ordinances.

James Pounds, 401 Cheetah, addressed erosion control saying he felt the City had become hypersensitive to the situation. His recommendation was an oversight committee to review instances when a builder felt he had not been in violation. He passed around pictures of a construction site where he had been cited for a violation after doing what he was told he could do by the City staff. (This was also discussed under Comments of Council, Staff and Public.)

(D) Joane O'Connor, League of Women Voters - Citizens for Clean Energy.

Joane O'Connor, 2401 Tahoe, delivered the League of Women Voters statement in support of renewable electricity for Columbia. She explained that they fully supported Columbia adopting a specific plan to add renewable energy in gradually increasing amounts to the City's power supply. Ms. O'Connor handed the Clerk a petition with over 300 signatures urging the City Council to adopt a Renewable Electricity Standard that would set specific clean energy goals for the City to attain. The ordinance proposed by Citizens for Clean Energy was such a standard.

(E) Ben Londeree - Ballot Proposal.

Ben Londeree, 2601 Chapel Wood Terrace, spoke as co-chair of the Boone County Smart Growth Coalition and member of the Infrastructure Cost Committee of the Coalition. He read a position statement about development fees for roads. The Coalition requested the Council to place a resolution on the ballot to increase the allowable road development fee on new construction from the current level of ten cents per square foot of floor area, averaging about 8% of the estimated residential cost of collector and arterial streets, to an amount that would generate about 50% of the cost of collector and arterial streets, which was currently estimated to be 65 cents per square foot for residential development and more for higher traffic generating development. They felt the development fee rate should increase due to its distance from the urban center and other pertinent factors such as categories of increased estimated traffic generation. The Coalition suggested a work session within the next few weeks, at which time the Infrastructure Cost Committee would be happy to discuss their ideas with the Council. He also offered to meet with the Council members individually or as a group.


B90-04 Establishing permanent PUD-1, PUD-3, PUD-4, O-P, C-P and C-3 zoning on property located on the southwest side of U.S. Highway 63 and on the north side of Gans Road.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Boeckmann explained this to be the ordinance the Council considered at four public hearings in February and March. After passage of the ordinance, allegations were made that it was deficient in four areas. Mr. Boeckmann said there was merit to only one - the title did not clearly express the contents of the ordinance. He stated the ordinance had been amended substantially, but he failed to suggest an amendment to the title. He pointed out the body of the bill was identical to the bill that was previously passed except that the title was changed and a preamble was added explaining the history of the ordinance and why it was being passed.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 203 Executive Building, spoke on behalf of Elvin Sapp, the applicant, and for the Philips family, the property owners. He asked those present in support of the request to stand. Approximately 30 people stood. Mr. Simon noted that the property was already annexed and zoned and added the designated uses would remain the same. If this amendment was not approved, many of the restrictions on the use of the property would go away.

Johann Holt, spoke of behalf of the Osage Group of the Sierra Club. He thanked the Council for responding to one of their points, but said they still felt the ordinance, as written, did not meet legal guidelines. He noted the ordinance contained various subjects, such as the creation of transportation development districts and infrastructure plans, and felt that was prohibited by City Charter. He believed that could only be done through the creation of separate ordinances for the various subjects. Mr. Holt stated that many people oppose the creation of TDD's that force taxpayers to shoulder the financial costs of infrastructure and that they should be allowed to repeal the sections they did not like. He asked that the current ordinance be fixed by enacting separate ordinances for the various issues.

Pertaining to the proposal itself, Mr. Holt stated there was new information that made the proposed development even worse. During the debate over stormwater standards, it was stated the lake would be used only for fishing. He noted the lake should probably be classified as a water of the State and that would likely happen when the lake came under City ownership. The reclassification would require the lake to be clean enough for fishing and swimming (whole body contact) and would require much more strict pollution standards. He felt there was no chance the proposal would meet State requirements for whole body contact water bodies. He asked the Council to hold off on the ordinance while there were still so many questions left unanswered.

Roy Hartley, 1308 Bass, was concerned about Columbia becoming larger and more diffuse. Instead of growing and becoming more concentrated with people living closer to the center, it was going in the opposite direction. He thought it was going in a direction where it would become increasingly more expensive to put in mass transit to serve the population. It was requiring more time in cars, putting more stress on highways, requiring more gasoline, and creating more air pollution. He felt this development on the outskirts should not be approved.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Ash stated he could not support the ordinance due to the zoning on Tract 8, which had not changed. He had no doubts Mr. Sapp would do fine with open zoning, but felt it should all be planned zoning and stated he would not vote in favor of the ordinance again.

Mayor Hindman commented that he had heard nothing this evening that would suggest any change in the substantive part of the ordinance. He saw this as a technical amendment and said he intended to support it.

B90-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: ASH. ABSTAINING: JOHN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B91-04 Rezoning property located on the west side of U.S. Highway 63 and along the east side of a proposed realignment of Lake Ridgeway Road from M-1 to C-P ; approving the Furniture Row at CenterState Crossings C-P development plan.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this to be a 3.8 acre tract of ground with the proposed zoning allowing for the construction of a 53,500 square foot furniture store. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request on a four to two vote. He pointed out that most of the discussion had to do with the size of the sign and the number of parking spaces.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Richard Maureen, 5380 S. Logan Drive, Greenwood Village, Colorado, spoke on behalf of Furniture Row Companies, the tenant and owner of the new facility to be built. He explained that Furniture Row Companies was a privately held firm based out of Denver. They were a national retailer with four active concepts, all in the home furnishings field. They were in 30 states, had 260 stores, and were growing by about 12 new centers a year. He passed around color photographs of one of their Centers and said this one would be similar.

Mr. Janku asked about the parking issue. Mr. Maureen stated the ultimate decision was to recommend their plan in its entirety. He said there were 7 or 8 spaces above the exact calculation for the parking ratio and there had been a discussion about whether or not they should eliminate those spaces. He felt the majority of the Planning Commissioners felt that was micro managing the process. Mr. Janku then asked about the sign. Mr. Maureen replied it would be 7 feet wide, 30 feet tall, cylindrical, and internally illuminated.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B91-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B92-04 Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code relating to street design standards.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mayor Hindman explained that it had been determined the meeting could be lengthy this evening and that this issue should be tabled to the next meeting. For that reason the decision had been made to continue the public hearing until the next meeting. Because it was an advertised public hearing, he invited anyone wanting to speak to the issue to do so, if they could not attend the next meeting.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Greg Ahrens, 1504 Sylvan Lane, member of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, noted that Commission members were very much behind the model street standards with many of them participating in the various meetings over time. He noted one missing element - the geometry of the intersections, how sidewalks and pedways would end up crossing the streets, and how they would approach driveways. He suggested hiring a consultant to help with the planning of how to get people across the intersections safely.

Mayor Hindman understood the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission to be to work on the intersections. He said he was in favor of that and thought everyone would agree. They also felt it was time to go forward and deal with the present street standards before dealing with the other. He was sure the Council would be taking up the geometry issues.

Ms. Crayton said she would also like to see maintenance addressed. She was concerned about wheelchairs.

Mayor Hindman continued the public hearing to the May 3, 2004 meeting.

B103-04 Authorizing construction of water main along Southampton Drive.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained the project to be 810 feet in length with a 12-inch water main that would close a loop in the area for improved circulation. The improvement would enhance the reliability of service, fire protection, and domestic service within the area. The estimated project cost was $32,325 to be paid out of Water and Light funds.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B103-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B108-04 Calling for bids for the construction of an irrigation system in the Grindstone Parkway median islands.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this was in accordance with the master plan of providing landscaping in the beds along Grindstone Parkway. The project would consist of three phases with the first phase being the Rock Quarry Road area. Planting would take place this summer. The other two phases were scheduled for 2005.

Mr. Loveless asked about the cost. Mr. Hood said the irrigation would cost about $5,000 per bed. Mayor Hindman assumed piping had been put under the road when it was constructed. Mr. Watkins replied that sleeves were installed under the road so that the pipe could be pushed under the road into the sleeve. Quick connects would be installed in each of the islands and water meters and back flow preventers would then be added into the system.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B108-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:


B339-03 Amending Chapters 16 and 17 of the City Code as it relates to weapons offenses and firearms in City buildings and parks.

The bill was give second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that the new statute passed by the State Legislature would allow weapons to be in public buildings unless the Council voted that they not be. This amendment would prohibit fire arms in City buildings. It would also amend the Code dealing with weapons in parks to conform with State law.

Mr. Boeckmann explained that in March the Supreme Court ruled that the statute was a violation of the Hancock Amendment in the four counties in which there was evidence produced that there would be added costs. He stated, in the other counties, including Boone, it was presumed to be constitutional until challenged. He was not aware of any attempt to challenge it in Boone County. He said the County was going forward and people were being provided permits to carry concealed weapons. This was why the ordinance was being brought forth.

Ms. Crayton asked how City buildings would be monitored without having metal detectors. Mayor Hindman replied that they had discussed that in the past and, if they wanted to put detectors in, they could.

Mr. Loveless pointed out this would give the City an enforcement tool to use should they need it. He stated someone could be turned away at the door if it was thought or reported they might be carrying a weapon.

Mr. Loveless questioned Section 17-98, dealing specifically with weapons in parks. He noted that later this evening, the Council would discuss a deer management report and actions they might want to pursue dealing with bows and arrows. Section 17-98 (a), he stated, specifically made it unlawful to possess, carry or use bows and arrows in our parks. He asked about archery classes that he thought were available through the Parks and Recreation Department in our parks. Mr. Hood stated they did offer some archery classes during the summer day camp, which was conducted in our parks. Mr. Loveless felt we would technically, through our own parks program, be in violation of that particular section of the ordinance. Mr. Hood agreed. Mr. Loveless suggested striking bows and arrows from Section 17-98(a). Mr. Janku suggested they either allow it just for City classes or wait until they deal with deer management. Mr. Loveless agreed. Mr. Hood said he would check to see if there were any adult programs that might include the use of bows and arrows.

Mr. Boeckmann pointed out that Section 17-98(b) stated this section shall not prohibit any person in a park from carrying a concealed firearm if the person had a valid concealed carry endorsement..... and suggested adding a subsection (c) to this section that would not prohibit any person from participating in any Parks and Recreation Department archery program or event.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that B339-03 be amended by adding Section 17-98(c) as follows: This section shall not prohibit any person from participating in any Parks and Recreation Department archery program or event. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B339-03, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B96-04 Vacating street right of way in conjunction with the proposed Final Plat of Woodridge Subdivision No. 1A.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Dudark explained that this would vacate an unbuilt street. The street was a platted, paper street. The next bill was the final plat for the property, which would include a street and the property north of it.

B96-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B97-04 Approving the Final Plat of Woodridge Subdivision No. 1A; authorizing a performance contract; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations relating to C-P development plan approval.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 4.8 acre tract of ground located in the southeast corner of I-70 Drive. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval with the variance.

Mr. Ash noted the minutes indicated there was mention of the possibility of the developer putting in a deed restriction prohibiting disturbance of the land. He asked if the issue had been investigated. Mr. Dudark replied there were no findings in that regard. He said it would affect the property that was deeded to the lot owners to the south. He said the developer would still have to comply with tree preservation on his property if the deed restriction did not exist.

Mr. Hutton asked if that was the developer's property with the trees on it. Mr. Dudark replied it was not. Mr. Hutton thought it made sense to have, at least, unwritten protection in place because the property was deeded to the property owners to the south as a protection from C-P or commercial zoning. He said it was essentially a trade off so they would not oppose the C-P rezoning. Mr. Hutton asked if the property deeded to the R-1 people was also C-P. Mr. Dudark replied it was C-P, so no development could occur without some sort of plan being approved. He noted there was also no access to it. Because of the size of the lots, Mr. Hutton understood the owners could clear cut it if they wanted. Mr. Dudark thought there might be a requirement for land disturbance and tree preservation on the property. Mayor Hindman asked if that would be under the deed restrictions or City ordinances. Mr. Dudark said it would be under City ordinances.

Mr. Ash felt that both sides would want the trees to remain in place. Mr. Hutton pointed out that there might have been something put in place that the City was not aware of. If the developer had to maintain the trees for his buffer, as a legal requirement, Mr. Hutton felt he would have put something in place to maintain the trees. He thought the City would have required it. Mr. Dudark replied that was his tree preservation area and one would think there must be a requirement in place for the maintenance of them.

B97-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B98-04 Confirming the contract with Emery Sapp and Sons, Inc. for reconstruction of Garth Avenue from Thurman Street to Bear Creek and the reconstruction of the Garth Avenue bridge over Bear Creek; appropriating funds.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that four bids had been received with the low bidder being Emery Sapp and Sons in the amount of $1,601,942.86. Payment for this improvement would be made from tax bills, Transportation Sales Tax funds, Surface Transportation Program funds, a bridge grant from the Federal Highway Administration, and County Road Tax funds.

B98-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B112-04 Authorizing an annexation agreement with Boone County for property located along the west side of U.S. Highway 63 North.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this annexation was contingent upon M-1 zoning and stated the specifics of the agreement. The companion bill, B113-04, he noted, dealt with the Regional Sewer District and the removal of a lagoon and a small treatment plant, both of which were problems. The bills were tied together, in some respects, with the City entering into agreements with the County and the Boone County Regional Sewer District. Annexing this property, Mr. Beck said, would open up the northeast part of the City, so that other property owners in the area could become contiguous to the City and voluntarily annexed into the City.

Mr. Ash asked about the existing County zoning on the subject land. Mr. Dudark replied it was light industrial.

Regarding the companion bill, Mr. John asked how much land would be annexed. Mr. Dudark pointed out the properties using the overhead. Mr. John inquired as to where we stood on the east side. Mr. Watkins stated the ordinance before the Council included the 63 right-of-way. Mr. Loveless asked about the inclusion of another tract. Mr. Watkins explained that the right-of-way would only be what the County had - Prathersville Road south to where their property was.

Mr. Loveless asked how we proceeded with annexing the right-of-way along I-70 to get us to the north side of I-70 on the east part of town. He asked if that had been by petition to the Highway Department. Mr. Watkins replied it was, but noted, in that case, the City's determination was that the County still owned the fee title to that right-of-way and that the Highway Department basically had an easement.

When north of Prathersville Road on U.S. 63 becomes the limit line, Mr. John asked how they would approach the annexation of U.S. 63 north of Prathersville Road. Mr. Boeckmann thought the Highway Department could not own highway right-of-way in fee and felt it would depend on where the property came from. He said they would have to look into it and do some title searches before providing a final an answer. Mayor Hindman thought the Highway Department could annex highways. Mr. Boeckmann noted they had done it before and thought it was their position that they could own in fee, but pointed out there were some cases that indicated otherwise.

Mr. Janku said the two pieces together were very significant, not just because of the increased area brought into the City, but because we would be able to bring in the adjoining areas and would see the creek area cleaned when the lagoon was taken out of service. He also noted the cooperation between the City and County was always good to see.

B112-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B113-04 Authorizing a sewer purchase and interconnection agreement with Boone County Regional Sewer District for property located in Boone Industrial Park and Gaslight Acres.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted this to be the companion bill referred to during the previous discussion.

Mr. Ash asked if this would be the first time we had purchased customers from the Sewer District. Mr. Beck explained that we had traded lines with them before because of the rate differential. He was not sure we had purchased any. Mr. John said he did not think we had purchased any sewers, but that we did purchase a couple of the Water Districts along with their customers.

Mr. Ash assumed if the industrial area redeveloped, they would have to annex into the City, in which case, he said, we would eventually get rid of the islands.

B113-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B105-04 Confirming the contract with Sterling Excavation, Inc. for construction of water main along Roger I. Wilson Drive, from Oakland Gravel Road to the Boone County Jail property.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Dasho explained there had been some questions about the bid amount and the engineer's estimate. He said the original estimate had been $100,000 with Sterling Excavation being the low bidder at $83,102.50.

B105-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B106-04 Accepting conveyances relating to the construction of an overhead electric line along Mount Vernon Avenue.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Dasho explained this project would finish a conversion of some very old electric lines to current standards. One of the streets was Mount Vernon and he was surprised to find the electric poles were actually in the street and in parking places when he investigated the issue. He noted that Staff had to ask the land owners if the City could put the poles on the back side of the sidewalks, getting them out of the street. As part of the project, he discussed whether or not undergrounding could be done. He said this raised some questions about how we could get facilities that would be newly built overhead, built underground.

Mr. Ash said when he looked at this he did not see the long term maintenance costs of overhead versus underground. If they were underground squirrels could not chew on them nor could the wind blow them down. He noted they could be dug into accidently. Mr. Ash commented that we had an aging infrastructure that needed replacing and suggested considering following the sanitary sewer district model where a majority of the residents who would want to do this would be incurring some costs, but the City would split the cost. He said a limit could be set on their tax bills and they could pay for it over a period of time. He felt there was a public benefit to upgrading it, while still having a public aesthetic benefit. Mr. Ash was not saying they should follow that line in this particular case, but wanted to throw the idea out for discussion.

Mr. John noted this was built by the electric company for electric service where our sewer lines were built to standard and if the standards changed, we upgrade th em without charge. It was those built by someone else, not to standard, that we charge for upgrading when they hook into the City. This would fall into the category where we would not charge, if it were a sewer line or a water line. Mr. Ash said he could still see an argument. He gave an example a recent project where the residents wanted to do it a little differently and we could not allow it because we needed to be good stewards of tax dollars. He asked about a survey to see if the residents wanted to do the lines underground, understanding it would cost them more money.

Mr. Hutton saw the basic question as to whether it was legal to do a taxing district for electric lines. Mr. Boeckmann was pretty sure there were no provisions for it, but said something could probably be developed, as long as there was no State law that would prohibit us from doing it as a Charter City.

Mr. Loveless recalled a discussion some time ago regarding underground, particularly high voltage lines, not being maintenance free. At some point in time, he understood it would be necessary to go in and service the lines. When that happened, it would be extremely expensive since they were underground. Mr. Dasho agreed and said maintenance costs may be less on a per year basis, however, when they have that one maintenance cost with an underground line, like a "dig in", it was an expensive operation. He said he would be willing to come back to the Council with information about the difference between overhead and underground maintenance costs. He noted the issue was not just one for the City of Columbia, but one that had been looked at by a number of cities around the country.

Mayor Hindman felt undergrounding the lines had a lot of value to the community. He said the reliability of service was worth a lot. Ice storms would not affect large parts of the City at one time. He felt there were other significant reasons. Mayor Hindman felt one of the City's goals should be to get the heart of the City the most desirable place to live. He noted one of the things that affects where people want to live is the aesthetics of an area. He felt that a large part of the population considered the overhead lines to be ugly and pointed out that they were primarily in the heart of the City. He remarked that they have sort of "stopped the bleeding" by requiring undergrounding of residential services in all new subdivisions. He thought the same policy should apply, as much as possible, within the heart of the City. He realized there would most likely be additional costs when retrofitting. The fact that it would cost more than replacing it with overhead lines, he agreed, was a point, but thought if it was spread out over enough years, it would not have a significant impact on rates. He pointed out that where there were overhead utility lines, the shape of trees were ruined, which changed the landscape.

Mr. Janku noted that this was an unusual case because of the location of the poles. He said there were a lot of utility pole replacements that go on, but did not think that every time a utility pole was replaced that we should underground the lines. He stated they never came up with a plan identifying their top priorities for the community, although they had talked about it. Mr. Janku felt they needed to talk with the Phone Company because they had a budget just like the City. He thought they might be willing to accommodate the City with a certain amount of undergrounding per year, but when it came up on a random basis, they were not prepared for it financially.

Mr. Beck explained they had been budgeting $800,000 per year for undergrounding lines with a priority in the downtown area. He thought that had been finished up last fall and suggested, if they want to go to an undergrounding program, they look at what could be set aside and with what type of rate structure at the Council Retreat. He noted they would be looking at the rate structure this year and thought it would be a good time to look into the undergrounding issue.

Mr. John suggested a later motion putting the issue on the Retreat agenda.

Mr. Ash asked what everyone thought about the concept of the majority of the affected people having to sign on and split the cost. Mayor Hindman thought that was one of the things they should look at.

Mr. Hutton thought it would be grossly unfair to cause a poor homeowner to spend $2,000 to $4,000 to underground the utilities from the pole to their house, at totally their expense, simply for aesthetic reasons.

Regarding the earlier issue raised regarding tax billing, Mr. Boeckmann pointed out the issue was not public purpose, but whether or not there was a special benefit. He said it came down to a question of finance - what was the cost and what was the benefit. That type of thing has to be determined on an individual basis.

Mr. Beck said Staff would report back on what other cities have done.

Mr. Dasho pointed out that this was only one part of a project that was being done by contractors in the entire area. It was conversion affecting the entire area. He pointed out that if this was held up there would be one piece with the wrong voltage down one block conflicting with everything else in the area.

As the poles were being replaced, Mr. Janku said, he would like to see the aluminum standards and other pieces being upgraded or replaced. He noted they were rusting.

B106-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B111-04 Amending Chapter 24 of the City Code as it relates to the obstruction of streets and sidewalks.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Watkins explained this had been brought to the Council at the request of the Special Business District. The current policy earmarked the ability to use the sidewalk in front of certain businesses for certain uses, but it had become quite dated and some of the businesses no longer exist. In consultation with the SBD and the City Counselor, they came up with a more general policy that essentially took the tact that the sidewalk in front of a business downtown was an extension of that business. It was okay to place chairs, tables, and plants on the sidewalk, if it was an extension of that business, provided they allowed access for pedestrians and persons in wheelchairs.

Carrie Gartner, spoke on behalf of the Special Business District and the Central Columbia Association and said most of her members were affected positively by the proposed ordinances. She said the current policy was written before downtown was as busy as it was now. Ms. Gartner noted they worked closely with City Staff to get changes they thought to be equitable and ones that would encourage a lively sidewalk atmosphere in the downtown area. She stated they were very supportive of both B111-04 and R71-04, as they would help them do a number of things from sidewalk cafes to sidewalk festivals.

Ms. Gartner said although the changes were designed to make the sidewalks an extension of the buildings, another problem was identified in regards to sidewalk cafés. They would be allowed to bring a table out and serve dinner, but could not serve a customer a glass of wine with their dinner on the sidewalk. She was not suggesting holding up passage of either bill, nor was she suggesting the open container ordinance be up-ended. She felt if City Staff worked with some of the board members of the SBD, they could come up with a smart solution that would encourage the downtown culture, but not be irresponsible. Their hope was that the Council would ask for a Staff report on ways to amend the open container ordinance in a way that was responsible and helped the sidewalk cafés.

Mayor Hindman asked Ms. Gartner how she felt about bicycles on downtown sidewalks. She replied that the sidewalks were so busy and crowded downtown. She noted that they were working hard to get good bicycle routes through downtown. She said it was very dangerous for people to be coming in and out of store fronts with bicycles whizzing by.

Mr. Ash asked if the entire SBD Board had talked about this issue with the City. Ms. Gartner said it was the entire Board that spoke about it and appointed a sub-committee that discussed it at length before bringing it back to the Board. The Board then voted to approve it. She noted it had been a lengthy process.

Mr. Ash pointed out that the report mentioned sandwich board signs which Staff felt should not be tackled right now because it opened up the sign ordinance. He added that the wine issue mentioned by Ms. Gartner brought up the open container ordinance. He noted other things were mentioned in the original proposal that were not mentioned in the report, such as artist's demonstrations or musicians. He thought they should go ahead and approve the things that were simple and straight forward and then come back and deal with other things. If they were too vague and allowed business owners too much leeway, he thought there would be a fear of opening Pandora's Box. Mr. Janku explained that they had come up with guidelines because there had been complaints of problems, primarily coming from the disabled community. He said they were not able to get through some of the sidewalks because of the tables.

Mr. Ash agreed with allowing 60 inches to pass by, but felt there were more things that could be put out besides tables, chairs, and planters.

Ms. Gartner saw this as one step in a long process. She felt they had made it pretty clear that they would like to see menu boards allowed and wanted it to be brought up when the sign ordinance was discussed. She noted they were okay with this right now, but would be asking for more in the future.

Mr. Loveless asked if a three foot unobstructed pathway was what was generally used. He said he had been at a new store on the south side of Elm Street, east of Ninth, and the crowd was spilling out. He noted there were a few benches backing up against the building and said the business owner talked about turning the benches around, putting them at the curb, and facing them into the sidewalk so that his customers would not get shoved out into the street. The owner indicated Staff had told him he only needed three feet. Mr. Patterson replied that five feet was the recommended guideline by ADA for two wheelchairs to be able to pass and that was what the City used as the standard. He said that had been used for three or four years now.

B111-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

R71-04 Establishing revised use of downtown sidewalks by certain businesses.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Ash explained this would do away with the antiquated policy.

The vote on R71-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:


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

B93-04 Approving the Final Plat of Eastport Village Plat 4; authorizing a performance contract.

B94-04 Approving the Final Plat of Stonecrest, Plat No. 7; authorizing a performance contract.

B95-04 Approving the Final Plat of Vanderveen Crossing, Plat No. 13A; authorizing a performance contract.

B99-04 Confirming the contract with C. L. Richardson Construction Company for the Settlers Ridge (B-20) Sewer Project.

B100-04 Authorizing acquisition of easements for construction of street improvements to East Broadway, from Old 63 to U.S. Highway 63.

B101-04 Authorizing acquisition of easements for construction of Sewer District No. 150 (Mexico Gravel Road).

B102-04 Authorizing acquisition of easements for construction of Sewer District No. 158 (Old Plank Subdivision).

B104-04 Accepting conveyance; authorizing payment of differential costs for water main serving Stonecrest, Plat 5; approving the Engineer's Final Report.

B107-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B109-04 Authorizing an agreement with The Curators of the University of Missouri for medical director services.

B110-04 Appropriating donated funds to the Memorial Tree and Bench Program.

R64-04 Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the east side of Creasy Springs Road, north of the present city limits.

R65-04 Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the north side of Brown School Road, approximately 2,000 feet west of State Route 763.

R66-04 Authorizing a contract with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the summer food service program.

R67-04 Renewing agreements with the Missouri Department of Corrections to provide tuberculosis screening and Hepatitis B and influenza vaccinations.

R68-04 Transferring funds from the Office of Community Services to the Health Department relating to HIV/AIDS rental assistance and emergency dental assistance payments.

R69-04 Authorizing an agreement with COIN for computing services.

R70-04 Accepting the donation of computer diskettes for use in the City's Homes for Computers program.

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


R72-04 Authorizing a HOME agreement with Show-Me Central Habitat for Humanity.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that they had funds reserved in the amount of $45,237 to be used for low income households to help purchase houses constructed in certain areas of the City, particularly in the area where the Neighborhood Response Team had been working. The 2003 Action Plan provided for setting money aside for these purposes.

Mr. Ash noted that unlike a few weeks ago, in this case, we were getting four houses for about $10,000 per house. He asked how we were able to get them so much cheaper this time. Mr. Loveless replied that the $45,237 was not the complete cost of building the four houses. Mr. Dudark said that was correct and that it was a subsidy.

The vote on R72-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R73-04 Approving the revised Preliminary Plat of Forest Ridge.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Dudark explained that during the discussion of this a few weeks ago, one of the issues was making another connection to the west. He showed one connection into the subdivision to the west on the overhead. He noted this was the tract that had the street stubbed out and could possibly be redeveloped. The discussion had been about having another connection that would connect through this tract into the subdivision at some time in the future. Using the overhead, he showed the location of a drainage way and said they determined making a connection would affect the carrying capacity of the stream. Rather than trying to deal with that, they decided to stick with the one connection and to not develop a tract at this time, but to leave it for future development. He felt they were essentially saying they would postpone the issue for right now and proceed with the rest of the development and leave the creek crossing alone.

Mr. John asked where they would bring a street from to come down. Mr. Dudark used the overhead to illustrate it. He said there would be enough room for lots on one side of the street.

The vote on R73-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. 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:

B114-04 Approving the Hyde Park South Planned Commercial Development Plan on property located on the south side of Cooper Drive North, between Buttonwood Drive and Hyde Park Avenue.

B115-04 Rezoning property located between Leslie Lane and Texas Avenue, west of North Providence Road from R-1 to C-P; approving the Phoenix House C-P Development Plan.

B116-04 Rezoning property located on the north side of Chapel Hill Road, extended, and on the east side of Perche Creek from R-1 to PUD-2; approving the Westcliff PUD Site Plan; granting variances to the subdivision regulations.

B117-04 Abrogating the Final Plat of Scheulen Acres - Block V; approving the Final Plat of Timber Creek, Plat No. 1; authorizing a performance contract and development agreement.

B118-04 Approving the Final Plat of hawks Ridge; authorizing a performance contract.

B119-04 Approving the Final Plat of Lake Shire Estates, Plat No. 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B120-04 Confirming the contract with Admire Construction LLC for the Fifth Street and Cherry Street sidewalk project.

B121-04 Authorizing acquisition of easements for the Chapel Hill Road improvement project.

B122-04 Accepting conveyances for drainage, sewer, sidewalk, street, temporary turnaround and utility purposes.

B123-04 Accepting conveyance; authorizing payment of differential costs for water main serving Boone Quarry, Plat 3; approving the Engineer's Final Report.

B124-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B125-04 Authorizing an extension of a real estate lease with The Wardrobe, Inc. for property located at the northwest corner of Park Avenue and Eighth Street.

B126-04 Authorizing participation in the State Revolving Loan Fund relating to the issuance of Sewerage System Revenue Bonds.


(A) Intra-departmental Transfer of Funds.

Report accepted.

(B) Deer Management.

Mr. Beck explained that Staff met with Conservation Department representatives to discuss the growing number of deer in the City. The report suggested a more pro-active deer management program with some of the outlying areas being opened up for bow hunting. The suggested properties included areas of the landfill, areas in the wastewater treatment/wetlands property, Water & Light's property on Oakland Church Road, City property along Perche Creek at Strawn Road, early morning and evening hunting at the L.A. Nickell Golf Course and areas in back of the Cosmo Recreation Area.

Mr. Janku voiced concern about the areas in back of the Cosmo Recreation Area. He noted that it encompassed the Bear Creek Trail and said he did not think they wanted to cut off access to the trail. Mr. Loveless felt he was talking about mutually exclusive activities - archer hunting and the use of the trail. Mr. Loveless stated archers would be out from about 30 minutes before light and about two hours after dawn. He suggested it would be reasonable to put guidelines on it, such as no hunting from dawn until two hours after dawn or during the last hour of light in the evening.

Mr. Loveless commented on deer and automobile accidents. He explained that deer did not range great distances and to make an impact on the deer population, the does must be removed from the breeding population. He asked that they the suggested areas be marked on a map so they could examine them more closely to see if they could set something up in the hot spots mentioned on the report from the Police Department. He noted three or four people had several accidents involving deer. Mr. Janku reiterated his concern about the Bear Creek Trail. He noted that people used it early in the morning and early evening and stated he was uncomfortable in including the area. Mayor Hindman remarked there were several areas where that kind of issue might come up. Mr. John commented that the deer would not be standing around if there were joggers on the trail. Mr. Janku said the deer were fairly comfortable with joggers. Anywhere hunting was allowed, Mr. John noted, we needed to make sure precautions were taken so the deer hunters and others users of the parkland were not in conflict with each other.

Mr. Hutton suggested preparing a draft ordinance and excluding areas at that time, if they so chose. Mr. Janku pointed out he wanted it excluded from the draft. He suggested including areas away from the trail. Mayor Hindman pointed out that both sides of the trail at Katy Trail State Park were hunted. Mr. Loveless said the land adjacent to the Katy Trail was hunted by all methods throughout the length of the Trail. Mr. Janku pointed out the Forum Nature Area was not listed.

Mr. Ash asked that the bow hunter group be involved in the discussions between City Staff and the Department of Conservation. They had suggested a bow hunters education certificate be required as a condition of being allowed to hunt in these areas. Mr. John thought it would be beneficial to have their input.

It was pointed out that the hunters would be shooting down at a sharp angle, not parallel to the ground.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that Staff be directed to draft an ordinance for Council discussion, taking into consideration the comments and concerns voiced, while coordinating with the Department of Conservation and the bow hunting clubs. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.


Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council the following people were appointed to the following Boards and Commission:


John, Martha K., 2011 N. Country Club Dr., Ward 3 - term to expire 5/1/09


Elliott, James W., 2702 Bayonne Ct., Ward 4 - term to expire 5/16/08

Foster, J. Larry, 208 Blue Sky Ct., Ward 4 - term to expire 5/16/08


Slattery, Adam R., 1324 - G Ashland Rd., Ward 6 - term to expire 10/31/05


Mr. Loveless asked for a Staff report providing options on how to go about annexing north on Highway 63 and north of Prathersville Road.

Mr. Loveless commented on a family that did not qualify as a family for membership to the ARC. The reason was that the two children were adults, but both were disabled and completely dependent upon their parents. Because they were adults they could not get a family pass. Mr. Loveless made the motion that Staff be directed to consider redefining the family definition for the described purpose. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. John noted that mention had been made recently about there not being many City projects going on around town. He pointed out there were a lot of construction projects coming down through the pipeline. He explained that it took time for the engineering, bidding, and design.

Mr. John pointed out that an earlier speaker had remarked about the cost of new construction and roads. He said the Council had begun that discussion and was looking at hiring a consultant to look at the various costs and ways of recovering them. He stated that this was something that had been in the works for some time.

Due to the permitting process and stormwater restrictions placed by DNR, Mr. John commented that he had been told the City was not allowing C-P/O-P plans to come through the process until those permits were issued and the developer had his permit in hand. Until such time, plans for their development were being held in the Planning Department and not being forwarded on to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He commented that obviously they should not release the plan until the DNR permit was received, but thought they should be able to get them both going at the same time. He asked if what he was being told was true or if it was being misreported. Mr. Patterson replied that he would check into it. With regard to the internal review and processing, he said, the only criteria should be whether or not it met City ordinances. He knew of no reason why the City should be holding up a permit to be processed through Planning and Zoning until DNR approved it.

Mr. Ash asked if they were going to discuss the undergrounding issue at the Retreat. Mayor Hindman thought it should be a Retreat item because it would have an impact on the budget.

Regarding the clean energy issue, Mr. Ash reiterated his concerns about asking everyone to pay more for green power. Although he was in favor of clean energy, he said he would prefer to see some way that, individually, people could elect to do it rather than everyone having to do it.

In regards to comments made by Mr. Pounds about an oversight committee, Mr. Ash did not think they wanted to undermine the authority of the City. He could see the benefit to a neutral, third party review. Rather than creating a new group, he inquired about an existing group possibly being able to serve in this capacity. Mr. Hutton replied the City already had an oversight board, Municipal Court. Mayor Hindman felt it was DNR. He said what we were trying to do was to meet the DNR permitting requirements. He added that the City was licensed by the State to do just that. Mr. Patterson pointed out that City inspectors would know whether or not there was a violation. He felt it was not a question of there being a violation, but a question of whether or not we made a record of it, issued notices, or performed enforcement action. Mr. Patterson explained there was a policy in place that Staff worked out over a period of several months with the Home Builders Association. The notice of violation Mr. Pounds referred to was essentially a warning. He pointed out that Staff was out there because a complaint had been received and they were to respond. Mr. Patterson stated they did not take action that was punitive in nature until a third violation occurred. He felt the current process had safeguards in it to be sure that people were not being unfairly punished without having an opportunity for review, examination, and verification that the actions were proper. Mr. Ash agreed and said he was trying to figure out if it was the money or the principle of the thing. He noted the cost to get up and running again was $15. After the third time, he thought it was the money because then the whole building permit was pulled. Mr. John said because it was a fairly new process, there might be a little tweaking that needed to be done and thought it needed to be given more time. Mayor Hindman felt things were being enforced a lot more rigorously since DNR came down. Mr. Janku noted that one of the Storwmater Task Force members came in with pictures where the policy was not being enforced. In the past, Mr. Patterson pointed out, it was being enforced, but they were doing more of a verbal type warning, not actually documenting the notices. He said they began documenting due to suggestions made by the Stormwater Task Force. He noted they worked with the Home Builders Association to make sure they were not being too draconian. So far, they felt it had been effective. He explained they reported the numbers to Home Builders Association last week. They issued 127 first notices of violation and 20 second notices. Out of all of them, only three went to the third notice of violation. He felt they were getting the warning message out and taking a progressive, measured approach to it. He said he had not heard from anyone that three notices was not a fair approach. At the point a third violation occurs, they had the right to appeal to his office on anything that came up involving the revoking of permits or stopping work. They did look into it to determine if there had been an appropriate use of the inspector's authority and judgment. He said they would change any that were unjustly imposed.

Ms. Crayton noted that vacant houses were starting to creep up on Fourth Avenue and asked the Staff to look into the situation. She said she would report the addresses to Staff.

Ms. Crayton asked that the landlords be informed that a lot of the things that were going on in their houses were not going to be tolerated. She did not think landlords should be able to stay on the program (Section 8) if they had done something illegal. She felt the same rules should apply for renters and owners - neither of them being allowed to stay in the program. Mayor Hindman was not sure that could be done because he thought that was probably under federal law. Mr. Boeckmann stated that the City could not do that. He pointed out they would be punishing the tenants if their landlord was convicted of a crime and the tenants got thrown out because their landlord was removed from the program. Mr. John added that they would not be able to rent the houses any longer because their landlord would be taken out of the program.

Mr. Janku reported that a constituent's back yard was basically falling away into a creek in a new subdivision. The lady called the City and was told the drainage area had not yet been accepted by the City and that it was still under construction. The lady was upset because she felt the construction had not taken place in the appropriate phase. Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Janku to give him the name so he could look into the issue.

Mr. Janku remarked that R64-04 noted a need for additional park land in the area. He thought Staff had been working on this and asked for additional information. He was hopeful that before all the land was developed that we could save a little land for a park.

Mr. Janku explained they received a report on street standards and said he liked the idea of the curbless streets. He asked for specific ideas on the issue in time for the next meeting when they would discuss street standards.

Mr. Janku asked about the nuisance ordinance. Mayor Hindman commented that it would be discussed at a work session.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that the renewable energy issue be referred to the Energy & Environment Commission and the Water & Light Advisory Board for reports back to the Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mayor Hindman referred to the earlier conversation about the open container ordinance and the fact that Village Wine and Cheese could not serve wine at their outdoor tables. He thought it would be beneficial to downtown to somehow deal with the issue. He noted warm weather was coming and said he would like to see them open up this possibility as soon as possible. Mr. Loveless interjected that in New York they were surrounded by a short decorative fence that defined their area. He suggested that might be a place to start. Mayor Hindman made the motion that Staff be authorized to work with the Central Business District on the issue and report back with their findings. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.

The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheela Amin

City Clerk