MARCH 1, 2004


The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, March 1, 2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU and HUTTON were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.


The minutes of the regular meeting of February 16, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Ash and a second by Mr. Janku.


Mayor Hindman noted that B77-04 would be added under Introductions.

Mr. John noted that he would be abstaining from B20-04.

Upon his request, Mr. Janku made the motion that Mr. Ash be allowed to abstain from voting on B35-04. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

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


Mayor Hindman welcomed Boy Scouts from Troops 702 and 707. He also introduced Jacob Orm, a Rock Bridge High School student who was doing his senior internship with the City as part of the Partners in Education Program.

Mayor Hindman noted that the Government Finance Officers Association had presented their highest award to Raymond A. Beck, City Manager. The award was given in connection with the presentation of the budget.




B1-04 Rezoning property located on the west side of Maryland Avenue, between Rollins Street and Kentucky Boulevard from R-3 to C-P; approving the Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity C-P development plan.

The bill was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that the City received another request to table this item.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that B1-04 be tabled to the April 5, 2004 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B20-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the southwest side of U.S. Highway 63 and on the north side of Gans Road; establishing permanent PUD-1, PUD-3, PUD-4, O-P, C-P and C-3 zoning.

The bill was read by the Clerk.

Mayor Hindman announced that an amendment had been prepared by Staff which was based on the proposal by the applicant with respect to amending the application for zoning. He noted these amendments would substantially change the original application.

Mr. Beck described the proposed amendments which would be made part of the record. He noted ten items; the developer would be required to provide a stormwater management plan in conjunction with the development plan submitted for each tract, the City would pay 30% of the lake improvements, the park which includes the lake tract and the donated land would be named in honor ow A. Perry Philips, the developer would provide a traffic impact study prior to the approval of any development plan for the construction of more than 350 dwelling units or for any development on tracts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, excluding a school or church, the City would purchase a non-lake tract of approximately 77 acres at a cost of $16,000 per acre, the owner of tract 8 would enter into a declaration of restrictive covenants which would run in favor of the owner of the lake and non-lake tracts and provide restrictions to the use of tract 8, the developer would design and construct a water quality protection system to at the developer's expense, the developer would be responsible for maintaining that system for either one year after the system was constructed or until the system was no longer impacted by construction activity, the City would maintain a portion of the system on City property while the remainder is maintained by the property owners, and the owner of the portion of tract 4 not owned by the City would be allowed to use the entire allotment of impervious surface set forth in Exhibit 21.

Mayor Hindman re-opened the public hearing.

Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 203 Executive Building, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Elvin Sapp, and the property owners, the Philips family. Mr. Simon stated that the amendment was acceptable to them with one minor exception. He noted a minor glitch in the draft language that dealt with the parkland. He reiterated that it was not a major problem and that the amendment with that minor exception, as well as the ordinance amended by that amendment, was acceptable. Mr. Simon stated there was nothing more they could say or offer and no further concessions could be made. He asked the Council to pass the ordinance at the March 15, 2004 meeting. Mr. Simon commented that the City wanted the land annexed and said it would be a tragedy not develop this land in the City. He noted the City wanted a park in this area and the City needed a road and overpass to serve the park. The City could not, without a partnership by someone providing substantial funding, build the overpass any time in the near future. He continued, stating the City needed an overpass to open up another outlet to south Columbia and to open up the University land on the other side of the long planned research park. Mr. Simon noted the project would generate $9 million annually in additional taxes for governmental entities and hundreds of jobs. If developed in the County, as it was currently zoned, the development could generate over 1200 apartment units and houses. Regarding water quality, based on all of the information available, Mr. Simon indicated there was no rational way to say the creeks would not be adequately protected by the system proposed, built as proposed, and operated as proposed.

Mike Vangel, 3511 I-70 Drive SW, Chair-elect of the Columbia Chamber of Commerce, noted that the Chamber's Government Affairs Committee looked into this issue, met with both the opponents and proponents of the proposed project, and felt that Mr. Sapp had jumped through all of the hoops and hurdles the opponents of the project had put in front of him. They felt he had responded well to their concerns. Never having met Mr. Sapp, Mr. Vangel explained that he tried to find out about him through common acquaintances. He found his reputation to be rock solid and a man who, apparently, did what he said he would do. He stated the Chamber Board thought it would be a huge mistake for our community to deny this request. He noted that growth had allowed us to do remarkable things as a community and made it possible to have the amenities that we all share and benefit from. The Chamber urged Council support of the proposal.

Randall Clark, 2147 Bearfield, commented that as development increased in an area like the Philips Farm, the peak flows and the volume of water leaving the site and entering its streams could also increase up to ten times over the pre-development amount. The increase in peak flow rates would cause flooding and the increase in the volume of water would tear up the streams causing them to become wider and deeper, destroying aquatic life and destroying private and public property. Both runoff peak flows and runoff volume must be controlled to protect streams from the impact of stormwater. Controlling the volume of water leaving the site, he found, was the single most important way to protect the health of the streams. Page 13, Section 17 of the proposed ordinance, in his opinion, had only a weak standard for peak flow. He noted that there was no standard for the volume of water that would be released from the site. Page 11 of the final report of CH2M Hill stated that BMP design criteria should include runoff volume and water quality. Page 12 of the report said that volume based hydrologic modeling was recommended for site analysis and design. Mr. Clark felt the weak stormwater standards in the ordinance might prevent future engineers and scientists from being able to mitigate the impact to the streams from this large development. He commented that they had written specific stormwater performance standards that would deal with specific peak flows and runoff volume targets. These standards could be found on page 6 of their February 29 memo. He explained these standards were based on what many other communities were doing and on what the American Public Works Association recommended in their recent stormwater manual. Mr. Clark asked that these standards replace the current standards in the ordinance. Regarding the amendment sheet, he thought it looked as though there would only be detention BMPs in the tracts that drain to the lake. It did not indicate BMPs on tracts 1, 2, 3, 6 or 7. He stated adequate BMPs were needed on the entire tract.

Larry Magliola, 4403 S. Pinebrook, noted that the rezoning ordinance must be amended to include language that clearly stated that monitoring would be done. Baseline data was needed for evaluating future developments in this sensitive watershed. Once a baseline was established, changes in stream conditions over time could more easily be identified. He suggested that monitoring sites be selected based on BMP location and their relation to the streams. The monitoring costs, he suggested, could be shared by the developer, property owners, and the City. He also informed the Council that EPA grants and Stream Team volunteers could be utilized to assist with monitoring.

Joe Bindbeutel, 1701 E. Gans Road, spoke on behalf of himself and the Clear Creek Neighborhood Association. He believed the City was in the process of doing a poor job of protecting its taxpayers with respect to the cost of this development. He felt the major question in regards to all of these features was who would pay. He saw the standards referenced as totally illusory. He referenced language saying the BMPs would be required to maintain the beneficial use designation by DNR for Gans Creek and Clear Creek. He argued that those were unclassified streams, and therefore, there were no beneficial uses. Once a BMP was installed and in use with contamination coming off of it and once the stream was compromised, there would be nothing that could be done to go back into a BMP to change it. To suggest this standard would protect the downstream waters was a fallacy. Regarding traffic and the memorandum of understanding, he noted, costs that were formally borne by the developer were drastically shifted onto the City. Not only would they get the 350 homes with no improvements along Bearfield, but now they could also have a school or a church. He noted that people would come to schools and churches and the traffic counts on Bearfield Road would be tremendous. He read from the MOU and noted it stated techniques deemed practical and feasible by the design engineer would be employed. Once the fundamental engineering determination was placed in the hands of the developer or his design engineer, Mr. Bindbeutel thought the City would be abdicating its role. He noted a cap on Bearfield Road of $30,000. That would not buy one right-of-way and the project would cost millions of dollars. He noted that Gans Road was outside the TDD. He felt a fair appropriation of the cost between the developer and the public was missing. Regarding the Interchange that was proposed to be paid for on a 50/50 cost share, Mr. Bindbeutal commented that a TDD included taxpayers, so taxpayers would be paying for all of it. The cornerstone of the presentations they heard from the developer and his team was that Philips Lake was going to be protected. Now, two weeks before approval, they were being told the lake would be turned into a stormwater basin. He knew of nowhere in the country where a place of recreational use was assigned as a stormwater basin. He said whatever came out of the stormwater detention basin was going to be the City's responsibility. Over the years the streams would degenerate because of the contaminant load introduced into them. Converting what was now waters of the State of Missouri into a stormwater basin would put the City into an unknown frontier of regulatory approaches. He stated that there were many permitting issues in regards to DNR and the Corps of Engineers that should be addressed before going any further. Regarding the impervious surfaces, it appeared to Mr. Bindbeutel that when the City bought the two tracts, impervious surfaces would be laid on those tracts. He felt they would be much higher when the full-blown development moved forward. All the numbers surrounding impervious surfaces were drastically low. He said the 30% impervious number was being backed away from when it had been used successfully for other developments in the area. Mr. Bindbeutel concluded by stating four things should be done; evaluate the infrastructure costs, examine the communities responsibilities to include costs and water quality, include specific design standards in the ordinance, have a plan for this development to include monitoring processes.

Barbara Hoppe, 607 Bluff Dale, Co-chair of the Boone County Smart Growth Coalition, explained the Council had been given a 13 page memorandum explaining what other communities were doing in regards to standards. She asked the Council to examine it. She also urged the Council to look at the CH2M Hill report, to call them, and to ask them what specific standards we should have. Ms. Hoppe pointed out that although the Clear Creek and Gans Creek were unclassified streams, they did join and flow into the Little Bonne Femme, which was classified and did have a beneficial use. She reiterated her concern regarding the lack of standards and stated that stormwater controls should be placed throughout the tracts, not just on a few.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, stated he felt the acquisition, by purchase or donation, of the lake area for use as a public park was a bad idea. He suggested other land in the area be purchased for a regional park. In regards to the unavailability of the land appraisal, Mr. Clark noted the City was not required, but only permitted to keep it a secret. In his opinion, it was not a good idea to keep those costs secret. He also felt the purchase of this property would relieve the developer and his successors of the responsibility of maintaining the water quality in the lake and in the streams. He suggested the responsibility remain with the developer. Mixing public and private land use controls was, in his opinion, problematic legally and politically. He stated an elaborate analysis was needed to determine all of the costs associated with this development because the cost might be more than the $9 million this development was expected to generate.

Ken Midkiff, 1005 Belleview, talked about BMP's. He described them as tools and reiterated that they were not standards. He described standards to be narrative or a number and explained that the BMPs were designed to meet standards. Without a standard, the BMPs in themselves were meaningless. His point was that if standards were set for various pollutants, BMPs could be constructed to meet those standards. His concern was that the developer would do what he stated he would, by providing a grass waterway, a lake, and detention/retention pond, but that the Gans and Clear Creeks would still be polluted/trashed. He felt responsibility would lie with the City because it did nothing to stop the degradation of the creeks since no standards were set.

Johann Holt, who spoke on behalf of the O'Sage Group Sierra Club, read a quote from the rules of the Department of Natural Resources, Division 20, the Clean Water Commission Rules, Chapter 7, Title 10, 2C. It said "there shall be no lowered water quality in outstanding natural resource waters or outstanding state resource waters." He explained there were scientific studies showing that impervious surface levels in the Gans Watershed, over 20%, would severely impact the water quality and ignore state quality water guidelines. While the Philips development with an impervious surface level of 36%, without the park, by itself, would not raise the Gans Watershed impervious surface level to over 20%, it would set a bad precedent. If this development was allowed, fair treatment would allow future developers to build up to a 36% impervious surface level in the Gans and Clear Creek Watersheds. Mr. Holt stated this would severely impact a vital Gans Creek, turning it into another Hinkson Creek.

Jan Weaver, 412 ½ W. Walnut, a member of the Flat Branch Watershed and Friends of Rock Bridge Memorial State Park, said she learned, from attending meetings and workshops, hearing independent expert testimony, and reading hundreds of pages of documents on the subject of water quality, that the single best way to maintain water quality over the long term with a minimal investment in infrastructure and maintenance costs was to limit impervious surface. She noted this was true even when BMPs were used. She indicated this was the recommendation she had made to the Council and the County with respect to the watersheds of Rock Bridge Memorial State Park several times in the past two years. Although it was not necessary to limit every development to between 10% and 15% impervious surface, it was necessary to set limits over the whole watershed. Allowing the currently proposed average 36% impervious surface, even in a very small part of the watershed meant one of two things - the Council was setting a defacto standard that every other developer could reasonably expect to be allowed or this project had used up development capacity two times greater than its acreage, in effect limiting the rights of other developers to even build at 15% impervious surface development in the future. Either way, Ms. Weaver commented that it would not be pretty. She continued to recommend that the City consider impervious surface limits when making decisions about allowing development. If impervious surface limits were not a consideration, the next best thing would be a water quality protection system that would conform to and was evaluated according to unambiguous water quality standards set to maintain or improve existing water quality. Such a system would require state of the art hydrological modeling, standards that did not allow increases in pollutants from the development itself, ongoing attention to the construction and long term maintenance of the BMPs, and long term chemical and biological monitoring of the streams into and out of the development so that problems could quickly be identified, traced to their source, and dealt with. She reminded everyone that sensitive watersheds required extraordinary measures and stated she did not want the Gans or Clear Creeks to face a future like Hinkson Creek.

Kiya Tansky, 1004 Hulen Drive, stated that everyone needed to remember that quantity of consumption items available was not equivalent to the quality of life. She explained that development did not have to mean sprawl and having more. She asked that we think about the impact of our decisions on the planet, our own well being, and on future generations. Besides all the local and environmental costs of a development such as this, she noted a growing number of atmospheric scientists were suggesting that land use changes, including large parking lots, had at least as much of an impact on climate change as did carbon dioxide. Ms. Tansky understood that Mr. Sapp had gone above and beyond what developers usually did in addressing stormwater concerns. She also understood this project could be of economic benefit to Columbia. However, due to the sensitivity of the Rock Bridge eco-system and because this area was considered a gem of Columbia and all of Missouri, she felt the City, as well as the developer, should be expected to go above and beyond to show the safety of the proposal. She did not think the City Council had taken all of the environmental and social costs into account. She was not aware of the availability of any comprehensive, objective cost-benefit analysis that took all of the environmental and social effects into account. Although developers were not required to do such an analysis, she thought there might be an organization that would be willing to take this project on or could be commissioned to do so.

Victoria Day, 8306 W. Trails West, asked the Council to vote against the proposed development. Her concern was that the development would have a huge impact on the balance between development and green space in Columbia. In her opinion, a two year study was acceptable. She stated that if the intention of the developer was to do good for Columbia, this would still be a valid option when the whole City was prepared to respond with their expectations and guidelines to all proposals, not just this one. Ms. Day was also concerned about the stormwater runoff. She thought it was ludicrous to consider the same body of water to serve as a recreational area and as a stormwater treatment facility. Another concern was the type of athletic uses being proposed for the regional park. She noted that athletic areas, such as football and baseball fields, were notorious for large amounts of toxic chemical runoff. Ms. Day pointed out that she had not yet heard a guarantee that the streams fed by the watershed would be as good as they currently were, once this development was complete.

Mary Lottis, Ashland, spoke as a down stream neighbor. She explained that she had been a member of a visioning group with a mission of preserving the rural character of Boone County. In addition, she was a member of the County Park Board and had the opportunity to work with numerous groups. They wanted to have the City and County work together in identifying environmentally sensitive areas as they would rather have clean streams for their kids as opposed to monstrous shopping centers.

Sue Tuforte, 627 Bluff Dale, suggested the City take care of what it already had and possibly redevelop areas that were currently not productive. She also stated that in her opinion, bigger was not always better. She wanted to preserve the beauty of Columbia.

Keith Breckhaus, 703 Hilltop, felt the upcoming vote would be a test to whether or not the Council would side with citizen input or with the developer. In his opinion, there were more citizens against the development than for it.

Jeff Stack, 112 Spring Valley, spoke as a parent of three children. He asked everyone to consider what our community would look like seven generations from now if the Philips development was approved. He did not feel the sight of green grass reflected poorly on a community. He asked the Council to look beyond the bottom line in financial terms. Mr. Stack thanked the Council for their patience and encouraged the Council to vote against the proposal.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that B20-04 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved by voice vote.

Mayor Hindman continued the public hearing to March 15, 2004.

B56-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the southwest corner of Old Mill Creek Road and Old Field Road; establishing permanent A-1 and R-1 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 20 acre tract of ground located in south Columbia. The request was for 10 ½ acres of R-1 and 10 acres of A-1. Both the Staff and Commission recommend approval of the request.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

B56-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B57-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the north side of Old Field road, east of Vineyard Way; establishing permanent A-1 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this as a ten acre tract in south central Columbia. Approval was recommended by the Commission and Staff.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

B57-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B64-04 Authorizing construction of improvements to Highpointe Park.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck pointed out that this park area had been set aside a number of years ago.

Mr. Hood explained that his department was requesting authorization to proceed with the development of the Highpointe Neighborhood Park located at 801 Huntridge Drive in south central Columbia. The proposed development was displayed on the overhead and featured the standard developments located in most of the City parks. The improvements included a walking trail, a small non-reservable picnic shelter, a basketball half-court, a volleyball court, and a small playground. He noted that the Staff had conducted a neighborhood planning meeting in the Huntridge Drive area and said they believed this plan represented a consensus of what they heard from the neighborhood. The department also held a public hearing in front of the Parks and Recreation Commission in October 2003. Following that public hearing, Mr. Hood explained the Commission voted to recommend that Council proceed with development of the project. At the time they submitted their initial report on the project, the Commission and Council asked that Staff investigate the possible use of traffic calming devices and/or crosswalks at the park. They were working with Public Works on the issue. It was his understanding that Public Works did not feel crosswalks would be appropriate. They were doing traffic and speed studies to determine what traffic calming devices should be implemented in the area. He pointed out that the City's FY03 Capital Budget included funding for this project. Their total project cost was estimated at $75,000 which included $50,000 from the 1999 quarter cent sales tax and $25,000 in force account labor. If the Council authorized Staff to proceed, they would be in a position to begin development of the park this Spring.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Eric Helfer, 804 Timbers Court, explained that he lived adjacent to the park property. As a father of two small boys, he thought this park was good thing for their neighborhood as well as the Seven Oaks neighborhood. He said the neighborhood was in full support of development of the park.

Dean Anderson, 814 Timbers Court, agreed with Mr. Helfer. He felt a park in this location would promote a sense of community that had been building over the last few years.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Ash commented that a lot of children would not necessarily be crossing the street nor would there be a lot of cars going up and down the street and was worried the area would fall under the set criteria standards on both accounts. He was concerned that cars would be traveling fast and the kids would be paying more attention to getting to the park than they would watching for traffic. He felt traffic calming could take care of both concerns and wanted to ensure the use of those devices even if the studies indicated they would not meet the criteria standards.

Mayor Hindman agreed and added that in his opinion crosswalks should be by all parks. He did not believe people would ignore crosswalks just because there were not many people in them. Mr. Janku suggested a crosswalk on top of a raised hump. Mr. Loveless asked if yellow precautionary signs would have the same effect. Mayor Hindman did not think so, but said they would be of some help.

Mr. Patterson indicated that they would take all of the comments heard into consideration, along with the evaluation.

B64-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:


B35-04 Amending Chapter 4 of the City Code relating to alcoholic beverage licenses.

The bill was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted the Council had discussed this a couple of times informally and noted that an amendment sheet had been prepared dealing with proposed changes.

Ms. Crayton asked about the makeup of the liquor license review board. She suggested someone from the business community being appointed. Mr. Janku asked if the Council could create a seat on the board for such a person. Mr. Boeckmann felt they could. He stated that under the current system, there was not a board with outside members, and noted that Jefferson City, which was used as a model, had three employees. If the Council wanted to add an outside member, he cautioned them by pointing out a four person board opens up the possibility of a tie vote. He noted the Council might wish to appoint someone rather than the City Manager. Another item to consider, he stated, was that the person or persons appointed would not have much to do since the City had not had a denial appealed on a liquor license during his 17 year stay with the City. Mr. Janku liked the idea of having an outsider look at it.

Mr. Loveless suggested the board be made up of the Director of Finance, one City employee appointed by the City Manager, and a citizen of the community appointed by the Council. A three year term was suggested.

Mr. John was concerned about holding up someone's license for no known reason, other than the fact, that all of the needed information had not yet come back. He was interested in seeing a time limit set and possibly a temporary permit process.

Mr. Janku asked about the role of the State. Mr. Boeckmann thought the State required the applicant, for a State license, to already have the City license.

It was pointed out that this process was being set up only when someone was denied, not when someone was opening a business for the first time.

Mr. John was not worried about the review board as much as the application. He was concerned that people would have had a lease on their property, Protective Inspection in, and everything ready to go, but could be delayed by the license office since there was not a deadline. Mr. Boeckmann agreed, but added that assuming the inspections were done, the biggest problem in terms of getting the licenses was the report from the Highway Patrol which could some times take up to a month.

Mr. Loveless asked Mr. John if he noted this as being a problem in the past. Mr. John indicated he had not in Columbia, but was aware of this being an issue in other municipalities. Mr. Loveless did not feel this would cause a delay because, in his opinion, most business people understood that they needed to get everything lined up ahead of time in order to get their license before they were ready to open.

It was pointed out that background checks had previously been done and that it was nothing new due to this ordinance. Mr. Boeckmann agreed.

Ms. Crayton made the motion that B35-04 be amended to read that a three member liquor license review board would be established consisting of the Director of Finance, another City employee appointed by the City Manger and a member appointed by the City Council to serve a three year term. The City Manager's appointee shall be either a department head or an Assistant City Manager. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved by voice vote.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that B35-04 be further amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B35-04, as amended, was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: ASH. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B58-04 Approving the PUD site plan for Hawks Ridge.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Dudark explained this to be a development plan for a PUD-7 located on the north side of St. Charles Road in east Columbia. The request was for 23 dwelling units; three single family homes, four two-family dwellings, and three four-plex dwellings. The Commission recommended approval with two conditions. One was a payment of $9,958 for future improvements to St. Charles Road which could be lessened by any costs incurred by the developer for improvements to St. Charles Road prior to approval of the final plat. The second was that the wooded area be identified as a greenspace conservation easement on the final plat.

Doug Eckhoff, 608 Adens Woods Court, President of the Eastland Hills Homeowners Association, explained their neighborhood was directly west and down hill of the proposed development. Their first concern was screening along St. Charles Road, a requirement of Section 29-25. He explained the requirement was that any PUD backing up to a collector or arterial street must have screening. Mr. Eckhoff pointed out that the Planning Commission felt the purpose of screening was for the PUD and not for the visual buffering for traffic on the collector street, but he did not feel that was correct. He said it was to provide visual buffering from the street from potentially incompatible land uses and to generally enhance the quality and appearance of the development site and the City in total. The proposed buffering on the site plans consisted of 12 upright juniper shrubs which were three feet at the time of planting for approximately 360 feet of St. Charles Road frontage. Because of the slope, not even the tops of the junipers would be seen from St. Charles Road. Mr. Eckhoff noted that their second concern, stormwater runoff, had fallen on deaf ears since the beginning of the development process. He explained the developer stated stormwater detention would be a problem because of the slope. He passed around copies of the Land Preservation Act and asked why it was not being enforced on this development.

Mr. Janku asked Mr. Eckhoff what his suggestion would be for screening. Mr. Eckhoff replied that it should be something tall. It would have to be something eight feet tall before it could be seen from St. Charles Road. He also suggested closer intervals.

Chris Sander, Crockett Engineering, 2608 N. Stadium, explained that he met with the City Arborist to discuss screening along St. Charles Road. He noted that their landscaping screening plan had been approved. He said it was explained to him that the purpose of the ordinance was to screen the patios from the roadway. At the time the ordinance was approved, the Council discussions were about screening barbeque grills specifically. He noted it was the City's Arborist who suggested the placement of the upright junipers adjacent to the patios, clustered side by side, to screen the patios. Mr. Sander pointed out that the taller, deciduous trees would not meet the screening requirements, as interpreted by the Arborist. In regards to the slope and stormwater basin ideas, Mr. Sander explained they met with the homeowners association at the time of zoning and pointed out to them the area labeled as a greenspace conservation easement. He said because of the valley, that was the area where a basin would need to be built. It was a tradeoff between the trees and stormwater detention for that area. He noted it would likely save the developer some money to build a basin because the stormwater development fees imposed with the building permit would not have to be paid if a basin were built.

Mr. Hutton asked about the stormwater plan. Mr. Sander explained there were curve inlets and pipe work shown on the stormwater management plan that had been developed and approved by the Public Works Department. Mr. Hutton asked where the pipes would go. Mr. Sander replied there were two locations which would discharge to the open drainage way.

Mr. Ash noted a concern voiced at the Planning meeting regarding the parking behind the easternmost building. He asked if they had gotten anywhere on that issue. Mr. Sander responded that the best idea they came up with was to add a parallel parking stall behind the building. He said the minimum spacing between the buildings was 20 feet and conversations indicated concern about having some front yards for the units in that area.

Ms. Crayton asked about the screening. Mr. Sander explained that it would screen the patios on the lower level from sight, but would not screen the upper level of the four-plex units from St. Charles Road.

Mr. Hutton saw the question as the purpose of the screening ordinance. Mr. Dudark understood it was designed specifically to screen outdoor use areas, like patios, from a residential dwelling. Mr. John explained that when the change was made backing duplexes and four-plexes to streets instead of allowing them to have driveways off the streets, it was noted that all of the "stuff" people put out in back was very visible. As a reaction to that, the patios were screened from the thoroughfares. He noted two different parts; part A being that PUDs were supposed to be screened from other residential areas and part B being that the patios in the backyard use areas were supposed to be screened from the thoroughfares. He stated that none of the ordinances were to screen the entire house from the street. Mr. Hutton noted that we were not allowing things to be built in residential that would require screening from the street. He said a lot of the commercial screening was due to parking lots and dumpsters.

Mr. Janku asked about a variance allowing them to put in eight feet deciduous trees. Mr. John was not sure that would solve the problem because in several years the trees would be too tall to screen the patio. Mr. Hutton pointed out that deciduous trees did not have leaves on them year around. Mr. John asked about putting in a few more, larger junipers.

Bill Crockett, 2608 N. Stadium, explained that the ordinance had only one intent, which was to shield the junk that accumulates on patios. He said it was patio screening, not building screening. Regarding the junipers being used, he explained they would mature at a height of 8 to 12 feet, but would not shield the buildings from the street. Mr. Crockett noted overhead power lines in the area and said it would not do any good to plant trees that would grow to 40 feet because when they got 15 feet tall they would have to get clipped because of those power lines. He felt they had honored the ordinance.

Mr. Loveless asked if they could plant six junipers in back of each building. Mr. Crockett's client agreed to add two more trees to each building. Mr. Crockett stated they would plant 18 junipers behind the three buildings and agreed to note 18 junipers on the plan.

Regarding the stormwater plan, Mr. Hutton noted that Mr. Eckhoff was essentially correct in that they would be piping the water off the parking lots and roofs and taking it to the ditches that flow down into Eastland Hills. Mr. Patterson explained detention was not required and that it would typically not be required unless there was an identified critical downstream location that would have an identifiable increased problem from it. He said it would be a conveyance system that met City standards and specifications. The opinion was that it would not exacerbate any identifiable problems. Mr. Hutton asked whose problem it would be if it did. Mr. Patterson replied that it would probably be the City's responsibility. Mr. Hutton understood the tradeoff with the detention versus trees. Mr. Patterson understood there would be very little downstream benefit, as far as the hydraulic benefit, from detention.

Mr. John noted that running stormwater through 100 feet of trees would actually absorb more water and slow it down as much as putting in detention facilities. He said a lot of what the County was working on involved buffering creeks with up to 100 feet of trees. If you tear out the trees that were going to absorb the water and slow it down, to put in a lake would defeat the purpose. Mr. Hutton agreed, but said in this case they would actually be piping it to the existing ditch. Mr. John noted that it stopped before it reached the trees. Mr. Crockett interjected that neither of the pipes discharged directly to the ditch. He believed there to be a drainage way to them before it got directly to the ditch. Mr. Patterson understood the piping was on site. Mr. Crockett concurred. Mr. Hutton knew about the pipe up on the north end coming off the drop inlets on the new street and the one in the conservation easement area. He asked if there was anything piped to it. Mr. Crockett replied it would come off the collection in the parking lot to one location and then discharge out the one pipe. Mr. Hutton understood the rest of the stormwater would be spread out. Mr. Patterson replied that was correct. It would be an over land flow from that point. Mr. Crockett stated there would be one discharge point from the private development and one discharge point from the inlets on the public street.

Mayor Hindman asked if he understood that a detention basin would not help. Mr. Patterson replied that any time water was held to its pre-development peak discharge, it was a plus. Our ordinances did not require it in this case because we could not identify a downstream location where this amount of increased flow would create the potential for flooding where, currently, there was not a problem. He said there generally had to be something they could see downstream that would require them to put in detention in order to prevent an increase that would cause a problem to worsen. His information was that type of situation was not identified downstream. Mayor Hindman noted that he has learned a lot about stormwater lately and suggested upgrading our stormwater ordinances. Mr. Hutton noted that a task force was working on them. Mr. Patterson said this was exactly the type of thing they were working on with the hope of bringing ordinances forward within a year. They were looking at such things as the impervious area concepts, stream buffer features, and the very things people were wanting to have more attention paid to during the development process. Mr. Beck pointed out they would be establishing a lower level elevation for the houses because there would be some very unusual storms from time to time.

Mr. John felt in some ways we may be fortunate to be a few years behind the curve because a lot of things were being tried and were failing. We were getting the benefit of testing before trying it out ourselves. He noted there was nothing in the present ordinance on the purpose of the Land Preservation Act that was not being met in this case.

Mr. Ash felt most of the what the developer was doing met the ordinances as they were presently. Although changes may take place in the future, they had to hold things to current ordinances.

Mr. Hutton noted that before them was a legal site plan, with screening approved by the City Arborist, and an approved stormwater plan. By law, he felt they had to vote for it because they did not have discretion in the matter. On the other hand, he asked if that made it right.

Mr. Janku thought there might be things that could be done voluntarily to the structures so that the water was not piped directly to the parking lot.

B58-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B60-04 Accepting a conveyance from the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission in connection with the Grindstone Parkway project.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that the State Highway Department had a policy for a number of years that when they paralleled an existing road, the local government took over the existing roadway. In this case, the City would be accepting the responsibility for Old Route AC, along with the connecting right-of-way, since Grindstone had been constructed. We would be taking it over under current conditions.

Mr. Patterson explained a contract was signed by the City and the State at the time the development agreement was discussed.

B60-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B62-04 Confirming the contract with C.L. Richardson Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of sewers in Sanitary Sewer District No. 157 (Rollins and Burnam Avenue); appropriating funds.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that Staff was recommending the bid by C.L. Richardson in the amount of $46,565.50 be accepted.

Mr. Patterson explained that bids were reviewed both for the content of the bid and by follow-up on references of any contractor the City had no actual construction experience with. In this case, there were indications that the low bid was not necessarily the best bid for the City. The recommendation was made that the low bid be rejected and that they go with the second lowest bid as being the lowest and best bid for the City of Columbia. He noted that both bids were well within the project estimate.

Mr. Loveless was appreciative of the Staff Report explaining the circumstances of this particular bid.

B62-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B66-04 Granting an extension of the cable television franchise held by Charter Communications Entertainment I, L.L.C.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted this would extend the franchise until January 19, 2006, about the same time MediaCom's franchise expired. He explained the Council had a task force working on cable issues and that it had been suggested they be done at the same time.

B66-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:


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

B59-04 Approving the Final Plat of Timber Ridge Subdivision Plat 2; authorizing a performance contract.

B61-04 Authorizing acquisition of easements for the West Boulevard-Marygene Street drainage improvement project.

B63-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B65-04 Authorizing a PCS antenna agreement with US Cellular.

B67-04 Authorizing a grant agreement with the March of Dimes for the Latino Home Visiting Expansion Project; appropriating funds.

R38-04 Setting a public hearing: FY 2003 CDBG and HOME Performance Report.

R39-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of Sanitary Sewer District No. 150 (Mexico Gravel Road).

R40-04 Setting a public hearing: proposed adjustments to the City's fixed route transit system.

R41-04 Authorizing acceptance of video equipment donated by Boone Hospital Center to be used by the Police Department.

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


R42-04 Authorizing a settlement agreement with BMG Development, LLC; approving the Preliminary Plat of Miles Manor, Block 3; granting variances from the Subdivision Regulations.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Boeckmann explained that last April the Council denied the plat before them and a lawsuit had been filed. The proposed settlement agreement included a reduction in the number of dwelling units from 65 to 60 and a change from rental units to condominiums requiring a 70% owner occupancy. The resolution would approve both the settlement agreement and the preliminary plat. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial, Mr. Boeckmann explained a minimum of five affirmative votes would be required to pass the ordinance.

Pack Matthews, 1108 Chantilly Court, noted the original request had been for 60 units and said it was a misnomer to imply a reduction in density. He stated that one of their primary requests had been for a reduction in density because of traffic problems that were identified by the Fire Department and MoDOT. The main concerns of the neighborhood were that it was a poor use of the area with an R-3 development butted against R-1 with no buffer since the developer's plan included clearing the woods up to the property line and costs down the road to include lives if there was a serious accident . Mr. Matthews stated they were opposed to this development and the process by which the City came up with the settlement because they were not included in that process. The change from rental to condominiums would only slightly reduce the number of trips per day. They were also concerned about their property values and he urged the Council to vote against the settlement.

Barbara Horrell, a resident of Part 2 of Miles Manor since 1972, was concerned about the quality of life. She noted that currently, there were many problems. No one was taking responsibility for maintenance of Planter Road. There were no drains on White Oak, the main street, and only one on Chantilly and one on Belleview. When it rained, all of the water would come down the hill causing flooding to her home. All of the trees were cut down when Forum Shopping Center was built, and therefore, they did not have any sound buffer. Ms. Horrell stated the construction would only add to the problems they were currently experiencing. She explained there were already problems causing buses and trash trucks to back down Chantilly. She thought the new development would make that situation worse.

Rebecca Graves, 1108 Chantilly Court, remarked that she understood that the property owners had the right to the use of their property, but asked if they had a right to steal the value of another person's property. She appreciated the downgrading to condos, but noted the development would still be some 50 feet from her back door, with no buffering, which would affect the value of her home. She was also concerned about traffic and stormwater runoff issues.

Ken Midkiff, 105 Belleview Court, reported that besides an inquiry from Council Member Loveless immediately after the vote in April, at no time did the City nor the developer contact their Neighborhood Association. He said they were locked out of the process. He stated that they remain adamantly opposed to this development with the main issue being traffic ingress and egress to a dead end. Mr. Midkiff stated that City ordinances prohibited development in the cul-de-sac because Stadium Boulevard had not moved 150 feet to the south and Planter Road remained a posted dead end street, ending in weeds and brush above the Katy Trail.

Alma Muir, 1104 Chantilly Court, spoke to safety issues as her main concern. She felt the development would triple the amount of traffic on this narrow street. Ms. Muir commented that her children actually stood on the corner to wait for the school bus in the neighborhood. As it was now, the bus must back into her street in order to get out. With that much more traffic going down the already narrow street, she did not see how the bus could do it. Ms. Muir felt this development would only add more people to a situation causing a serious accident since there was only one way in and one way out.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, was disappointed the Neighborhood Association had not been included in the settlement discussions. He saw no reason not to inform them about the settlement and noted the Council did not have to involve the Sunshine Law.

Jim Lowery, an attorney with offices at 111 S. Ninth, spoke on behalf of the developer. He indicated the notion of an effort to exclude the neighbors from discussions surrounding the settlement agreement was an absolute falsehood. Mr. Lowery explained that the Neighborhood Association engaged Attorney Tom Schneider to represent them and that they had set up a meeting with the City and Mr. Schneider in early Fall to begin discussing whether or not there was common ground to resolve the matter. They understood the neighborhood group would attend the meeting, but on the day of the meting, Mr. Schneider cancelled the meeting. Subsequently, he pointed out, he made numerous contacts with Mr. Schneider to see if they could sit down and talk with the neighbors. Initially they were told the neighborhood did not want to talk with them, but were then contacted and told they would like to sit down and talk. Mr. Lowery said they did, in fact, meet with Mr. Matthews and one other husband and wife homeowner (Horrell). They talked specifically about the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement. The message he received was that their concerns were about City maintenance and types of issues the development might actually improve. He said Mrs. Horrell had been very honest and had essentially told them that they did not want anything in that location. His point was that this had not been a closed process and that they had done their best to engage the neighbors. After the meeting, Mr. Schneider said they would be hearing from them shortly about their thoughts. When he did not hear anything, Mr. Lowery contacted Mr. Schneider and was told that he had nothing to report and that he thought the three neighbors who attended the meeting would continue to oppose the project. Between the Council meeting in April and this one, there were a total of four homeowners that had spoken with the Council about this development - four out of thirty-one. A concern voiced by the Mayor in April was in regards to the units becoming student apartments. Mr. Lowery noted that they had addressed this issue by building high quality condominiums that would be marketed to retirees, young professionals, and singles. He stated this would not be a student development. He also pointed out that they were going to give the neighbors something unprecedented, the legal right to enforce the owner occupied covenant.

Ms. Crayton asked about the vehicles having to back in and out of this dead end area. She asked how the big bus would get to the new condos with all of the cars that would be coming off the dead end street. Mr. Lowery explained they would be solving the school bus problem as well as the trash truck problem. They were going to put in a cul-de-sac bulb on their own property at the end of White Oak Lane, which would later be dedicated to the City to become a City street. Vehicles would then be able to turn around because the street would no longer be a dead end. In regards to the stormwater issue, which had nothing to do with their development, he noted that the stormwater would drain on to their property. He stated their development would handle stormwater from the neighborhood and would therefore improve the situation, not contribute to it.

Mr. Janku asked about the restrictive covenant. Mr. Lowery replied it was a covenant that would allow the neighbors to enforce the owner occupied 70% stipulation. He explained the condominium declaration would contain restrictive covenants that govern the condominium development. That declaration would provide that, at a minimum, 70% of the units must be owner occupied. It would also provide the owners of the lots in Miles Manor, Block One and Block Two the legal right to enforce the owner occupied covenant.

From reading minutes of the April meeting, Mr. Ash understood that the people living in the subdivision sold this property to the developer. Mr. Lowery replied that was correct. He explained that the subdivision was started by a group of black Columbians in the 1960's. He said they platted Miles Manor Blocks One and Two and sold lots. In the early 70's, those individuals went to the Planning and Zoning Commission and asked that it be rezoned to R-3 for the purpose of building apartments. The Association owned the property until his client bought it approximately three years ago. The officers at the time of the sale were the original people that lived and owned property in the neighborhood. Mr. Ash noted concessions offered during the first go-around regarding conservation easements, traffic calming, and etc. He asked if they would all remain part of the condominium design. Mr. Lowery said they would. He said they would be required to continue to dedicate 5.16 acres (about 57% of the entire tract) as a permanent greenspace conservation easement and would be required to build a 20 foot wide pedestrian walkway that would also be dedicated in perpetuity to the City to allow access to the MKT Trail. He stated that they had not discussed the traffic calming devices in the context of these discussions, but commented that they would certainly be willing to do it. Mr. Ash felt it could be important in protecting the existing neighbors. Mr. Ash asked about screening and what trees would be removed. Mr. Lowery said they were not at that stage yet and added that it would change some from the original plan. He understood the buildings would actually move a little further away from the neighborhood and would have a lower profile. He stated the property fell away from the neighborhood and the condos would sit low compared to the neighborhood. He thought there would be a substantial amount of landscaping, but could not make any specific statements at this point. Mr. Ash felt out of good faith the developer would do whatever he could to try to respond to their concerns.

Mr. Loveless asked Mr. Lowery when his client purchased this property. Mr. Lowery said it was between two or three years ago. Mr. Loveless pointed out that it had been zoned for apartments for 30 plus years and that the application for that zoning had been made by people living in the neighborhood at that time. Mr. Lowery said that was correct and added that they were the people that platted and planned the subdivisions and homes on the configuration of streets heard about this evening.

Arch Brooks, P. O. Box 896, asked the Council to recognize that this area had been neglected.

Mr. Loveless inquired as to whether or not Miles Manor was in the City at the time it was platted. Mr. Beck thought it was in the City and that it had been constructed to City standards at the time. Mr. Loveless noted that the standards were a lot different today than at that time. He explained that City policy today, would allow improvements to be made, but the homeowners would pay a good part of the cost. Generally, petitions for improvements would be started by the homeowners.

Mayor Hindman personally felt the street could not handle 60 additional units and that it should not be built. He did not know what inspired the sale by the originators of the R-3 property knowing it would end up being apartments. He felt the concessions being made by the developer were good, but still did not think it was a good idea for this area. However, he thought the issue was what was the right thing to do with respect to the lawsuit since he had doubts about the strength of the City's position.

Mr. Ash suggested they focus on the legalities of R-3 and whether or not they felt they legally had a case. He noted that when it came to considering a subdivision plat, they had a lot less latitude than with other things. Mr. Ash thought they were hanging their hat on the whole discussion of where the cul-de-sac should be measured from, Stadium or Planter. In regards to whether this development should be here or not, he commented that it was here and it was zoned R-3. He was swayed by the fact that members of the neighborhood were responsible for making it R-3. He also noted that if they go to court and lose, the developer could come back with apartments. Mr. Ash planned to support the issue.

Should the lawsuit go to trial and end up with a loss for the City, Mayor Hindman asked what the situation would be at that point. Mr. Boeckmann replied they would get what they originally asked for, plus maybe some damages if they asked for those.

At the hearing, Mr. Janku thought there had been some apparent ambiguity as was recognized in the document submitted by Mr. Lowery. He said there were different interpretations of the ordinance and thought now was the time to look at it more closely. He said he had a chance to look at the ordinance and give some thought to why it was written the way it was and how a court would probably interpret it. He said the Council had been sued before and it was very uncomfortable when we lost and had to pay damages. He noted the community did not appreciate it.

Ms. Crayton understood that the developer had the right to develop the property, but said it still did not clear up the street situation with regard to the school bus and trash truck. She said she could not vote in favor of this request.

Mr. Hutton pointed out that the Council took an oath to uphold the law and that the law was pretty specific in cases like this. It stated that if a property owner brought in a legal plat that met the City's Subdivision Regulations, the Council had to vote in favor of it. He reminded everyone that a Council person was recalled several years back for this very thing - - voting for a final plat because it was the legal thing to do. Mr. Hutton said he had voted for a ban on billboards several years ago which cost the City several thousand dollars. He said they still got the billboards and the taxpayers had to pay money that might have improved this street. Because it was the legal thing to do, Mr. Hutton said they should do it.

Mr. Loveless felt the zoning was inappropriate zoning and not a good deal for the neighborhood, but said the culprits were the people who had it rezoned years ago for apartments and then sold it with that zoning. This was not the fault of the purchaser. They were backed into a corner earlier and voted against it on the basis of what they thought the interpretation of a cul-de-sac length was by where it started and where it ended. Since then, they were more enlightened and he did not see the sense in going to court with a case they felt to be weak and spending more money only to end up where they were before.

Mr. John said he had voted in favor of it the first time not because he liked it, but because the developer could not be held responsible for the fact that the streets were not maintained. There were specific policies and guidelines that stated if a street was built to a standard that was below the curb and gutter standard, and the people living along the street wanted to file a petition and pay for half of the costs, they could get it improved. The rule was changed a few years back, at his behest, so that the old streets all over the City would be maintained at their current level, at City expense, which he noted was everybody's expense. He said they were not going back and putting in curbs and gutters without the neighborhood paying for it. Mr. John noted that was the way it was done all over town. Mr. John understood that the neighbors did not want this development, but commented that it had been zoned for some time. There might be legal ambiguity, but it did not appear that way to him the last time. He reminded everyone that the Council and Staff were trying to do their best for the citizens of Columbia and added that they had not stood in the way of the neighbors in meeting with the developer to come up with a plan to present to the Council. Regarding the street and its maintenance, Mr. John pointed out that there were policies in place and suggested finding out which policy applied. He noted there were a ton of streets built that way and added that they were all over town and in every socio-economic part of town. Mr. John stated he would vote in favor of this request again.

The vote on R42-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: CRAYTON. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R43-04 Authorizing the sale of Water and Electric System Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2004 Series A.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck introduced the new Water and Light Director, Dan Dasho.

Ms. Fleming noted that the amount of the bonds would be $17,095,000. This resolution, in conjunction with the next resolution, would authorize the public sale of the bonds on March 15, 2004. At that time, she explained the ordinance would be updated and presented to Council for approval. This would also authorize Staff to do other things associated with the bond sale. The bonds would be used for major water projects which included the new 36 inch transmission main, expansion of the treatment plant, and capacity system improvements north of I-70.

The vote on R43-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R44-04 Authorizing certain preliminary actions in connection with the issuance and sale of Water and Electric System Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2004 Series A.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Ms. Fleming explained this would hire the Bond Counsel, underwriters, and other things associated with the sale.

Mr. John assumed the City would only be issuing one set of bonds, not two. Ms. Fleming assured everyone it would be one.

The vote on R44-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. 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:

B68-04 Rezoning property located on the northwest corner of Silvey Street and West Worley, extended, from R-1 to PUD-6; approving The Villas at Vintage Falls PUD Site Plan; granting variances to the Subdivision Regulations.

B69-04 Confirming the contract with Capital Railroad Contracting, Inc. for construction of Sewer District No. 156.

B70-04 Granting a waiver from the requirements of the City Code for sidewalk construction along the south side of Heller Road, adjacent to Lot 201 of Ewing Industrial Park Subdivision Plat 2.

B71-04 Accepting conveyance; authorizing payment of differential costs for water main serving Vanderveen Plaza, Plat 1; approving the Engineer's Final Report.

B72-04 Accepting conveyance for utility purposes.

B73-04 Appropriating funds for Share the Light program.

B74-04 Authorizing a contract with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the Smallpox First Responder Vaccination Plan; appropriating funds.

B75-04 Appropriating funds collected from the sale of Fire Department equipment.

B76-04 Authorizing the issuance of Water and Electric System Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2004 Series A.

B77-04 Authorizing an annexation agreement with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for a portion of Rock Bridge Memorial State Park.


(A) Intra-departmental Transfer of Funds.

Report accepted.

(B) Street Closure Requests.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the closures be granted as requested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C) Grindstone Parkway Landscaping Update.

Mr. Beck pointed out that when Grindstone Parkway was constructed the City agreed to landscape the Parkway.

Mr. Janku commented that Wal-Mart had agreed to do the landscaping in the median and asked if the cost would be their responsibility. Mr. Watkins replied that during the budget process it was decided the City would do the landscaping in phases. He thought the area Wal-Mart agreed to do was west of the area being discussed.

(D) Site Plan Update for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial at Battle Garden.

Mr. Beck explained that the New Century Fund Board had a meeting to discuss the plan. He said there was a question about cost relating to the sewer utility and the removal of the abandoned facility. Mayor Hindman felt the sewer utility had the obligation to do the clean up of the old digester. He did not think Senator Bond expected the funds to be used to clean up the waste left over from the sewer utility. Mr. Beck pointed out that the sewer utility had given the area to the Parks Department, but said they would be using other funds. Mr. John felt the removal of the old shed should also come from the digester money. Mayor Hindman agreed.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that Staff be directed to look into the issue very carefully. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Ash understood that Senator Bond raised $99,000 for this purpose and that the City needed to come up with $99,000 to match it. He asked if we were almost there because by his calculation we were at $96,000. Mr. Hood explained that the Martin Luther King Committee had anticipated setting $20,000 aside as an endowment for the long term maintenance of the facility. The current plan was that out of the $96,000 they had raised, $76,000 would be used on the project as part of the match, $12,000 to $12,500 would be from City force account labor for use on the project, and the balance of about $11,000 would come out of Park Annual Improvements. He remarked that would still allow the $20,000 to be set aside for the maintenance of the Memorial.

(E) 80-Acre Point Sewer Request in the Richland Road Area.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that a public hearing be set. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(F) Cable Television Auditing and Consulting Services.

Mr. Janku noted that just this evening they were given a supplement to this report from the committee. He suggested talking about it at the work session next week. Mr. Beck felt there were some misunderstandings about how the current cable operation was funded. He said he planned to get the Council a report on that also. Mayor Hindman questioned whether it should be the Council's discretionary fund used for this project as opposed to revenues from the cable franchise.

It was decided the issue would be discussed March 10.




Mr. Janku suggested a coffee kiosk be placed at the airport similar to the one initiated at the Library. He noted that the City had been struggling in regards to how to get some amenities at the airport and wondered if that might be the model.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the Airport Advisory Board be asked to explore a similar option. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Regarding the sewer project at Richland Road, Mr. Janku suggested striping the road.

Regarding the earlier discussion about Highpointe Park and the mention made of the Seven Oaks neighborhood using it, Mr. Janku asked about the possibility of connecting the neighborhood to the park by a trail. If it was possible, the Hunt Ridge residents could actually use the trail to go south and connect to Seven Oaks, to connect to the trail that goes to the University property. He noted that the Seven Oaks residents had put the bridge over the creek.

Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff look at some sort of trail connection and report back. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. John commented that he had read through the reports and territorial agreements. He did not seen a compelling reason to not have, on an EMT type call, the closest station as the second station making the run. He could understand when they were running to a fire emergency, but not on EMT calls. He realized that would mean 50 more calls over a year, but did not think it would significantly change the overall response rate on the thousands of calls they get. He thought it was something that needed to be pushed forward inside the City limits. Mr. John wanted a solid, technical reason why this would not work, if it would not. He noted the report indicated it was an idea that was not liked. He asked for a report on what needed to be done to respond to EMT calls. Inside the City limits, if Boone County Fire Protection District received the first call because it was closer, the second call would go to the second closest station, whether it is Boone County or the City.

Mr. Janku asked Mr. John if his figure of 50 was based on the entire city. Mr. John replied that he thought 56 was the entire number of calls that went to Fire District inside the City limits in a year. Out of that, he thought three had been fire calls.

Mr. Beck pointed out that Staff had been working on the technical part of how this could work. Mr. John said the reports he saw indicated it was technically feasible. There might be some problems, but they thought they could figure it out.

Mr. Ash suggested it would be good to have a report from a department not opposed to the current arrangement.

Mayor Hindman noted that some alleys seem to be City maintained and suddenly not City maintained. He indicated that he had asked for a report some time back, but that due to disagreement within the Staff, no report had been provided. He asked that Staff report back on the issue. Ms. Crayton thought it had been resolved. Mr. John thought there were two different issues - one specific issue in one area and the one the Mayor had asked for which was a general report for all alleys. Mr. Beck said he would report back.

Mayor Hindman understood sidewalks were being poured on Chapel Hill in the area of Twin Lakes. There was a development going in which he thought was being designed for senior citizens. It had been brought to his attention that there was not a curb cut when coming to the turn in. Mr. Hutton noted that was an ADA requirement. Mayor Hindman asked that Staff check into the issue.

Ms. Crayton noted that Clean Up Columbia was scheduled for April 10. She asked if everyone had to go out to Twin Lakes or if people could clean up in their own neighborhoods. Mr. Beck replied that information would be coming out shortly. Ms. Crayton asked about a budget for Moonlight Hoops. She noted it was a positive program which kept a lot of kids off the streets. She wondered if something similar could be done over Spring Break and this Summer.

Ms. Crayton made the motion that Staff be directed to report back as to whether or not extra money would be available to put into Moonlight Hoops. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, reminded the Council there was a policy sent to them from the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission, which he believed the Council adopted. He encouraged the Council to ask for a report on it. Generally, warrants would apply, but around schools and parks, he thought, warrants were not necessary. He also commented favorably on the idea of a tax base task force.

The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheela Amin
City Clerk