INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City
of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday,
December 2, 1996, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council Members JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, and COBLE were present. The City
Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also
present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular
meeting of November 18, 1996, were approved unanimously by voice vote on
a motion made by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Campbell.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA
The agenda, including the
Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by
Mr. Campbell and a second by Ms. Coble.
SPECIAL ITEMS
1. Resolution
of Appreciation - Lee Daniel, retiring City Clerk.
Mayor Hindman read and presented
a Resolution of Appreciation to Launa H. (Lee) Daniel, noting her 22 years
of service to the City.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. John Clark,
North Central Columbia Neighborhood Association regarding Homeless Shelters.
John Clark, 2000 Alan Lane,
Secretary/Treasurer of the North Central Neighborhood Association, distributed
vision and mission statements of the Association. He said their vision
and goal was the preservation of a viable, sustainable, and stable residential
community in their neighborhood. He said this had been adopted because
they perceive that the continued viability of such a stable, sustainable
residential community was at risk. Mr. Clark stated their strategy
was to increase the percentage of owner occupancy in the area from 20% to
35-40%. He said this would mean decreasing the number of rental housing
units from 80% to approximately 60%. He said the Association identified
some barriers to investments in owner occupied property. He said they
were best described as uncertainties -- things that keep people from eventually
writing a check. He spoke about investments in places where people
themselves were going to live. He said the owner occupied single family
could be a duplex or a four-plex, but the people who own it would live there. He
said one of the uncertainties was the School District's support and investment
in Field School. He said this had been partially resolved by the building
of the Media Center and work on the elementary school playground. Other
uncertainties were the Columbia College expansion plan and the City's commitment/investment
in the area. The last uncertainty was the increased density of housing
arrangements serving community-wide needs and the lack of public regulation. He
said it did not pertain to homeless shelters, depending upon the definition. He
said there was a wide range of group homes, treatment homes, and similar
facilities in North Central and other parts of Columbia. Mr. Clark
reported the Association wanted to establish a standard by which they could
measure what goes on and is proposed in their neighborhood. He said
if a proposed change did not contribute to the preservation of a viable,
sustainable, stable residential community in the North Central Neighborhood,
the Association would likely oppose it. His group encouraged the Council
to look into these matters and to find better ways to keep them abreast of
the issues concerning their group. At a minimum, he said they would
request timely information to their President and the neighborhood contact
person of the events. He said their President was able to funnel information
to other members of the Board.
In the staff's efforts to
notify the Neighborhood Association, Mr. Harline understood that one of the
Board Members had been contacted. Mr. Clark said unless their designated
contact person was notified, the Board would not be contacted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B299-96A Establishing
permanent zoning on recently annexed property south of West Broadway.
The bill was read by the
Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
bill had been amended at the last meeting and held over for action this evening.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Scott Williams, 101 Dayspring
Drive, spoke on behalf of the King's Meadow Neighborhood Association. He
said that they were in favor of the amended zoning request to R-1.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Harline said he was going
to vote in favor of the amended bill. He said he had been opposed to
the R-3 zoning because it was not good planning to take a 2.2 acre piece
of property at the outskirts of town without knowing what the rest of the
area was going to look like. He said he personally rejected the argument
that since there is no R-3 in the area, this would not be a good place for
it. He said they were realizing that if they establish zoning categories
only in one area, it made for bad planning decisions, and makes it difficult
to provide transportation and supply infrastructure. Mr. Harline stated
he thought the applicant made a good point in that the City should not discourage
people from trying to help with planning by not wanting their properties
to be annexed into the City. He said as West Broadway develops and
if it should become a major thoroughfare, R-1 zoning would not necessarily
be the best policy; however, he thought it was appropriate at this time.
Mr. Kruse asked the staff
to comment on the possibility of West Broadway becoming a major thoroughfare. Mr.
Beck said it was shown on the Major Thoroughfare Plan as an arterial street. Mr.
Kruse asked where it would go. Mr. Hancock said it would hook up with
a street system that would eventually connect with the Midway exit.
B299-96A, was read with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared
enacted, reading as follows:
B356-96 Authorizing
payment of differential costs for a 12-inch water main to serve Meadowlands,
Plat
12.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted this request
was in accordance with City policy wherein we pay the cost differential between,
in this case, a six inch water main and a twelve inch water main. The
cost to the City's Water Department would be about $18,000.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B356-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B358-96 Approving
the 1996 Columbia Sidewalk Plan.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
Plan would provide a guideline for new sidewalk construction, but did not
include reconstruction of such. He said the City had been working with
other plans for reconstruction. Mr. Beck stated this Plan would update
the 1992 Plan. There are two categories: Sidewalk projects on existing
improved streets, and sidewalks that would be built in conjunction with new
street construction projects. Because of the limited amount of funding
available for sidewalks, he said there was a formula devised to prioritize
where the need for sidewalks would be. He said that formula had been
revised to take into account such factors as where schools and parks are
located, and pedestrian areas that are heavily used.
Mr. Janku asked how sidewalks
would be added to the Master Plan. He thought there should be a procedure
where in the Council could recommend that the staff evaluate a particular
street for sidewalks. He said they could be placed into different classes
such as Class A, Class B, etc., or indicate that it should not be part of
the Plan. Mr. Hancock suggested that they look at amending the Plan
every two or three years for additional sidewalks. He pointed out that
any of the new streets in subdivisions would have sidewalks and that the
Council would have purview over sidewalks on publicly funded projects. Mr.
Hancock asked Mr. Janku if he was suggesting that they go back periodically
to see if any areas had been overlooked. Mr. Janku said that was what
he was thinking. He suggested that they ask the staff, at the end of
the meeting, to evaluate a particular sidewalk location to see if it needed
to be added. Mr. Beck felt that the Council could direct that a particular
sidewalk be included at any time, not just at the time of updating the Plan.
Mr. Harline said as in the
case of Providence Road being a state road, it was hard for them to plan
some of these things because of multiple jurisdictions. Mr. Hancock
said they had been considering a series of sidewalks on Providence Road for
some time, and it was not included on the Plan because they were still in
the process of evaluating it. Mr. Harline said he thought the Plan
was good, but from time to time amendments would be requested and perhaps
staff should follow-up with some kind of policy resolution to decide how
to update it.
Mr. Beck said if a question
regarding a sidewalk comes up before the Plan is updated, it could be referred
to the staff. He said they would use the evaluation criteria and bring
back a report.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Kruse said the Plan basically
calls for two categories of sidewalk projects and asked if there was a way
to accommodate other methods to move pedestrians. For example, he said
they discussed an asphalt sidewalk or a pedestrian way on unimproved streets. Mayor
Hindman said he had wondered about that also. He said he understood
that there are some policy issues yet discussed and that they would be included
in the issues yet to be considered. He asked if that was correct. Mr.
Hancock said that was correct. He reported that in the last line of
the introduction it stated that, per Council direction, staff wanted to do
an overall pedestrian plan for Columbia. Mr. Hancock said a sidewalk
was one element of that. He said a sidewalk in their mind was a traditional
sidewalk for spending City money along the street. He said they would
be taking into consideration an unimproved sidewalk along an unimproved street. He
stated they should have something after the first of the year to send to
the City Manager.
Mr. Janku asked if all new
streets and reconstructed streets, as a matter of policy, have been considered
for sidewalks. He was referring to Sunflower in particular. Mr.
Beck noted that the policy resolution calls for a sidewalk on one side of
all collector and arterial streets. He said they would automatically
be built as such unless the Council decided they did not want a sidewalk
on one side.
Mayor Hindman said this was
another item they needed to think about. The idea was to have a sidewalk
on one side of the street and an additional one would be added to the other
side as it develops. However, he said sometimes they rebuild an arterial
street within the City which is already developed with no chance that the
other side would be built by the property owners. Mr. Beck said this
might be evaluated on an individual basis. He thought the reason it
was set up this way was because there were right of way acquisition and the
front yard problems associate with the reconstruction of streets. Mayor
Hindman said there were situations where neighbors could object to it on
both sides.
Mr. Campbell suggested that
they keep in mind that the Plan was a guide and that the Council could raise
questions when the projects come up.
Because of limited funding,
Mr. Janku said he thought staff should look at using CDBG money as a funding
mechanism because approximately one-third of the projects were in eligible
areas. He stated when street improvements are made in CDBG areas, there
is a strong desire for sidewalks and thought there was an equally strong
desire to go back and construct new sidewalks. Mr. Beck said that was
on the list.
B358-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B365-96 Approving
engineer's final report and levying special assessments for the Aztec
Boulevard
and Cherokee Lane project.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck commented that the
two streets and parking lot had been constructed with CDBG money and tax
bills. Because tax bills will be issued against some of the properties,
he said Mr. Patterson would give a brief report.
Mr. Patterson explained that
the project consisted of about 150 feet of Aztec Boulevard and Cherokee Lane
for the purpose of connecting two street segments. He said that Aztec
was built to a 38 foot width and Cherokee to a 32 foot width to match the
existing surfaces. He said the contract specified asphaltic concrete
for a surface so it would match what had already been constructed in the
area. Mr. Patterson noted that sidewalks had not been constructed since
there were none in the neighborhood, but they graded in such a way to allow
for future construction should they be placed in the neighborhood. He
pointed out that they had improved storm drainage in the area with drop inlets
and piping. The City owned parking lot serving the park was also resurfaced
as part of the contract. The total cost of the project was $55,647.98,
with about $2,938.88 being spent on resurfacing the parking lot. He
said it had been proposed that CDBG funds be used. Under current City
policy when those funds are used, adjacent property owners can be assessed
up to one-half of what the normal tax bill rate is. In this case, that
amount is $13.06 per foot. Since the City owns all of the abutting
property, any tax bills assessed would be levied against the City. He
said it was proposed that taxbills be paid from the balance of CDBG funds. Mr.
Patterson had been assured that those funds were available for that purpose. He
said if they issue the tax bills, they need to determine that benefits have
accrued to the properties at least equal to the amounts being assessed. Typically,
the following is considered when making that evaluation: The curb and
guttering and storm water piping would improve the overall storm water management
of the area, as well as improving the appearance and maintainability of the
properties; the new street surface would enable improved street maintenance,
particularly for cleaning and snow removal. Mrs. Crockett questioned
since the tax bills will be paid from CDBG money and if the City decided
to sell the lots, would the money go back into the neighborhood where the
original CDBG money was intended. Mr. Patterson said he assumed that
would not happen because the improvements are for the street and the sidewalks
in the public right of way. Mayor Hindman said the neighborhood would
have the benefit of the expenditure. Mr. Patterson added that it would
improve the sale of the property. Mrs. Crockett said she did not want
to see anything taken away from the neighborhood. Mr. Beck said a large
amount of money had already been put into this neighborhood. Mrs. Crockett
asked if there was bus service to the area. Mr. Patterson said there
had been bus service there since July. He said they do not go around
the circle because of the traffic problems there, but service was available. Mr.
Patterson said door hangers had been placed throughout the neighborhood so
that people would be aware of the service. Mrs. Crockett asked whether
door hangers had also been placed on the apartments. Mr. Patterson
said he was under the impression that they had been distributed throughout
the entire neighborhood. Mrs. Crockett asked if the City was going
to sell the lots. Mr. Beck said they had been looking at the possibility
of selling a couple of lots and keeping some. Mrs. Crockett asked why
the City would keep any at all. Mr. Beck said he was referring to the
lots that tie into the parking lot or were right next to the park. Mrs.
Crockett said she could understand the City keeping lots next to the park.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B365-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
(A) Storm water
drainage, sidewalk and sanitary sewer improvements in the Garth Avenue
and
Sexton
Road area.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck commented that this
was a major storm water drainage project beginning at Garth and Sexton Road
where a lot of flooding has occurred. He explained that improvements
would go northward up Garth Avenue to Austin Avenue. He said it was
an approximate $475,000 project. The proposal for improvements came
from the quarter-cent sales tax for new sidewalk work. This would be
done in conjunction with the box culvert and the major portion from the storm
water utility.
Mr. Campbell noted that the
report said one of the culverts was for ten years and others were from ten
to twenty-five years. He asked what engineering standards would be
used for the new construction -- 25 years? Mr. Patterson said improvements
would be designed to 25 year flood standards. He said when they refer
to the uncertainty of being able to accomplish the project in its totality,
it is due to the existing downstream constraints that need to be replaced
at some point in the future. On Garth Avenue the project would consist
of about 680 feet of box culvert along the east side of the street. He
said it would also have about 1500 feet of pipe in conjunction with it. Mr.
Patterson pointed out that the area had been expanded to encompass the Grand
and Sexton areas to resolve a problem at the school. He noted that
the project includes about 1290 feet of sidewalk. He added that they
would be doing about $12,000 worth of sewer rehabilitation work as part of
the project. Referring to the new construction above the area of the
box culvert, Mr. Campbell asked if there was a possibility that improvements
would increase the severity of flooding near the culvert. Mr. Patterson
questioned whether he was referring to the rehabilitation center. Mr.
Campbell said he was. Mr. Patterson stated it certainly was not going
to help it and that they tried to get detention put on the facility. He
said the City designed the project for full development, but downstream problems
could be increased because of the failure to control the water upstream.
Mayor Hindman asked if this
would increase flow into Flat Branch Creek. Mr. Patterson said it would. He
said the main constraint right now will be storing water in the pipes because
the downstream culvert is not designed for the full twenty-five year capacity. However,
he said this would certainly relieve the homes and intersection flooding
that presently occurs quite frequently. Mayor Hindman asked if
this would put more pressure on Flat Branch and whether there would there
be any kind of energy reduction down at the bottom end. Mr. Patterson
said currently the pipe itself is a throttle downstream. They are increasing
the storage capacity within the pipe, but could only get so much through
the downstream pipe. He said it would increase the flow, but it would
be dampened by the reduced capacity. Mayor Hindman asked if the pipe
was filling up now. Mr. Patterson said it was. He said it would
be improved, but it would still be restricted. Mayor Hindman understood
that the flooding would be improved at one end, but asked if there would
be a heavier discharge at the other end. Mr. Patterson said there would
be a heavier discharge at an area where it will not cause structural flooding. Mayor
Hindman asked if nothing could be done about the bottom end where it enters
into Flat Branch. Mr. Patterson said there would be additional flow
there. He explained that the options in an area like this were extremely
limited in the fact that they did not have the ability to detain water upstream. He
said what occurs now is water being stored in basements when they flood. This
way water would flow into Flat Branch Creek.
Mr. Harline asked if they
would have increased velocity when it comes above ground to the Flat Branch
Creek. Mr. Patterson said there would be more flow and more pressure
at the outlet of the downstream box, but it would be incremental.
Mayor Hindman said he was
in favor of the sidewalk, but asked if it could be paid out of CDBG money. Ms.
Coble said the Sidewalk Plan they just reviewed shows this as an area with
some of the heaviest foot traffic ruts. Mayor Hindman said it was an
area where CDBG money could be used while continuing the sidewalk program. Mr.
Janku agreed it was a priority area. He asked if there was a way, without
holding up this project, that as CDBG recommendations are made, they could
be brought forward as part of that. Mr. Patterson said he did not think
that was a problem. He said they could direct the payment of that portion,
but they simply had not shown it as a utility. He said by the time
it could be constructed, there would be ample time to provide whatever direction
the Council wanted.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
David Anderson, 913 N. Garth,
stated his house was right in the middle of this and had been fighting water
in his basement for 26 years. Mr. Anderson said he had two pumps in
his basement to try to keep the water out.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Ms. Coble made the motion
that staff be directed to proceed with the project. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
OLD BUSINESS
B217-96 Amending
Chapter 18 of the City Code re: pensions for police officers.
B354-96 Amending
Chapter 18 of the City Code re: pensions for police officers.
Both bills were read by the
Clerk.
The Mayor noted that the
bills would be voted on separately.
Mr. Beck stated that the
ordinances were initiated by the Police Retirement Board. He said they
were also supported by the Police Officer's Association and there would be
no cost to City government. What is proposed is police and fire retirement
programs will be comparable to other retirement programs in so far as to
what the City's participation is in the plans. He said the plan benefits
for police and fire were different from the general government, but they
were putting in a greater amount of their own personal salaries to make up
the difference.
Lori Fleming, Director of
Finance, explained that they had an actuarial review done to determine what
the costs would be. She said the first ordinance of the two was introduced
earlier in the year, but there had been some problems with the wording of
it and how the City segregated the costs. She said they were asking
that the first ordinance be defeated because the second ordinance had the
proper wording correctly allocating the cost to the officers, and clarifies
how the City calculates the cost differentials.
B217-97 was read by the vote
recorded as follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. Bill defeated.
B354-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B348-96 Appropriating
funds for construction of golf cart paths.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that they
bid the project to be paid for by the golfers. He said money had been
appropriated for the cart paths; however, they needed an additional $70,000
to award the contract for both of the projects. He said that base bids
ranged from $406,000 to $702,000 and saw no reason to rebid it. Mr.
Beck said in discussions with Mr. Green, they considered doing the project
in phases, but decided it probably would not work very well. He was
recommending that they take the $70,000 from the designated loan fund. Mr.
Beck thought it could be paid back over a period of about three years.
Mr. Campbell said when the
golfers were before them, there had been a number of items on their priority
list and this was at the top. He assumed this would delay major priority
items, such as irrigation, by two or three years. Mr. Beck said that
depended on what kind of season they had. He said a good season would
increase the amount of use, thus stepping up the amount of revenues taken
in at the courses. He said there have been some limitations and some
maintenance problems. He said the other items could be hindered if
additional revenues did not come in.
Mr. Harline said later on
the agenda they would be discussing a right of use permit for a sewer line
across the Lake of the Woods golf course, and wondered if the two projects
would be coordinated. Mr. Green pointed out that the agreement states
the sewer line will be put in between the first of November and the first
of March. He said the sewer line would be installed before the cart
paths were started.
B348-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B351-96 Amending
Chapter 5 of the City Code regarding exotic animals and reptiles.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman said the staff
had not worked on this as the Council referred it directly to the Board of
Health. He said there was no written staff report on the issue. Mr.
Sanford commented that representatives from the Board of Health were present
to answer questions. In lieu of a staff report, Mayor Hindman asked
the Chairman of the Board of Health to step forward.
Dr. Michael Szewczyk said
the Board held a public hearing where they looked at these issues and then
issued a report. In terms of exotic animals, he said that could be
split into two separate issues. One was the question of gerbils, mice,
and hamsters. Presently, the ordinance states these mammals cannot
be sold in Columbia, but Dr. Szewczyk said they were being sold anyway. He
said the law was being broken every day and it was the Board's feeling, not
knowing what the Council was thinking at the time of passage, that they probably
did not want to outlaw gerbils and hamsters. He said this is similar
to a housekeeping change. He said the current ordinance does not outlaw
owning hamsters, gerbils, and mice, it only outlaws the sale of them. Dr.
Szewczyk said the Board had a big debate about whether or not to try to identify
certain small mammals that could be sold. He thought the Council would
be opening a Pandora's Box if they tried to do it. He explained that
the ordinance clearly states that dangerous animals are not allowed to be
sold and the Director of the Department of Health has the ability to declare
an animal dangerous. He said if the Council was looking to stop dangerous
animals and adopted this change, these animals would still be prohibited,
but citizens would be allowed to buy hamsters, gerbils, and other similar
animals. He said the second issue was reptiles. He said this
was a much more controversial issue because there were some health concerns
regarding reptiles. He said there was a risk for salmonella exposure
and the current ordinance does not stop anyone from owning reptiles in Columbia,
it only prevents the sale. On the outskirts of the City, he noted that
there is a pet store that sells reptiles. Anyone that wants one can
make the purchase and bring it back into the City. The Board felt this
was an opportunity to let people sell the reptiles, while also providing
some education at the same time. He said the Board felt that this was
not unreasonable. Other communities have similar policies requiring
pet store owners to supply information regarding potential health risks to
the buyer. If the person buys the animal, then they are at least getting
some education. He said this would be a positive step because they
would be getting information on the animal. He said the Board also
thought it important to have an age limit on the purchase of reptiles. The
Board recommended a person must be 18 years old or accompanied by a parent
to prevent impulse buying by youngsters.
Mr. Kruse asked about the
salmonella risk. Dr. Szewczyk said they reviewed CDC and lay reports. He
said it was really very sensational because a newspaper will pick up on an
article stating a youngster died from salmonella linked to a pet iguana. He
said things like that do happen, but probably in less than 1% of all of the
salmonella cases. He said the vast majority of poisoning occurs from
poorly cooked chicken, turkey, and other food related exposures. He
said the risk was minimal and no one could really define the risk because
the denominator is not known.
Mayor Hindman thanked Dr.
Szewczyk and the Board of Health for their efforts in preparing their report.
Mike Bushman, 818 W. Rollins,
owner of Columbia Pet Center, spoke in favor of the revision. He said
this provision would not change much of what is currently being done. He
said only harmless, domesticated mammals would be sold. Regarding the
sale of reptiles in Columbia, he felt it was time for a change in the law. He
said there was much more known now about how to care and maintain reptiles
in captivity. He said most common pet reptiles now are kept and bred
-- not taken from wild populations. He said as long as it was permitted
for reptiles to be owned in Columbia, it should also be allowed for them
to be sold here. He said local stores had been left out of the huge
increase in demand for reptiles for years and felt that was unfair. Mr.
Bushman said that 578 signatures were recently collected in three weeks time
at the local pet stores from customers who are interested in purchasing reptiles
in Columbia. He urged the Council to vote in favor of this provision.
Gwen Becker, President of
the Mid-Missouri Herptelogical Society, explained that one of their objectives
was to provide education and information about the proper care and treatment
of reptiles and amphibians. Approximately eight people from her group
stood in support of the proposed changes.
Troy Whitaker, Fulton, Missouri,
explained that he was a small home based business operator who moved from
Columbia a few years ago because of concerns that his part of town might
be annexed into the City, and he would be operating against the law because
of selling non-venomous reptiles. He spoke in favor of the revision
and noted that his business has grown every year for the last four years. He
pointed out that Columbia was not getting that business.
Kevin Erig, 200 W. El Cortez,
owner of Pet Avenue in Columbia, agreed with Mr. Bushman's comments. He
said neither he nor Mr. Bushman obtain their snakes from the wild, although
some people do. He said it was a very strange law that allows people
to own the snakes, but does not allow the snakes to be sold. He said
people call all the time with questions about how to keep their snakes alive,
but his business is not allowed to sell them.
Cathy Mason, Director of
Missourians Against Cruelty to Animals, said when this ordinance was passed
20 years ago, she and Mr. Sanford wrote the by-laws and the articles of incorporation
of the Central Missouri Humane Society. She was President of the Society
at that time. She said the Humane Society, as a membership, was not
polled nor did they vote on this ordinance. She said they were not
in support of the proposed changes. Ms. Mason stated the trade and
the selling of exotic animals in this country was a national disgrace and
of the animals that even make it to the pet stores, within two years only
10% of them survive. She said it was an ever-renewable income source
for the animal traffickers. One should not be fooled into thinking
this was an issue of education because she said it was an issue of money. Ms.
Mason stated the Board of Health has essentially ignored the CDC weekly morbidity
and mortality reports. She argued that from those reports, salmonella
poisoning from reptiles across this country is a problem. Ms.
Mason said people buy these animals and decide they do not want them, they
then end up on the streets where they become a problem for Animal Control
and the Humane Society.
Ms. Coble asked Ms. Mason,
regarding her previous affiliation with the Humane Society, if there were
many reptiles. Ms. Mason said this was really about pocket pets. She
said if the argument was to get tax dollars, those businesses would sell
whatever the people wanted. She said that pocket pets were small mammals
and when people got tired of them, they would be dumped out on the streets. Ms.
Mason said she did not remember reptiles being a significant problem at the
time she was affiliated with the Humane Society. Mrs. Crockett
said as long as we have an ordinance that does not prohibit these animals
or reptiles from being in the City, she saw no reason why we should not be
able to sell them in the City.
Mr. Campbell stated keeping
exotic animals, reptiles, or pets in his home was something he did not do. He
said he did not think pets should be taken from the wild, but on the other
hand, he thought people should have the right to sell what is legal to have
in the City.
Mr. Janku said there was
obviously an underground economy in this industry and thought the educational
efforts would provide some benefit to address a few of the issues raised
here.
Mr. Harline felt the reputable
stores who sold these animals, with the requirement that they give out information
about the salmonella poisoning potential, would be an improvement over an
underground industry.
Mr. Kruse said he felt like
he needed to know a lot more about the capture, sale, and distribution of
exotic animals. He believed that most were bred in captivity, but obviously
at some point they are obtained from the wild. He said he did not feel
educated enough about the issue to support the ordinance right now. He
recognized that it is legal in the county and in most other cities, but said
he liked the idea of Columbia being different and standing on principle. He
said he would vote against it at this point.
Ms. Coble said she had a
long-standing concern about the treatment of the everyday, run-of-the-mill
mammals in this town. She said she witnessed dogs dying near her home
from lack of food and water, and had seen dogs shot within the City limits. She
had also seen horribly malnourished kittens and adult cats running around
because of owners not knowing about spaying and neutering pets. Ms.
Coble stated her level of concern in the pet kingdom food chain was very
basic and did not know about the exotic animal sales because she was dealing
too much with what people think of the average, every day pet. She
said there was a direct link between the maltreatment and lack of understanding
of how to treat animals as pets, and people not knowing how to parent children
and the relationship between abuse and other situations that go on. She
said she did not mean to be unkind to those who are concerned about horrible
occurrences in the lives of exotic animals, which are now being sold as pets,
but felt there were too many everyday horrors with the run-of-the-mill dogs
and cats. She said we did not have a very good system for investigating
the treatment of these animals, educating people, or screening their ownership,
so she did not have a problem with this proposed amendment.
Mayor Hindman said he would
vote in favor of it, but did not like it very much. He agreed with
Mr. Kruse in that they did not know enough about the issue. He said
one thing they could do was to try to have responsible dealers.
B351-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: KRUSE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B352-96 Amending
Chapter 5 of the City Code re: confinement of dogs.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Dr. Szewczyk said at the
public hearing regarding the leash law, not a single person got up to talk
about a problem they had with it. He said leash laws sound like an
infringement on rights, but after looking at it and reading different ordinances,
he said Columbia was actually an extremely liberal town in terms of what
they allow a dog owner to do. He said when dogs generally bite people,
it does not occur because someone is trespassing on another's property, but
because somebody is out with their dog and think they have control of it. He
said there had been unanimous support for a leash law. There had been
some discussion regarding other cities that had "free-for-all areas" where
a dog could be taken and allowed to run. From a health standpoint,
the Board felt a leash law was important and that it was not too restrictive. The
Board heard a lot of horror stories about people being on the MKT Trail and
dogs have charged them. Dr. Szewczyk stated one exception to consider
was permitting a person that formally trains dogs to be allowed to keep these
animals off of a leash while working with them.
Mr. Harline asked if it would
be reasonable to look for some sort of amendment where a person could certify
their dog as well-trained and responds to voice command. Dr. Szewczyk
said that Dr. Rose, the veterinarian on the Board, wrote that paragraph and
felt fairly comfortable with it. There was no way to be really sure
about any animal.
Tom Witte, said he was shocked
and dismayed about this ordinance being passed. He said he was a dog
owner and had an eleven year old lab that he likes to walk quite frequently
at Twin Lakes. He said one of the things he likes about taking his
dog to that location was that the dog could run free, get exercise and stay
physically healthy and active. He had yet to observe anything like
what had been described earlier, or any instances of a dog attacking another
person, or even a dog attacking another dog. He thought the ordinance,
as is, requiring that the dog be obedient to either a command or on a leash
was adequate enough. He did not know why all dogs had to be penalized
for the actions of what has to be a minority of animals. Mr. Witte
said he had not heard any statistics mentioned. He said there were
dogs that are responsive to voice command. He felt the owners should
have the responsibility for their dog and if anyone was penalized it should
be the owner, not the dog.
Mrs. Crockett said she was
one of those statistics having been bitten twice by two of the friendliest
dogs in the world. She explained the circumstances and said there are
people who are just afraid of dogs. She did not feel that any pedestrian
should be afraid to be on the streets because of dogs when these animals
could be kept on leashes.
Charles Ailor, 1212 Jake
Lane, explained that he has a large dog and said it was very hard for a dog
that size to remain in a confined area. He said he also walks his dog
at Twin Lakes. Regarding the reference to a free-for-all area, he suggested
that it be looked into. He rarely saw people in the Twin Lakes area
with their dogs. He said the few that he had seen had been well mannered.
Paul Albert, 2703 Parker,
spoke in favor of a leash law.
Ben Schwartz, 1324 Weaver
Drive, owner of a yellow lab, said he met the Mayor a few times at Twin Lakes
with his dog. He said he rarely saw anyone at the Twin Lakes area early
in the morning. He thought the current ordinance allowed people to
let their dogs exercise in a way as to not annoy other people.
Mr. Janku noted that the
effective date of the ordinance, if passed, would need to read May 1, 1997
instead of 1996. He said they were anticipating a grace period. Personally,
he would like to see that there are some places where the animals could run. He
said that a grace period would allow time to work on something like that. Mr.
Beck said he thought they should have a full staff report on the issue. Mr.
Kruse said he thought the Parks and Recreation Department might want to think
about parks or areas within parks that might be available for dogs to run. Ms.
Coble said all they were doing was making rule after rule of where a person
could have a dog, where that would be and what would be allowed, when there
are lots of places around the City where there are no problems, people have
not been attacked by dogs, and people do keep their dogs under control. She
said if the ordinance passes, there would be a prescribed list that nobody
could go beyond. Mr. Kruse said he had also been attacked by different
dogs in Columbia on a number of occasions that were supposedly under the
voice control of their owners. He said he also witnessed vicious attacks
on the MKT Trail, as well as a couple of dog/bike accidents on the Trail
because of the dogs not being on leashes. He felt a leash law was important,
but said he liked having some kind of opportunity for the dogs to run because
it was necessary.
Mr. Campbell said he was
a 15 year veteran of walking dogs on public streets here. During that
time, he said his dog was always on a leash. However, he learned to
carry a club because often his dog would be attacked by other dogs while
their owners were yelling at them to "stay". He had been bitten twice
on public streets when not walking a dog. Mr. Campbell was in favor
of having an area in which dogs could run, but thought it had to be clearly
at the owner's risk. He was in favor of more rules and regulations
if they were to protect people.
Mr. Harline said there was
an awareness that they were, once again, trying to impose a regulation to
restrict a type of behavior that can, in some cases, cause problems. He
said the problem itself is already regulated against; however, he said he
understood the need to try to prevent these incidents from happening in the
first place. He said the crux of this argument was how much of a problem
this is. He said they were all aware that they could not regulate everything
to make life perfectly safe and, by the same token, when one is walking down
the street they should expect some safety in not being attacked by domesticated
animals. Since being on the Council, ordinances had been passed that
required scooping up dog feces, regulated where a container of alcohol can
be carried, where to skateboard, and a variety of other things. He
said the one comment he heard was regarding all of the crazy laws in the
City and why this particular person never wants to live in the City. Mr.
Harline thought they needed to be more careful when they pass ordinances
that benefit the public health. He did not think we needed this ordinance,
but if it did pass, thought a place for dogs to run was needed.
Ms. Coble said she did not
think this would change the bad behavior of just a few dogs. She did
not think it would be enforceable and would be something for an unhappy neighbor
to use against someone.
Mayor Hindman said he was
also opposed to the ordinance because he felt it was unnecessary regulation. He
thought it was being regulated as well as it could be right now. He
pointed out that currently there is a leash law on the Katy Trail and yet
there are still problems. He said there is an existing ordinance that
states a dog must either be on a leash or under voice command of the owner
when it is off the owner's property. He said when Mrs. Crockett was
bitten it occurred on the owner's sidewalk so, in effect, this would not
have done any good because the law does not apply on a person's property. He
did not see where this amendment would solve anything. He said when
Mr. Campbell was bitten, that dog was in violation of current regulation. Anybody
that has an inappropriately trained dog that is not really under voice control,
that person is presently in violation and could be turned. He said
this would be unpopular with a lot of people and would be violated over and
over again. The revised ordinance would not accomplish anything that
has not been already accomplished. Mayor Hindman said he was in favor
or having brochures in the pet shops to remind people what present rules
are. Mayor Hindman said the rules the Council passes were not really
designed to be criminal enforcement laws, but to inform people what behavior
is expected. He said they were setting forth what they thought people
needed to do to get along with each other. He said if it did pass,
the City needed to come up with areas where dogs area allowed to run free. He
agreed they could get the reputation of passing a lot of unnecessary regulations
and they should not do that.
Mr. Janku said he had somewhat
initiated this amendment because a concern had been brought to him by a constituent
who had a problem with her neighbor. He said it involved someone who
might not have been that responsible with their pet, which happened to be
a rottweiler. He said the lady had a young child and she was very much
in fear of that child's safety. Mr. Janku stated before this issue
came up, many people assumed that Columbia had a leash law. He said
they were surprised to learn that we do not have one. Because of public
discussion, a lot of people who were not aware that the City did not have
a leash law will no longer voluntarily cooperate. He thought we would
see more dogs without leashes. Mr. Janku said there were certain areas
with restrictions and he did not understand why other areas should not have
similar types of protection. He said he would vote in favor of the
amendment, but agreed that the City, at times, came up with ordinances that
seem to be unduly burdensome. He was in favor of opening up areas for
the animals to run at large.
Mr. Campbell said he conducted
an informal poll in his neighborhood and found that most of his neighbors
were of the opinion that we did have a leash law at the present time. He
said if the amendment passed, he would make a motion that the staff, working
with the Parks and Recreation Commission, examine and designate one or more
places where animals can be allowed to roam with the owner's permission.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that B352-96 be amended per the amendment sheet and further that the effective
date be amended to read May 1, 1997. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Janku and approved by voice vote.
B352-96, as amended, was
given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING NO: HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
Mr. Campbell asked the staff to prepare a report on an area where dogs could be allowed free range. Mr. Janku asked that the report include areas throughout the community, and in order to increase the flexibility, asked that they look at times of the day also. He said there may be areas appropriate for free play for dogs early in the day or late in the day and asked that the report be as creative as possible. It was decided the issue would be brought up at the end of the meeting.
B353-96 Amending
Chapter 5 of the City Code re: vicious animals.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Darren Hellwege, 1610 Highridge
Drive, spoke on behalf of the Board of Health. He said the Board's
ultimate goal was to identify a dangerous dog before, rather than after,
an injury occurs. He said this change would provide extra protection
for residents from animals that may not actually be biting somebody, but
are threatening or causing problems. He said he personally talked with
a lot of people who have been terrorized by animals who were not covered
by the ordinance as it exists presently.
Mayor Hindman asked what
would happen when a dog is classified as vicious. Mr. Hellwege said
presently, and this amendment would not change it, the ordinance would provide
for stricter regulation of how the animal is kept. He said a regular
three foot high fence that might be suitable for a lot of dogs, is not going
to be the case in this instance. He said it would have to be a covered
pen sunk, into the ground, and several other types of regulations to keep
a stronger hold on the animal.
Mr. Campbell asked if a dog
runs up to him once and growls at him, whether that would be considered a
terrorizing manner. Mr. Hellwege said if someone is approached by a
dog in that manner, they should contact the Animal Control people and they
would conduct an investigation to determine whether this was a dangerous
animal. He said what they were doing was broadening the definition
of a vicious dog. He said it would still be handled on a case by case
basis following an investigation by the City.
Mr. Janku understood that
the requirement of special pens was already in place and that the change
was for the expansion of the definition of vicious dogs. He also understood
this was not breed specific. Mr. Hellwege said that was correct. It
had been determined early on that the Board should not approach it from that
standpoint.
Mr. Harline had a question
about his dog that stays outside during the day on a chain. He said
the dog runs and barks at service people, but she is chained so she can not
reach them. He said he did not want to discourage that behavior because
he expects her to do that when people come on his property. He said
they purchased her as a deterrent to make them feel safer at home, particularly
if someone were to come in their home at night and she was there. Mr.
Hellwege said the intent was to protect people walking on public property. He
said if someone who is uninvited is coming through the window of another's
house, he thought it was perfectly appropriate for the dog to go after that
person. He said they were dealing with someone walking past a property
and having a dog lunge at them. Mr. Harline said he did not understand
how this would make things safer.
Mayor Hindman asked if someone
has a dog that barks and growls, whether it would have to be put in a fenced
area with a top over it. Mr. Hellwege said it was not their intention
to outlaw barking or growling dogs. He said they were referring to
dogs approaching in a terrorizing manner. Mayor Hindman asked what
dogs would be placed in confined areas beyond what was already established.
Mr. Campbell asked about
the difference in enforcement. Mr. Sanford explained that there are
three Animal Control Officers. He said a typical situation was that
they would receive a complaint. He said when a person is frightened,
that is a perception on their part. He said oftentimes Animal Control
would canvass a neighborhood to see if there had been any other incidents,
and try to get some history of what was going on. He said if push comes
to shove, they would take the word of the complaining party and that person
would have to be prepared to be a witness in court. He said Animal
Control would advise the animal owner as to what the regulations are. The
owner would then have a choice, they would either comply or get a ticket. He
said if they were issued a summons, the judge would decide. Generally
speaking, Mr. Sanford said with the existing wording they have not had very
many challenges to it. He said it was usually a pretty strong case. Mr.
Campbell asked Mr. Sanford what he saw as differences between the existing
number two and the new number three and possibly four. Mr. Sanford
saw it as a moderate strengthening, with number three and four being probably
a little less overt than one and two. However, he said that was just
a matter of interpretation. He said numbers one and two were probably
more offensive acts than three and four.
Mrs. Crockett asked what
could be done about a situation about a neighbor who is afraid of the two
pit bulls next door breaking their chains and attacking his wife. Mr.
Hellwege said the process Mr. Sanford outlined would be followed. He
said that might be a very specific example of something that would be covered
under the ordinances. He said if it was determined that the animals
are a danger and declared a vicious dog, then the owner would have to undergo
the changes in the pen. He said that would probably give the neighbor
a little more piece of mind. Mayor Hindman said he felt that number
two would cover that. Mr. Hellwege said it very well may, but that
was something that would be handled on a case by case basis.
Mr. Janku asked if someone
could be prosecuted for the conduct of their animal on their own property. Mr.
Sanford said they would do that, but the disposition would be up to the judge. He
said most of us do not live in places where nobody else ever goes. He
said that dogs are protective and territorial, but the unsuspecting person
has to be protected. Particularly, the child that just happens to be
there. He said if the dog has this disposition, he personally thought
it needed extra control whether it is on the owner's property or not.
Paul Albert, 2703 Parker,
commented that chains snap and dogs get loose.
Mr. Janku said he was concerned
about numbers three and four, and in particular, three. He said the
language was vague. He said the criminal code in Missouri had been
redefined a few year's ago and uses terms like reasonable fear of immediate
serious injury. He said it was a pretty well-defined term in the law,
but did not exactly know what the concept of terrorizing meant. He
thought they could do without it. Mr. Janku said he was concerned about
number four because he thought the standard was so high. He said that
serious physical injury meant physical injury that creates a substantial
risk of death, or causes serious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment
of the function of any part of the body. He thought that was a high
burden to establish. He suggested they strike the word serious and
have it read reasonable fear of immediate physical injury.
Mr. Campbell said he had
some concerns about what was meant by a terrorizing manner. He thought
it would be a very vague thing to try to prove. He thought it would
open up even more neighbor conflict.
Mr. Kruse said he did not
think many people would go through the process just because they are upset
with a neighbor. He said they would do it because they seriously
feel there is a hazard to them or to others.
Mr. Sanford pointed out that
with the existing ordinance, they would have to show a pattern of behavior. He
said if either numbers three or four passes, they would not have to do that. He
said he would try to do that, but he could imagine situations where he would
not want to do that. He said he could think of situations where a dog
would be so threatening and a person would be so frightened, even though
no injury occurred and it would be the only time it ever happened, that they
ought to take some action. He did not want anyone to think they always
have to show a pattern of behavior if either of the changes pass.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that B353-96 be amended by striking number three. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Kruse.
Regarding terrorizing, Mr.
Hellwege explained how the Board had come across it. He said when they
talked about the revision of the ordinance, they studied the Kansas City,
Missouri Animal Control ordinance and this was where it came from. He
did not think there would be significant objection from the Board to dropping
this particular part of the ordinance.
The motion to amend, made
by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mr. Kruse, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
B353-96, as amended, was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. HARLINE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B355-96 Amending
Chapter 2 of the City Code to establish a policy to accept gifts of
art.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the
Council asked the Cultural Affairs Commission to submit a guideline for accepting
gifts of art.
Ms. Hills noted that the
ordinance outlines what would have to be in a proposal if a person decided
to donate a gift of art to the City. She said this was found in Section
2. She said it outlines the duties of the Office of Cultural Affairs
to notify the Commission of the proposal, and also notify other departments
if they are affected in any way. She said that the rest of the ordinance
outlines the criteria by which the Commission would judge the piece. She
said they had researched other cities to determine how to word the ordinance.
Betty Cook Rottmann, 1200
Coats, a member of the Cultural Affairs Commission, explained that she was
on the policy sub-committee that worked at length on preparing this.
Mayor Hindman thanked Ms.
Rottmann and the committee for all of their work.
B355-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B360-96 Authorizing
the acquisition of a piece of land behind the Daniel Boone Building.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
was a small tract of ground, 18' by 22', northeast of this building. He
said the City previously adopted a strategy of trying to negotiate the purchase
of land in this half block as a part of an administration building complex
for future use. He said the purchase price was $6,000.
B360-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B362-96 Calling
for bids on the Sixth and Cherry parking structure.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck commented that a
public hearing had already been held on this second major parking structure
being built in the central business district in accordance with the Council's
master plan for downtown parking. The estimated cost was approximately
$4.5 million to be paid for from parking utility funds. He noted that
the structure would provide 375 parking spaces. He said they had looked
at the setback situation and included a 9' 2" sidewalk on the east side of
the structure. Mr. Beck stated they looked at the landscaping area,
laid out on the plan to be 8' wide, and were thinking about reducing it a
bit. He said because of some underground electrical facilities, it
would have to be relocated to do that. They were proposing to bid the
plan as had originally talked about, an 8' planting strip on the east side
of the structure and the north side would remain the same. He said
they were working with the Health Adventure Center on the west part of the
block. Mr. Beck said the City had talked to them about possibly reducing
the landscaping strip so they would not need as much of the other half of
the block. He said they were still working on what the design was going
to be.
Mr. Janku said there was
a lot of exciting redevelopment going on in that area in addition to the
potential for the Health Adventure Center. He was glad they could support
it with this additional parking. B362-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B368-96 Authorizing
an agreement with Larkin Associates for engineering services re: Scott
Boulevard
improvement project.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said the Council
earlier approved legislation wherein the City and County would work together
on this section of Scott Boulevard in southwest Columbia. He said this
ordinance would provide for the hiring of a firm to do the evaluation of
the construction on that section of Scott Boulevard. He said the City
would pay 50% of the cost with the County paying the other 50%. He
said after receiving this preliminary report and if the Council decides to
move forward with detailed plans and specifications, special action by the
Council would be required.
Mrs. Crockett asked why the
feasibility study and the preliminary and final designs were all on one contract. Mr.
Patterson said typically they prepare a contract if a design memo is required
to determine if we want to proceed with it in that manner. He said
they always give themselves a stop gap in case they decide not to proceed. Mr.
Patterson stated they could do this without expending the whole amount. In
a project of this size, not a large design project, it would be inefficient
for them to change engineers between the feasibility and the actual design
because there is interrelation of all the survey work.
B368-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B369-96 Authorizing
a right-of-use permit allowing the construction of sewer line at Lake
of the
Woods
Recreation Area.
The bill was given second
reading by the City Clerk.
Mr. Janku asked if there
was an existing lagoon on the golf course property. Mr. Green said
there was an on-site treatment plant they were going to do away with when
construction of the sewer line is completed. He said there were private
lagoons just to the west of the golf course which also would be removed.
Mr. Harline understood the
work would take place between November 1 and March 1. He asked if that
would allow for enough time. Mr. Green said they were not sure if the
work would be done this year or next year. He said it was based on
when they get all of the agreements, rights of way, and easements taken care
of.
B369-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were
given second reading and the resolution was read by the Clerk.
B349-96 Authorizing
a contract with the Department of Health for family planning services
and
appropriating
funds.
B350-96 Authorizing
an agreement with the Department of Health for nursing consultation services
and
appropriating funds.
B357-96 Accepting
conveyances for utility purposes.
B359-96 Authorizing
land acquisition for the airport water main extension project.
B361-96 Calling
for bids for street construction on Seventh Street from Wilkes Boulevard
to
Hickman
Avenue.
B363-96 Confirming
the contract for improvements to Eastwood Drive from Sylvan Lane to Clark
Lane.
B364-96 Confirming
the contract for the Coats Street and Fairview Avenue improvement project.
B366-96 Accepting
engineer's final report for the Air Carrier Apron Extension, Phase 2, project
at
the
airport.
B367-96 Accepting
various easements and quit claim deeds.
B370-96 Granting
a variance allowing a structure to encroach on sewer and utility easements.
R170-96 Setting
a public hearing regarding construction of an 8-inch water main serving Arcadia
Subdivision,
Plat 4.
The bills were given third
reading and the resolution read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R171-96 Authorizing
a petition for annexation of City-owned property south of the MKT parkway
and
east of Scott Blvd.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said about 18 months
ago the City purchased approximately 100 acres from Mr. Baurichter in the
southwest part of the City as part of the Open Space Plan. Recently,
Mr. Beck said he was contacted by Mr. Baurichter regarding the possibility
of annexing his remaining farm property. To make the area contiguous
with the City should Mr. Baurichter decide to go ahead, Mr. Beck said the
City's property needed to be annexed because it lies between the remaining
part of the farm and the City limits. He said approval of this resolution
would authorize the City Manager to initiate an annexation of City property. Mr.
Beck said he could contact Mr. Baurichter and if he agreed to go ahead with
the annexation, both properties could possibly be annexed at the same time.
The vote on R171-96 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE,
HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R172-96 Approving
the charter of the Oakland Manor Neighborhood Association.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this request,
as well as the following two, had been reviewed by the staff and found to
be in accordance with our guidelines.
As a resident of Oakland
Manor, Mr. Janku said he was pleased to support this. He pointed out
that the white space between the two neighborhoods on the map was the greenbelt
along Bear Creek.
The vote on R172-96 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE,
HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R173-96 Approving
the charter of the Highland Park Neighborhood Association.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Ms. Coble questioned whether
in the information provided to the staff, if there was any information about
those not wanting to be in a particular neighborhood association by the boundaries
submitted to the department. Mr. Hancock said there sometimes was. She
asked if this particular application had any of those issues. Mr. Hancock
explained that Smithton Valley surrounds this neighborhood. He did
not think there was animus or anything of that sort, but rather they saw
themselves as having different issues to address.
Lester Reschley, 1011 London
Drive, said there were people who were members of both groups. He said
Highland Park had discussed a neighborhood association since he had been
there, but had not taken an active move to become organized and recognized. He
said with Smithton enlarging and encompassing the area they were in, action
was probably prompted to occur. He said there were no disagreements
with Smithton, but their issues were just different from each other. He
said they had several meetings and would enjoy working with them. They
had no objections to people joining both groups if they wanted to.
Mr. Janku asked about the
commercial area along I-70 Drive SW. Mr. Reschley said he didn't know
that either group needed that as their boundary. Mr. Janku said the
only problem he could see would be if there was a rezoning and staff has
to notify people. Mr. Reschley said the staff could notify both groups. Mr.
Hancock said they notify everyone within a mile anyway.
Mr. Harline said he thought
it was great that more and more neighborhoods were getting involved. He
said it was good for the City because it helps us communicate with our citizens,
and for them to communicate with us. He stated these two neighborhoods
would be affected by changes similarly and would have to work together, which
would be beneficial for them to do so.
The vote on R173-96 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE,
HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R174-96 Amending
the by-laws and redrawing the boundaries of the Smithton Valley
Neighborhood
Association.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Verna Harris-Laboy, 611 W.
Worley, President of the Smithton Valley Neighborhood Association, said they
would be there for support of the Highland Park neighbors if the need arises. She
noted that their treasurer was a member of both associations. Ms. Harris-Laboy
said it was exciting if their joining encouraged the other group to get together. She
felt they had done a good job.
Mr. Harline said he was glad
to see neighborhood associations with both commercial and residential zoning. He
said when they work together as a community with both aspects it provides
for more opportunities.
The vote on R174-96 recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE,
HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R175-96 Authorizing
an amendment to an agreement with the Museum of Art and Archaeology.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
would expand our agreement by two years.
The vote on R175-96 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE,
HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R176-96 Appointing
Penny St. Romaine as City Clerk.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Comments were called for
with none received.
The vote on R176-96 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE,
HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R177-96 Authorizing
a four-party agreement for the installation of floor drains in the
Tenth &
Cherry
parking garage.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said he understood
this would correct the drainage problem in this garage.
The vote on R177-96 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE,
HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R178-96 Terminating
the lease of the Bear Creek lagoon site to the Columbia Soccer Club.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that in
1994 we were approached by the Columbia Soccer Club about leasing the abandoned
Bear Creek lagoon site to put in some soccer fields. Since that point
in time, the Soccer Club has been developing a large athletic field area
just north of the Columbia City limits so they no longer plan to develop
this site as a soccer field. He said this resolution would terminate
that lease.
Mr. Janku understood this
area would now be under the control of the Parks and Recreation Department
because there are people misusing the area. He said it was important
that they have management of the property. He was hoping it could be
dedicated to Parks and Recreation as part of the Open Space Plan. Mr.
Janku said this site may be appropriate as a free range area for dog uses
as mentioned earlier.
Mr. Beck said their plan
was to bring to the Council legislation that assigns this property to a department.
The vote on R178-96 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE,
HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor, unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
B371-96 Approving
the final plat of Spencer's Crest, Plat 3.
B372-96 Approving
the final plat of Hunt Manor, Plat 1.
B373-96 Approving
the final plat of Katy Lake Estates, Plat 2-D.
B374-96 Granting
a variance regarding sidewalk construction along the west side of Rollins
Court,
north
of Rollins Road.
B375-96 Approving
the O-P development plan of Boone County Teacher's Credit Union.
B376-96 Vacating
a waterline easement across Lot 4 of Spencer's Crest, Plat 1.
B377-96 Appropriating
funds for 1997 water and electric capital improvements.
B378-96 Appropriating
funds for power plant landscaping project.
B379-96 Authorizing
an extension of an existing agreement with Union Electric for power
purchase.
B380-96 Authorizing
payment of differential costs for a 12-inch water main to serve Arcadia
Subdivision,
Plat 4; and appropriating funds.
B381-96 Accepting
a conveyance; engineer's report; authorizing payment of differential costs
for a
12-inch
water main on Smiley Lane; authorizing payment of differential costs for
an 8-inch
main;
and appropriating funds.
B382-96 Authorizing
Change Order No. 1 and accepting engineer's final report for the South
Providence
landscaping project.
B383-96 Confirming
the contract for sidewalk construction along portions of Providence Road,
Arbor
Drive, Arbor Court, Woodridge Court and Cedar Lane.
B384-96 Amending
the speed limit on Brown Station Road from its intersection with Route B
to
north
of Rutledge Drive.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Administrative
Plat Approval
Mr. Beck explained that this
was regarding plats being proposed in south central Columbia.
Mr. Patterson said he did
not think this was necessarily a problem, but said they were in the process
of discussing changes to the administrative plat process. He said this
plat is in the middle and out of concern for the platting of properties where
additional signs can be placed similar to what was established in the past. Mr.
Patterson met with the developer and the attorney representing the developer
and said they were agreeable to a plat process where it would come back to
the Council. However, there were some unavoidable delays and they were
not able to get the platting at the time they met their financial needs. The
developer agreed to voluntarily restrict the placement of signs on the stems
that have been created by this plat. Mr. Patterson said the plat was
legal at this time and there was really no reason to turn it down, but wanted
the Council to be aware of the efforts that had been made to try to avoid
the problems experienced on Clark Lane.
Mr. Janku said he appreciated
the staff's efforts on this and the follow through on what had been discussed. He
asked if anyone knew about the purpose of the stem. Mr. Patterson said
it could not be sold off as a legal lot unless it has street access, and
there may be some other ramifications he was not aware of. He said
the attorney for the developer was present to answer any questions.
David Rogers, an attorney
with offices at 813 E. Walnut, spoke on behalf of the Barkley General Partnership
and John Peters. He said there was one slight misstatement in Mr. Patterson's
memo to the Council in that a couple of the stems are actually functional
and serve as drives for the lot in question. He said the two 27-foot
stems that come off the outer road for Providence provide a driveway. He
said this was an intensely commercial area and was zoned C-3. He said
as the buildings are being developed, he thought the area was approximately
half full and some of the lots were going to be sold off. Mr. Rogers
reported that under state law and city ordinances, you must be on a legal
lot to affect a sale. In addition, a legal lot requires frontage on
a public street. He said all of the lots, including the stems, are
served by the rather large commercial street that runs through the area and
have frontage on it. However, he said this land remains private property
and, therefore, the lots could not be sold off. Mr. Rogers said that
was why they were here. He said this could not be compared to the Clark
Lane situation where the stem was created exclusively to comply with the
ordinance to allow a sign on Highway 70. He said the additional buildings
would be served with signage very similar to what is there now, which is
considerably less in both height and area. The signs are 12-foot high
and merely identify the businesses within a particular building. Mr.
Rogers said as a show of good faith to ensure the only reason the developers
were coming forward was to obtain access to the public street, a voluntary
condition was placed on the plat indicating that no signs would be permitted
on any of the stem lots. He said it was their intention to do that. The
stems would either be used for drive purposes, or in the case of lot 59,
to connect to the public street so it could, in fact, be conveyed. He
said this meets all of the requirements of an administrative plat; however,
because this legislation is presently in flux, they wanted to at least meet
the spirit of what they thought the amendments would be.
Mayor Hindman asked why the
commercial street was private. Mr. Rogers said he thought it was because
it was entirely within a contained commercial area, and it does not have
the setbacks that in some cases would otherwise be required for a public
street. He said he did not think it would be a desirable objective
to prevent that kind of situation. He said when dealing with residential
property, some of the stem and tier lots warranted a certain obligation to
protect the public who may not exactly know what they are getting into. He
said people who are paying anywhere from $3 to $10 a square foot for land,
pretty much protect themselves. Mr. Rogers stated there would not be
any surprises as to the boundaries of these lots.
Mr. Kruse assumed there were
no sidewalks on these streets because they are private. Mr. Rogers
said that was correct, but there was only one private street. Mr. Kruse
said it was the newest one.
Mr. Janku said he would like
to see a way to encourage pedestrian access to commercial areas through signage
or something similar. He said in this case it was obviously automobile,
but wondered if there was some way to create something to allow for pedestrian
access in the future.
Mr. Campbell said he has
a problem with stem lots. He questioned what kind of problems were
being created for future Councils when someone wants to change something
that requires Council action and this gerrymandered kind of lot development
exists. He said he could not support this.
Mr. Harline said he understood
Mr. Campbell's concern, but in this case, he said one can build multiple
buildings on a single commercial lot. When the property owner wants
to transfer that lot separately to allow for a building on one lot, street
access would have to be obtained to make it a legal lot. Mr. Campbell
said that was true, but the requirement that it be on a street was not something
that was just initiated. He said that was known when the street was
laid out. Good planning on the part of the developer should have anticipated
the need for having that kind of a development. In this case, Mr. Harline
thought it was a practical concern and said he thought it was acceptable.
Mr. Kruse said he thought
it was probably justified too, although, he said this was probably one of
the more poorly planned commercial developments he had ever seen.
Mr. Janku said there was
clearly enough space for access by public safety vehicles through the private
streets. Mr. Patterson said they had no provisions under administrative
platting for doing that. He said the only question was whether to approve
or disapprove the administrative replat. Mr. Janku said the tier lot
access was the concern that frequently has arisen. Mr. Patterson said
they really did not have anything to give them direction in the ordinance.
Mayor Hindman said he thought
they needed to approve the plat although there was something wrong somewhere
to end up with a private street that allows for no sidewalks, and minimum
setbacks with gerrymandered lots. He said it was an administrative
action that was created through present ordinances and would have to be accepted
at this time, but it might be worth trying to figure out how this situation
was arrived at.
Mr. Campbell said he thought
the developers were trying to have the best of both situations.
(B) HTE Computer
Report
Mr. Beck said this report
was regarding studies undertaken by the staff relating to projecting computer
needs for the next three, five, and ten years. There was also an evaluation
conducted of the existing system versus a new system. He said this
report had been discussed at the pre-Council dinner earlier in the evening. Mr.
Beck stated that at the end of the report, staff included three alternatives
for the Council to consider. The first recommendation was the staff
proceeding with signing the contract. The second was to refer the report
to a meeting with the Computer Advisory Committee and proceed with purchase
subject to the concurrence of the Committee. The third was to refer
the report to a meeting of the Computer Advisory Committee for their review
and report back to the Council. Mr. Beck suggested to the Council that
they consider number two, unless the Council had questions in addition to
what had been answered earlier. Mr. Beck said they would like to meet
a deadline of contracting in January. To do this they would need to
have a timely meeting so they could move forward with the project. The
staff's recommendation was to move forward with HTE. He said earlier
in the evening a question was raised regarding department involvement. Mr.
Beck stressed that all of the various departments had been involved in the
evaluation, which included the directors and department users. He said
there had been some field trips to evaluate how well the system works in
other cities. He said all of the reports had been positive and that
it seemed to be the most cost effective way for the City to move forward. Mr.
Beck said the money had been appropriated and it looked like the purchase
could be made within the budget. He said normally this would be an
administrative procedure, but because of its significance, Mr. Beck said
he felt the Council and the Committee should be involved in the process.
Mayor Hindman said he had
been very impressed by what they had heard earlier this evening. He
said the staff had obviously worked very hard and thoroughly on analyzing
the issue. He said staff had contacted numerous vendors regarding HTE. Lori
Fleming, Finance Director, said that she and Ray Pope, the Information Services
Director, had, over the past year, coordinated an effort on the part of City
staff to review the status of the computer systems. This was mainly
to examine how it relates to present financial systems, and to decide what
would be the best alternative to proceed. Upon their review, she said
they discovered that the City may not be operating efficiently due to the
number of separate systems operating that require reports to be manually
posted into the base general ledger system. In addition, and probably
most importantly, she said many of our packages will not be functional during
the year 2000. She said we need to plan ahead and develop an alternative
to proceed that will help the City meet the year 2000. Ms. Fleming
said they had gone through a very long request for proposal process. A
list of over 300 vendors were contacted and over 100 request for proposals
were sent out. Three responses were received and these vendors were
brought in and asked to give detailed demonstrations. She said each
vendor was given two days to make their presentation. She said HTE
seemed to be the most comprehensive and integrated solution. Ms. Fleming
explained that HTE is a software firm that has been in business for 15 years
and works exclusively with governmental clients. She said they were
in the business of developing software for governments. This was seen
as a big advantage as this company would understand the needs of government. In
evaluating the cost of HTE's proposal, Ms. Fleming said it was determined
that the City would be able to reduce operating costs from the present mainframe
system to the new system by about $180,000 annually. They were proposing
to use that cost savings to make payments on the lease purchase of this package. The
committee evaluated what it would take to upgrade the existing system. The
approximate five year cost of upgrading the present system compared to the
proposal was over $1 million more. Ms. Fleming said they believed this
was the most effective solution that could be obtained. The goal is
to implement the system this fiscal year and if that is accomplished, approximately
$100,000 could be saved on existing software maintenance costs.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that they proceed with alternative number two which would refer the report
to the Computer Advisory Committee and authorize the staff to proceed with
the purchase subject to concurrence of the Committee. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Harline and approved unanimously by voice vote.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None.
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mr. Harline commented that
Ms. Coble mentioned that the neighborhood associations had been discussing
the idea of having a neighborhood convention.
Mr. Harline made the motion
that staff be directed to provide assistance in helping organize such a neighborhood
convention tentatively scheduled for sometime in February. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Kruse said he had been
at a meeting recently where he heard a report from a representative from
the Missouri Department of Transportation regarding the implementation of
control on outdoor advertising on the national highway system roads. Specifically,
this would include part of Providence Road and all of Stadium Boulevard. He
said Mr. Boeckmann had also attended the meeting. They discussed the
report and felt the City probably needed to move ahead with some amendments
to the present ordinance.
Mr. Kruse made the motion
that the staff be directed to draft an ordinance that would control billboards
on Providence Road and Stadium Boulevard, and refer it to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for their review and report. The motion was seconded
by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Campbell noted that they
all received a letter from Andy Tribble concerning the St. Francis House. He
asked that it be made part of the record. (Letter has been filed with
Reports A and B of this meeting)
Mr. Campbell said the Council
received an excellent report on day care centers. He thanked Mr. Steinhaus
for preparing it.
Mr. Campbell asked that the
staff be directed to prepare an ordinance that would bring the City's ordinances
into compliance with the state ordinances, except for four issues (Numbers
4, 5, and 6 on the listing under attachment C). He further motioned
that a number 14 be added to read that privacy fence be constructed between
the day care center and adjacent residential areas unless agreed in writing
by abutting neighborhoods not to have such a fence.
Mr. Janku said there has
been a lot of discussion in many cities across the country about telecommunication
towers being constructed to meet the growing need for various communication
devices. Under the present law, such towers could not be prohibited
because they were necessary, but said there were options communities could
develop in terms of regulating them.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that staff be directed to work with the Planning and Zoning Commission to
come back with any appropriate recommendations for Columbia. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
Mr. Kruse said this subject
was also discussed at the meeting he attended. He said there were a
couple of model ordinances that Mr. Boeckmann probably had copies of. He
suggested that they be sent along with the request to the Commission.
The motion made by Mr. Janku,
seconded by Mr. Kruse, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku said the League
of American Bicyclists has certain standards that a community may meet to
be designated as a Bicycle Friendly Community. He asked that the staff
check into whether or not that was something the City of Columbia could apply
for.
Mr. Campbell asked the staff
to report on the possibility of having one or more areas where dogs could
roam freely.
Paul Albert, 2703 Parker,
talked about the need for restraining vicious dogs.
Sam Karl, 1404 Gary, spoke
on behalf of Citizens for Sustainable Resource Use. He said in 1992,
at the suggestion of the Solid Waste Task Force, the City Council passed
an ordinance to encourage the consideration of products with recycled content
when purchases were being made by the City. He said that requests for
such products were department driven and he was told that Purchasing seldom
has the time to inform the departments about recycled content alternatives. In
examining this problem and several other environmental efforts, Mr. Karl
said this group was suggesting that a volunteer employee committee be formed,
similar to a task force. He said it should be chaired by an Assistant
City Manager and would have some citizen participants. He said such
a committee would steer City departments towards goals of more energy efficiency,
waste minimization, and consideration of products with recycled content. He
said the committee could also consider City vehicle fuel.
Ms. Coble asked about the
process of establishing a committee. Mr. Beck said he would invite
comments for the citizen committee to pass along to the departments, which
is presently done, but said he did not think the Council would want to enter
into the type of mix that was being suggested. He said he thought the
citizen committee should make recommendations to the Council, and then the
Council could direct the staff. Ms. Coble said some of the comments
were that there are City staff members who would know of ways to look at
conserving energy or some alternatives. She said that was something
very distinct from policy making groups like Energy & Environment. Mr.
Karl said a task force within the City might be more effective. He
said Purchasing knows about products that are available and practices may
be known in Water & Light that are not applied. He said citizens
could only do so much and usually that is seen as unprofessional and unsubstantiated.
Mr. Beck said there was a
process where a committee makes a recommendation to the Council, the Council
asks for a staff report back on it, and they review the staff's report against
the citizens committee. He suggested maybe they, the Energy & Environment
Commission for example, and this committee could meet. Mr. Beck said
after the process is followed and if the Council wants to make a recommendation,
it was their option.
Ms. Coble asked Mr. Karl
what his suggestion was. Mr. Karl said the suggestion was to try to
get employee volunteers, see how many there were, then make a committee out
of that. He suggested that an Assistant City Manager chair the committee
so it would have the attention of Department Heads. Mr. Karl said then
a citizen could be appointed so this person could report back to the Council
as to whether or not the committee was working.
On behalf of the City staff,
Mr. Beck thanked Lee Daniel, the retiring City Clerk. He said she had
done an outstanding job over a period of 22 years. He presented her
with her nameplate.
The meeting adjourned at
11:40 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Penny
St. Romaine
City
Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia