INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for
a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, July 6, 1998, in the Council Chamber
of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following
results: Council members CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
and JANKU were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of June 15, 1998, were
approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Ms. Coble and a second
by Mr. Campbell.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hindman noted that R145-98 would be added under New
Business.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was
approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second
by Mr. Janku.
SPECIAL ITEMS
1. Presentation to David Wollersheim - National Service
Award
Mayor Hindman presented David Wollersheim with a plaque from
the American Public Power Association, a national award given to a citizen who
has made an outstanding contribution to their community as well as to the industry
of municipally owned utilities. Mayor Hindman introduced Mr. Wollersheim
and explained that he has been a member of the Water and Light Advisory Board
for the past 24 years, many of those years as Chair. He also noted that
Mr. Wollersheim was an active participant in four bond issues relating to capital
improvements for the utility.
Mr. Wollersheim said that a very large part of the credit
for the award goes to the other members of the Water and Light Advisory Board. He
said Columbia is very fortunate to have Dick Malon as its Water and Light Director. He
thanked the City for giving him the opportunity to serve the community for 24
years.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B157-98 Amending Chapter 29 of the City code
to establish an historic preservation overlay district.
The bill was given third reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this issue had been tabled from the
June 1, 1998, meeting, and numerous changes had been proposed, primarily by the
apartment owners.
Mr. Coffman made the motion to amend B157-98 per the first
page (1-14) of the amendment sheet, excluding number five, (e)(5). The
motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell.
Given the fact that many of the items included in the amendment
deal with the issues of notice and protection of minority interests, Mr. Janku
said he spoke to Mr. Boeckmann about how this ordinance would be integrated into
the existing zoning ordinances. Mr. Boeckmann said amendment procedures
would apply to the initial formation of the district. He explained that
when establishing an historic district or a landmark, one goes through the zoning
process. An historic preservation district is essentially an overlay zone
they would be placed on property. A public hearing notice 15 days before
the meeting is required, both before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
City Council, giving those affected by the district the right to protest such
a designation. Mr. Boeckmann said 30% of the homeowners would be needed
to protest, either 30% in the area to be included in the district or within lines
drawn 185 feet from the district. Mr. Janku understood a two-thirds vote
of the Council is required to establish an historic preservation district.
Mr. Coffman asked if the protest petition would have to be
submitted at the time the application is made to the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr.
Boeckmann said it would be at the time it reaches Planning and Zoning.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Debbie Sheals, Chairperson of the Historic Preservation Exploratory
Committee, felt Mr. Coffman's amendment to be acceptable and added that it is
representative of a very good compromise. As of one month ago, the Committee
felt all differences could be worked out with the apartment owners, but they
could not agree on the exclusionary district language. The more it was
worked on, the more tangled it became. She said Mr. Coffman's version gives
a clear compromise, and she stressed that the ordinance is based on what was
obtained from the Planning and Zoning Commission, which included two years of
work by the Exploratory Committee and City staff review. Ms. Sheals regrets
the Committee could not please the apartment owners with the exclusionary district,
but she had done some research and could not find it in any preservation ordinance. Ms.
Sheals said the Historic Preservation Office thought it was really an unusual
request, and she felt it would go against what the Committee spent two years
working on. She noted the Committee had originally agreed to the exclusionary
district, but the more thought given to it, the harder it was to accept.
Mr. Kruse understood the 60% petition provision was generous
compared to other communities that have historic preservation ordinances. Ms.
Sheals said it was generous. She had done a phone survey and found that
most communities leave it totally to the discretion of the Council. If
after the fact 30% of the affected residents oppose the district, then it has
to be an override, but mostly she said it is left to the Council. Ms. Sheals
said the City of Lawrence starts at 20%, a sliding scale. She noted that
many cities do less than a majority approval and few go over 60%.
David Rogers, an attorney with offices at 813 E. Walnut, spoke
on behalf of the Columbia Apartment Owners Association. He said up until
last Tuesday, they felt they would be in total agreement to the proposed ordinance,
but the exclusionary district became a stumbling point at the last moment. Mr.
Rogers said with Mr. Coffman's amendment, there are a number of things that make
this a better ordinance. Without the exclusionary district, Mr. Rogers
said there could be the situation of minority interests being trampled by means
of how a district is drawn.
Ben Londeree, 2601 Chapel Wood Terrace, President of the Columbia
Apartment Association, explained that he does not own any property that would
appear to lie in a potential historic preservation district. Overall, Dr.
Londeree felt it is an excellent document that contains some checks and balances
to prevent wholesale trampling of property rights by overly aggressive neighborhood
groups. He understood the point of contention seems to be the exclusionary
districts -- the ability for well-defined areas of opposing property owners to
opt out of the preservation district if certain conditions were met. Dr.
Londeree explained that he had delivered packets to the Council yesterday containing
some charts. Using the overhead, he displayed the charts which depicted
the Association's concerns about supporters being able to force their controls
over a well-defined opposing area. He said the Apartment Association had
proposed exclusionary districts to level the playing field. His point is
that it boils down to a boundary issue. Through mediation of the two groups,
boundaries to the historic district might be established that are fair to most
property owners and lead to cooperation rather than an all out war between the
opposing groups. Dr. Londeree is hopeful the Council would see fit to include
some protections from such power grabs. He said a procedure was worked
out between a representative of the Dispute Resolutions Center at the University,
Deb Sheals, and himself.
Janet Hammen, 1416 Wilson, spoke on behalf of the East Campus
Neighborhood Association, who supports the ordinance and the amendment. She
said part of their neighborhood had become a National Historic District and that
the natural progression had been to obtain the City's help in establishing historic
preservation. Although the East Campus Association has taken the lead,
Ms. Hammen noted this is a proposal that will benefit the entire City. The
Neighborhood Association felt Mr. Coffman's proposal to be reasonable, and the
exclusionary district has the potential to completely do away with any kind of
historic district. Ms. Hammen added that defining the boundaries of a historic
district will be part of the process of setting up a local district so people
will not be excluded. Anyone owning property will be included in setting
up boundaries and possible stipulations that would come into play.
Mr. Janku asked what type of tax credits would be available
in historic districts. Ms. Hammen said currently in the National Historic
District there is a 20% federal tax credit available, and a 25% state tax credit
available when a local district comes in. She said there are other incentives
that can be offered.
Osmund Overby, 1118 W. Rollins, explained that he has been
a member of the Exploratory Committee for the last two years. As a professor
of art history and archeology, he pointed out that he has been deeply involved
in historic preservation for 40 years in many different parts of the country,
and for over 30 years he has been teaching historic preservation to the students
at the University of Missouri. From that broad perspective, Dr. Overby
assured the Council that this is an awfully good ordinance. He said historic
preservation districts are not new and experimental -- the first historic preservation
ordinance in this country was created in 1931 in Charleston, and there have been
thousands of them throughout the country since, and dozens in Missouri.
Renee Hulshoff, 1411 Bouchelle, urged the Council to support
the ordinance with Mr. Coffman's proposed amendment. She thought the amendment
was sound and a good piece of conservative legislation that will preserve what
cannot be replaced.
Bonnie Bourne, 1506 University, a member of the Exploratory
Committee, spoke in favor of the ordinance as she felt it would help preserve
Columbia's rich history. She noted that approximately 38 communities in
Missouri have local historic ordinances.
Dan Fischboch, 402 Himalayas, pointed out that once rights
are taken away, they cannot be given back.
Matt Harline, 301 McNab, commended Debbie Sheals for her efforts
in working on this issue. He said the Council has supported the notion
of walkable, mixed use, moderate density communities. Mr. Harline said
such districts do not necessarily have to be created because they already exist
in Columbia and need only to be preserved.
Greg Olson, 217 W. Broadway, Curator of the Boone County Historical
Society, said that several members of the Society had been involved in putting
this ordinance together. He could not speak for all members of the Society,
but several were present and are in support of the ordinance. They
thought it would be a great step in preserving what already exists in Columbia.
Clyde Wilson, 1719 University, spoke in favor of the ordinance
with the amendment, but thought the strongest bargaining tool was lost when it
was decided to accept the 60% majority for the establishment of a district. He
asked the Council to leave it out of the amendment.
Mark Stephenson, offices at 4th & Broadway in a building
that was built in 1906. He referred the Council to a section in the document
prepared by the Apartment Association dealing with mediation, page 6, subsection
(5). He asked the Council to support the recommendation. Mr. Stephenson
said he thought change and the planning process were things that should be preserved. When
a person buys an R-3 zoned piece of property with an intent to develop it, he
did not think the City should jerk the rug out from under their feet.
When refurbishing a piece of property, Mrs. Crockett asked
if an apartment owner is entitled to the same 25% tax credit an individual property
owner would receive. Mr. Stephenson said he personally did not because
of alternative minimum tax calculation problems.
Mr. Coffman asked if it was true that the federal tax credit
is only applicable to landlords or commercial owners of property. Mr. Stephenson
said he did not know.
Peter Bartok, a landlord with offices at 909 Park Avenue,
said they appreciated having input into the issue, but felt they had not had
enough input. He thought the ordinance had the potential for causing some
negative conditions in the market place like increased rents and increased property
valuations. In his neighborhoods (East Campus, Benton Stephens, and the
downtown area), Mr. Bartok said valuations have increased twofold in the last
five years. He said this ordinance has the potential to result in a massive
down zoning. Mr. Bartok is hopeful meetings can continue after passage
of the ordinance so that some of the Apartment Association's input could be incorporated
or at least discussed.
Mr. Janku asked how this ordinance would increase property
values. Mr. Bartok referred to supply and demand -- people will pay whatever
it takes to live in a neighborhood they want to be in. His opinion was
that the supply would be restricted by the ordinance.
Linda Rootes, 807 N. Eighth Street, said she had worked for
a long time on stabilizing the central city. She has purchased several
homes and has watched homes sell. She said the lower priced homes are the
ones that are not ready for homeowners, and a certain amount of investment has
to be made to these structures. She said Mr. Bartok's comments about houses
being priced out of the range of homeowners is not a true situation, but these
buildings may be priced out of the range of cash flow landlords who are looking
to buy a cheap house. Ms. Rootes explained that rent prices in her neighborhood
and in the central city are set by the federal government through the Section
8 Policy.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Coffman said just as Debbie Sheals has put a lot of energy
and dedication into this ordinance, the Apartment Association has made considerable
positive input into the version he proposed, and in particular, Ben Londeree
has put a lot of very positive effort into it. He pointed out that many
resident owners who would support an historic preservation ordinance have the
vast majority of their savings in their home, and what happens around their homes
affects their savings and their economic well being. He said it has to
be a balance between those who like to have the tax breaks and improve their
home and their neighborhood, and others who would like to speculate and maybe
do other things with the property. Mr. Coffman noted that his amendment
did not have the mediation language in it, but it could possibly be added later. He
felt the exclusionary language was untested and complicated the ordinance too
much, and thought a good balance would be achieved with just the percentage. He
said if the Council appoints some good, moderate individuals with knowledge of
property and renovation, the City would get common sense restrictions that do
not go too far and trample over people's rights. He saw the potential for
this ordinance to bring neighborhoods together.
Mr. Janku thought there are a number of protections in place,
both in this ordinance and in the existing zoning ordinance, to protect those
who are concerned about their property being improperly placed in the district. Regarding
the exclusionary district, he said the way it was drafted it could have potentially
excluded certain historic properties from eligibility for tax credits, which
helps make preservation financially possible. In addition, it would have
made it impossible even for a landmark property to qualify for designation. He
said the Commission will require a very mixed group of people and would have
the authority to prepare procedural regulations. Mr. Janku thought that
could include some form of mediation.
Mr. Campbell said he had trouble with the exclusionary district
because it seemed to give differential rights or powers to people who might be
located on the borders versus those who might be located in the central part
of the area. He thought everybody should be treated separately. Mr.
Campbell said most of the major ordinances need fine tuning after it is determined
where the holes are. He is concerned that the City may have made the hurdles
very high on this ordinance, making it very difficult for the zones to be established. Mr.
Campbell said the Council may need to come back and reassess some of the requirements.
The motion to amend, made by Mr. Coffman, seconded by Mr.
Janku, was approved by voice vote.
B157-98, as amended, was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO
ONE. ABSTAINING: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as
follows:
R144-98 Providing staff support for the Community/Recreation
Center Committee.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman noted that he had appointed a Committee to look
into the possibility of a recreation center for the City of Columbia. This
Committee would be examining what such a center should contain and any possible
affiliations with YMCA's if appropriate. Mayor Hindman introduced the Co-chairs
of the Committee, Naomi Cupp and Greg Steinhoff.
Naomi Cupp explained that she is very excited about the possibility
of developing a recreational center. She said the Mayor had put together
a wonderful group of people who are also excited about it. She and Mr.
Steinhoff have been approached by many people who are happy the issue is being
discussed again.
Greg Steinhoff thanked Mayor Hindman for allowing him to work
with this tremendous committee. He said they would ultimately have in front
of the Council a very informational report that will pull together many different
opinions resulting in a fine recreational facility.
Mr. Beck explained that this resolution authorizes the City
staff to provide some resources to the Committee regarding travel and staff support.
The vote on R144-98 was recorded as follows; VOTING
YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
B182-98 Authorizing water main crossing construction
project on Vawter School Road, Old Millcreek Road and
Scott
Boulevard.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the City staff would be working with
the Boone County Highway Department to provide for the placement of a water line
under the road prior to its completion. The estimated cost is approximately
$8,000, which would come out of the Water and Light Utility Account.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B182-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B186-98 Establishing permanent M-C zoning
on property located south of Maguire Boulevard in the Concorde
Office
and Industrial Plaza.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the City staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of this zoning request.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B186-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B187-98 Establishing permanent A-1 zoning
on property located along both sides of new Haven Road, east of US
Highway
63.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this is a series of permanent zoning requests
on recently annexed property owned by the University. He noted this is
one of the larger tracts, containing 1,465 acres. Again, both the staff
and the Commission recommended
approval.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B187-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B188-98 Establishing permanent A-1 zoning
on property located along both sides of Sinclair Road, south of
Southampton
Drive.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this tract consists of approximately
488 acres and it is being recommended for permanent agricultural zoning by both
the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Kruse asked about the A-1 zoning in this location. Mr.
Beck thought it was more or less a hold type zoning, and is not aware of any
proposed plans for the site. Mr. Kruse asked if the University could develop
the property any way they want to, regardless of the zoning. Mr. Beck thought
generally the University tried to follow zoning, but technically he guessed they
could do what they wanted.
B188-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as
follows:
(A) Oakland
swimming pool renovation.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this issue was tabled from the June
1,1998, meeting. He noted that it has been discussed informally at several
public work sessions, including the Council retreat. Prior to that, the
Council had asked the staff to put together some alternatives. The staff
and Commission recommendation was to renovate the pool dividing it into two areas;
a family recreation type area with zero depth entry, and then another area the
same depth as what presently exists.
Mr. Beck reported that adequate funding has been set aside
to renovate the pool, including a grant that was approved by the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources. A request has been sent asking for an extension of
the grant. A reply is expected by the end of July.
One of the issues before the Council, besides funding for
anything other than what is shown on the plan, involves the timing of the project. The
plan had been to begin work right after this swimming season in order to have
the pool ready by June of next year. Mr. Beck said staff is concerned that
if some of the major work could not begin this fall, the pool will not be ready
for opening next year. He said the Council had looked at providing funding
for a separate shallow pool to be used as a family recreation area. Another
option being considered is to renovate the existing pool and add family recreation
areas at a later date. He said that comes to $350,000, although $40,000
would not be used to renovate the smaller wading pool area. Mr. Beck said
that would still leave $310,000 to do both, renovate the existing 50 meter pool
and add the zero depth pool as a separate area. He said the final plans
and specifications have not been completed until the Council gives direction
to the consultant. After that, the bid process can begin.
Mr. Janku understood that the cost figures do not include
basic renovation for the zero entry. Mr. Hood said the figures provided
the Council were for renovating the existing pool and would not include a zero
depth entry. He explained that staff provided seven options to the Council
at the retreat. He said option one proposes to restore the pool, as is. That
cost estimate is $446,000, and would not include a zero depth entry. Option
three would restore the 50 meter pool and construct a family play pool adjacent
to it. With the current funding in place, in addition to the funding requested
in the FY99 budget ($125,000), Mr. Hood said the City is approximately $300,000
short of doing the two pools. The memo also indicated a large water slide
add option, which is another $100,000. If everything is done that is shown
on the drawing, the City would be $400,000 short.
Ms. Coble asked whether the existing wading pool is in as
great a need for repair and if that could possibly save some money. Mr.
Hood said the existing wading pool is one of the highest needs to be addressed. He
said it is patched together right now.
Mayor Hindman understood the recommended plan would cost about
$490,000 -- to divide the pool. Mr. Hood said the estimate for that particular
plan, without the items indicated as being future, is $490,000 including the
landscaping. He said there currently is $470,000 available, and they believe
by doing the landscaping in-house they could bring that option within budget. Mayor
Hindman understood option three, restoring the 50 meter pool and providing the
family pool, would be about $900,000. Mr. Hood said that is correct.
Mr. Kruse asked about the family play area under option three
compared to the family play zero depth area under the original proposal from
the staff. Mr. Hood said they were very similar, but option three might
be slightly smaller.
Mr. Janku asked about the outcome of the meeting with Finance
Department regarding any parks revenues that might be available. Mr. Beck
said it is thought there is about $134,000 in Parks & Recreation capital
funds currently in place. It is thought that about $125,000 would be collected
in users fees this next fiscal year.
Mr. Beck said the question is whether or not the Council wants
to commit all of that capital to this project. He said staff has looked
into what other items might be forthcoming. One high priority is a concession
stand at the southwest recreation area estimated at $60,000. He explained
that would help the sales there, which benefits the capital fund.
Mr. Janku said he had just found out that there is about $100,000
in monies left in Parks and Recreation for ADA compliance. He would like
to make sure that whatever is done with this pool that it is as accessible as
possible.
Mrs. Crockett asked if the 50 meter pool is used to capacity
during the summer. Mr. Hood said there are days when the pool is very full. Regarding
capacity, he said it is at capacity on certain days and at certain times. Mrs.
Crockett asked how many days. Mr. Hood said he did not have that figure
with him, but it depends a lot on the weather conditions. Mrs. Crockett
asked if the 50 meter pool is divided in half, what does staff propose to do
with all those people. Mr. Hood said it is believed that dividing the pool
would actually offer the opportunity to increase capacity because the amount
of shallow water area will be increased, which is particularly beneficial for
younger people who do not want to be in water over their heads.
Mr. Coffman asked which of the options could be phased in
over a two or three year period. Mr. Beck said he was looking at the possibility
of getting the major pool renovation underway now, and take alternate bids to
determine if funding would be left over from the basic pool renovation for the
family area. Then, staff could look toward a second grant and try to defer
the family area until next spring. He noted there is the potential the
pool will not be finished by next summer. Mr. Beck is not sure if any of
the options could be two or three phase plans.
Mr. Hood said in discussions with the consultant, they were
focusing primarily on the first three options. He had not directly asked
about the other options. The consultant did feel it might be possible to
bid the project to restore the 50 meter pool first so it could be open next June,
and then if construction is authorized on a family pool, the existing pool could
be opened while continuing construction on the other pool. Mr. Hood thought that
might work with any of the three options.
Mayor Hindman asked if it would be more expensive to do the
project in phases. Mr. Hood said it would depend on whether it was all
bid as one package. He said if the City just bids the restoration of the
50 meter pool and then waited a year until funding is available to bid the addition
of the family play pool, he thought the cost would go up. He said if it
is bid as an alternate and it is determined funding is available, Mr. Hood felt
that would probably get the City the best price.
Ms. Coble asked about using Council contingency funds to pay
for the shortcomings of option three. Mr. Kruse pointed out that the money
not spent each year goes back into the general fund to be rebudgeted.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Diane Hughey, 1712 Skylane, is President of Oakland Manor
Neighborhood Association, located just west of Oakland Park. She had spoken
with people who swim at the pool and could not find anyone who thought cutting
the pool in half was a good idea. She thought everyone would think option
one to be the best approach. Ms. Hughey said one issue that has come to
light is that the Swim Club seems to get more benefit than what they are paying
for. She is hopeful that could be rectified.
Mitchell Hughey, 1712 Skylane, a grade school student, said
that he had learned to swim at Oakland and is hopeful he could continue to use
the pool as is.
Carol Koenig, 1468 El Chaparral, said it would be very nice
to have the pool updated and expanded. She said if the pool were to be
cut in half, the ability to give swimming lessons would be much more difficult. She
also felt that Columbia businesses would be willing to add to "the pot" if need
be in order to keep the pool in good condition.
Phylos Sandison, 1312 Westview Terrace, President of the Columbia
Swim Club, said he spoke with the governing body of competitive swimming, and
they had sent him a number of articles. He had read that the most important
thing is the area surrounding the pool, not the pool itself. Mr. Sandison
also found the zero depth entry is very important because people who are physically
challenged need the pool for the exercise, not for the play. He noted that
one option would not permit getting to the exercise area from the zero depth
entry area.
Regarding private funds, Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Sandison to
elaborate on the Swim Club possibly taking a role in funding. Mr. Sandison
said the Swim Club has put in a request to a local organization for funds, but
they have not heard back as of yet. He said they have solicited names from
businesses in the area, and it is felt there is a lot of interest in keeping
the pool as is. He is hopeful these same businesses would be willing to
donate money. Mr. Sandison said he is not a fundraiser and he would have
to talk to someone that knows more about it. He said the Club is ready
to start at any given juncture at the Council's direction. He noted that
option three adds another 3,000 square feet of water, which is substantially
more water in comparison to the original proposal.
Mrs. Crockett asked how many dollars the Swim Club could commit
to the project. Mr. Sandison said he really did not know, but the Club
would try very hard to raise some funds. In addition, he knew there were
certain club members who would be willing to donate money. It was ascertained
that the Swim Club is comprised of about 100 families.
Jennifer Burchard, 1109 Pheasant Run, spoke in favor of retaining
the 50 meter pool.
Mrs. Crockett asked what the cost would be for the Swim Club
to build a 50 meter pool, similar to the existing one. Mr. Hood said he
believed that cost was estimated to be about $1.6 million.
Cheryl Teakotte, 1806 S. Fairview Road, said there was a need
today for children and family to be together, and she saw swimming as the sport
that does that. She said instead of spending money out of town, she thought
it made much more sense to have our own facility between St. Louis and Kansas
City. Ms. Teakotte stated it would bring enjoyment to lots of people and
could be a money maker for the City. She explained that although the Swim
Club is small, there are probably 300 people who would be willing to work on
the project to help cut costs. Ms. Teakotte said the Club could sponsor
swim meets and bring the revenue to Columbia.
Mrs. Crockett asked what the proposal would be for the regular
clientele when the Swim Club is hosting a meet. Mrs. Teakotte said there
are other facilities that could be used for those one or two days. She
said it never seemed to be a problem at other meets they have gone to.
Because the Swim Club only represents 5.7% of the pool users,
Mrs. Crockett is concerned that there are problems associated with keeping the
50 meter pool without a dollar commitment from the Club. She said once
the pool is divided in half, it would be too late.
Rick Bohon, 2004 Woodhollow, said the team had not met to
address the fundraising issue so he cannot commit to a dollar figure. He
asked Mrs. Crockett if she had a figure in mind. Mrs. Crockett said she
did not, she was waiting to hear the Club's answer. She stated in order
for the City to do what is needed, it would take an additional $300,000 that
the City does not have. She said the Council had been told that by cutting
the pool in half, there would actually be more usage by the general public than
there is today. Dr. Bohon said the City would not only be keeping the 50
meter pool for the Swim Club, but for swimming lessons as well. He said
if the pool is cut in half, there could only be half of the number of lessons
available for the general public. He saw that as a problem.
Mr. Campbell asked how long it would take the Swim Club to
at least arrive at a figure that could be used. Dr. Bohon said they could
have a meeting this week and get some feedback from the Club.
Phylos Sandison said the Swim Club's revenue was probably
not as great a percentage as some of the other pieces they are seeing that apply
to that pool. He said the Council also has to consider the expense size. He
pointed out that when the Swim Club is using the pool, there is not one lifeguard
in the pool and nothing is open. Mr. Sandison said the pool is not in use
and fees collected from the Swim Club is pure profit for the Parks and Recreation
Department. Secondly, without knowing what the project was going to look
like (what specifically the Council is planning for), fundraising would be difficult
because people will not know what they are being asked to give for.
Nancy Sandison, 1312 Westview Terrace, said the deficit being
talked about is for one plan only. She said if the Council looked into
another plan, like extending the arm that comes out on the right side of the
pool to the little pool, a ton of money could be saved. She asked that
other options be examined.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Beck said the next step would be to notify the consultant
as to which option final plans and specifications need to be prepared.
Mr. Janku asked if alternates were something that could be
requested from the consultant. Mr. Beck thought an estimated cost of the
alternatives to be considered is needed -- without preparing detailed plans and
specifications. He said the cost for detailed plans and specifications
is a costly portion of the project -- six to seven percent. If the Council
requests alternate bids, detailed plans and specifications would have to be prepared.
Mr. Campbell asked if one of the alternatives is similar to
the one the last speaker eluded to. Mr. Hood said it was not one of the
alternatives staff asked the consultant to price. He said in the first
meeting with the consulting engineer, that had been discussed, but he felt the
proposal identified as option three was preferable to expanding the existing
pool. The consultant had some technical reasons for promoting this option,
but Mr. Hood could not recall what that was.
Mayor Hindman pointed out that staff has said that there are
certain objectives associated with a community pool. Identified as the
most single objective was the instructional swim. Recreational swimming,
because it appeals by far to the largest population, was second. Lastly
was the competitive swim. Mayor Hindman said the zero depth pool is far
more satisfactory for the instructional swim and for the recreational swim. If
the City retained the 50 meter pool, it would really be for the competitive swimmers. Mayor
Hindman noted the pool could still be utilized by the Swim Club if it is divided. He
explained that most communities have 25 meter pools. Mayor Hindman spoke
to a pool guru in Chicago, the area representative for the National Recreation
and Parks Association, about the situation in Columbia. This individual
had said that this issue comes up quite a bit, and that almost all of the pools
built in the 70's were being rebuilt. Mayor Hindman stated he was told
that in Chicago, all outdoor 50 meter pools had been eliminated and were being
changed to the zero depth entry type of pool, and the trend is to build family
aquatic centers. He had also talked to a man in Mt. Prospect, Illinois
where they had a 50 meter pool, and it had been changed it to a wave pool and
it is extraordinarily successful. Mayor Hindman said saving the 50 meter
pool would be done largely for the benefit of the competitive swimmer.
Mr. Campbell said a city the size of Columbia has a very diverse
population and needs a zero depth entry pool. However, there is also the
need for other types of pools as well. As a growing city, Mr. Campbell
thought there is a need for competitive swimming and for the longer pool. Mr.
Campbell said he would be reluctant to suggest that the Council not place substantial
emphasis on maintaining what already exists and adding to it. It would
certainly stretch the budget, and that is why he is trying to find resources
for additional funding. Mr. Campbell thought that a combination pool would
meet many different needs.
Mr. Janku noted that Twin Lakes is zero depth entry, but it
is not a pool. He said a lot of people are very uncomfortable using it. He
thought it is very important to preserve the zero entry option in the pool. He
would like to see some alternate bids and options. Mr. Janku felt strongly
that there needed to be a family play area at Oakland in the long term because
it is a fast growing area of the City. He said maybe the project should
be phased and a separate pool could be built at a later time. Mr. Janku
wanted to see funding sources identified, including private contributions from
the community, not just from the Swim Club.
Ms. Coble said there is a long tradition in Columbia to phase
in projects when it pertains to the parks and railways. She noted that
is one way to get things done after a commitment has been made. She said
if staff would investigate what monies are already available in the City budget
which have not been spent and for which there may not be a purpose at this point,
all those funds could be pulled together so option three could be selected.
As the father of a baby, Mr. Coffman said going out to Little
Mates Cove is a wonderful experience. He said it is a great facility and
something like it is needed on the north end of town. Because the 50 meter
pools are becoming scarce, he felt that only made Oakland Pool a more precious
thing that he would like to save. He thought there should be a high quality
baby pool as well as a high quality competitive area. Mr. Coffman said
he wanted it all and thought if it took two or three years to get it, that would
be satisfactory.
Mr. Kruse agreed that they needed to figure out a way to phase
things in so we can have it all. As a person who has done a lot of fundraising
in the private sector, Mr. Kruse offered to meet with the Swim Club and any other
organization that would want to work with them to help develop a plan to raise
some money.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the staff be directed to ask
the consultant to prepare plans and specifications that would allow proceeding
with renovation of the existing 50 meter pool that would incorporate a zero depth
entry area. And as part of the project, either as an alternate bid to be
done in the first or second phase, a family play area be included. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
Mayor Hindman said he was confused about the timing situation. Mr.
Beck said staff needed to work with the consultant and the state to make sure
the City does not lose the grant. He said it would be the staff's job to
work with the consultant and DNR to meet the goals of the Council. He said
if the goal is to preserve the 50 meter pool and the family area, they would
try to bring back something to the Council on the alternative and direct the
consultant to work on detailed plans for the 50 meter pool.
Mr. Janku said he wanted detailed plans on the zero depth
as part of the plans for the 50 meter pool renovation.
The motion made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mr. Kruse, was approved
unanimously by voice vote.
OLD BUSINESS
B183-98 Confirming the contract for the construction
of sidewalks along sections of Berrywood Drive, Worley
Street
and Business Loop 70.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that six bids had been received on the sidewalk
work, and Aplex, Inc. is being recommended at $79,170.50.
B183-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN,
COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading
as follows:
B184-98 Confirming the contract for reconstruction
and rehabilitation of the Eighth & Cherry parking structure.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that eight bids had been received for this
project. United HRB is being recommended for this major project. He
said staff would like to see alternate number two which would include $63,000
for the removal and replacement of the existing roof as part of this project. Mr.
Beck said the bid for the office space ($79,000) would not be awarded.
Mr. Janku pointed out that all of the City's parking structures
are paid for by user fees (those who park in the garages, plug meters, and pay
fines).
Mr. Campbell pointed out that this was Phase III, the last
of the long term parking plan in existence for at least five years.
B184-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN,
COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading
as follows:
B189-98 Approving a replat of lot 5 of Stephens
First Addition; granting a variance to the subdivision regulations
regarding
additional right-of-way for Brighton Street.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this replat would provide for one
R-3 lot and a waiver. He said denial was being recommended because the
property owner refuses to dedicate the additional 3.8 feet of right-of-way.
Richard Lowe, owner of the lot at 1509 Brighton, said he did
not feel that he should donate 3.8 feet of right-of-way. He said the property
west of his was subdivided, and this individual was not required to donate the
right-of-way. Mr. Lowe said if he donates the footage, it would put the
building line right through his house. He said when he is ready to build
on the property, he would have to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance
which may or may not be granted. Mr. Lowe proposed that he give the City
a 3.8 feet street easement. He said that would give the City the same rights
that would be established if he were to donate the right-of-way, but would eliminate
any problems he would have in the future if he had to go before the Board of
Adjustment.
Ron Lueck, surveyor with Marshall Engineering, displayed a
drawing showing Mr. Lowe's lot which was surveyed in 1962. He said he had
received a conditional granting of the variance that had been requested. The
condition had been that the 3.8 feet of right-of-way be donated, and they are
proposing to do so by means of a street easement. He said that would allow
Mr. Lowe to retain ownership of the land and keep his house in compliance with
the zoning regulations.
Mayor Hindman said he always thought a street right-of-way
is basically an easement. Mr. Boeckmann said that is essentially true,
and he did not know that there would be much of a distinction. Mr. Lueck
interjected that right-of-way indicates ownership by the City, and the easement
would indicate ownership yet by Mr. Lowe. Mr. Boeckmann responded the City
does not own right-of-way -- it does not own the fee title to it.
Mr. Patterson said when the City obtains a street easement
on a plat, it is a dedicated right-of-way for street purposes and the City does
not own the underlying property. He did not think this would serve any
purpose other than just not showing it on the plat, which staff felt to be a
valuable tool to have recorded. He pointed out that the City is already
agreeing to waive a 15 foot right-of-way that would have been required for a
full 25 foot half width. He said staff did not think the 3.8 feet was unreasonable.
By virtue of platting the property, Mr. Hancock said there
would be a variance situation come up at one time or the other - street width
or a variance to building toward the front property line of the house.
Mr. Patterson saw no advantage in trying to do this by a separate
instrument when the City has a plat process where it would be consistent with
what had been required on other portions of the street.
Ms. Coble understood the issue as granting a variance and
allowing the easement would permit the City usage of a 20 foot roadway. The
distinction can be made between that and the right-of-way which gives up property
ownership, but causes a potential problem for the property owner, given the 25
foot setback which is not in existence if the City goes solely easement. She
asked why one 25 foot setback is no problem with an easement but it is different
when it is identified as right-of-way. Mr. Lueck said when the City obtains
right-of-way, then the setback of the property is established from the new right-of-way
line. He reported that 25 foot setback line would be through Mr. Lowe's
house. Mr. Lueck said there is no objection to giving the property up if
the 25 foot setback could be maintained where it is currently located.
Mr. Patterson said in his opinion, if it is a street easement
for street purposes, that is the street right-of-way and it is where the City
would measure the setback from.
Mr. Boeckmann said it is a distinction without a difference. He
guessed one could argue that a street easement might be less than a right-of-way. With
a right-of-way, he said you automatically have the ability to place all sorts
of utilities in it and it could be argued that a street easement might be something
less than that.
Mr. Beck said the setback has always been measured from the
street right-of-way line, a street easement. He said if the land was deeded,
it would be different from a right-of-way. He said nobody was asking the
property owner to deed any ground as far as he could tell. Regarding Mr.
Lowe's concerns about going to the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Beck said he assumed
this was looked at by the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission before
they made their decision that he could give 3.8 feet. Mr. Patterson said
that was correct. Mr. Beck asked if Mr. Lowe would have to go to the Board
of Adjustment. Mr. Patterson said he would not have to go to the Board
of Adjustment unless something were to occur that would expand the non-conformance
of the setback. He said that would only occur if Mr. Lowe were to add on
to the building or tear it down and rebuild. Mr. Lowe said he was planning
to build a duplex on the lot.
B189-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: COBLE. VOTING NO: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, JANKU. Bill defeated.
B191-98 Authorizing an agreement with Boone
County to enable City to provide funding for Community Needs
Assessment;
appropriating and transferring funds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the City's contribution toward this program
would be $15,000.
Ms. Coble said Columbia is trying to determine what health
and human service needs are in the community. She said when this agreement
was brought up several years ago, she had brought forth criticisms in terms of
the design and methodology being used to determine what the unmet needs are in
the community. She was disappointed to see the same proposal before the
Council again.
Ms. Coble stated it is proposed that $15,000 be spent to find
out what is needed in terms of unmet needs in this community, and not one of
the points of methodology or proposals in the community needs assessment actually
comes in contact with a consumer. She said the proposal calls for conducting
surveys and data collection of people who are privileged to the extent that they
have telephones. She noted there was no provision made for talking to those
who would be at the lowest socio-economic status of this community. She
found it particularly objectionable that $10,000 would be spent to conduct four
focus group sessions. Ms. Coble stated the people who will give input are
social service providers, health service providers, decision makers, and elected
officials. This is not the group of consumers that should be targeted,
nor is that expertise reflected in the steering committee. She said these
are all well-respected individuals in the community, but none of whom represent
a consumer of social services. She noted that those who represent social
services agencies represent the administrative provision of service, not the
direct services. Ms. Coble found the other provision in relying on
the compass, the United Way survey instrument, to be objectionable. She
did not believe it gets to needs in the community to the extent that the City
should be paying $15,000. She felt another discriminatory measure was to
arrange a town meeting focus group to obtain information on unmet human services
needs. She did not think people who are not recruited through an advocacy
group, or some other type of direct social services provider, are likely to attend
a town meeting -- especially if there are no provisions made for transportation
or child care.
Ms. Coble reported in regards to the external funding chart
outlining that when this survey was conducted in 1994-95, this community was
able to negotiate an additional $6 million in funds she found to be a specious
argument at best -- the majority of these are state and federal funds. She
noted that she was in the room when they did the budget processes on them. Ms.
Coble explained it was not because of any facts or figures that were generated
from this report that lead the General Assembly to pass the measures providing
for the federal emergency shelter grants to come to this community, nor to set-up
the Caring Communities funding process, etc. Ms. Coble said it is no doubt
helpful to have local data, but again, she did not think it is the most reliable
data that could be obtained. She did not believe it would lead to $6 million
in additional funding. It would be a wonderful thing to find out what the
unmet community needs are for health and human services, but Ms. Coble did not
think this was the approach to use.
Mr. Campbell said he was supportive of much of what Ms. Coble
had said. He had been working on a survey this afternoon with one of his
students, and the student's estimate had been that about 50% of the people in
public housing and other low income housing do not have telephones. He
noted these people would be excluded from such a survey. Mr. Campbell said
while he thought we needed a community needs survey, he had more than a little
concern about the methodology being proposed. He would like to see the
program continued, and thought it is a very good effort. Mr. Campbell preferred
that the proposal be modified, and asked Mr. Steinhaus if some of the aforementioned
comments could be taken into account.
Mr. Steinhaus thought that is possible. He gave the
same proposal to the Council that is given to the other funding sources, and
he was sure part of the funding proposal included door-to-door interviews to
canvass particular areas that are targeted where it is known people do not have
phones, in particular public housing, although he is unable to find it written
into the proposal. He felt there has been a very serious effort to reach
the consumers, and that has been a focus of the discussions of the steering committee
from the very beginning. He noted they are over-sampling in a number of
areas to ensure representation from different minority groups is obtained. Mr.
Steinhaus reported they would also be using a tagging system with the interviews
so the responses can be connected to census tracts to relate that information
to generate benchmarks that would be identified to specific Caring Communities
Site Councils and Neighborhood Site Councils. This information can then
be disseminated so that different neighborhood organizations in the community
and throughout Boone County can use the data as well. Mr. Steinhaus said
he is not the technical expert on this. His role on the steering committee
has been limited to the funding subcommittee to ensure that the City is represented
at the table in the works that are going on in the rest of the community in order
to establish community benchmarks to mobilize community resources, to address
needs, and to develop information that is useful to our funders as well as community
decision makers.
Mr. Campbell asked how the budget for this proposal had been
determined. He asked about the $10,000 for four focus group meetings. He
remembered that five or so years ago there was an instance where this same question
came up, and a graduate student took it on for $2,500 and did a wonderful job
of it. Mr. Steinhaus replied that the budget for that was developed by
the technical resource committee. Mr. Campbell asked if it would be put
out on a bid basis. Ms. Coble said it was a single source procurement. Mr.
Steinhaus said that was correct, it was not being bid out. He said it would
be a contract between the County and the University. The University would
subcontract with Horizon Research Services and the Department of Health to conduct
some of the data collection. Mr. Campbell noted that he thought one of
the technical resource committee members has a conflict of interest. Mr.
Steinhaus was not sure about that.
Ms. Coble suggested tabling the issue in order to get some
more information.
Mr. Campbell asked where the committee was right now in the
process. Mr. Steinhaus said the data collection has already started.
Mayor Hindman asked if the committee had just been counting
on this program being funded. Mr. Steinhaus said the funding subcommittee
was looking at securing support from a variety of sources that would meet the
needs of the survey that is being conducted. The contract currently has
been written to consist of two phases. He said funding has essentially
been secured to move forward with Phase 1, and there are hopes of securing the
additional funding for the completion of Phase 2. He said they have had
verbal commitment from the Missouri Hospital Association for $50,000. The
model, both of the Community Partnership and of the Boone County Health Report
Card Project (which sprang from both of the two previous assessments that had
been conducted three years ago), has been touted across the state. Mr.
Steinhaus said that is the reason the committee has attracted additional funding. He
knew there are certain fundings like the Emergency Shelter Grant that they probably
would have gotten without that previous community needs assessment; however,
one of the reasons Columbia was chosen for the Community Partnership and Caring
Communities Funding, as well as the additional funding, was because of their
coordinated efforts in the community to try to determine needs and develop a
coordinated community planning process for the delivery of health and human services.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that B191-98 be tabled to August
3, 1998, and that Mr. Steinhaus be asked to come back with additional information.
Regarding the phone survey, Mr. Janku said there are 131 items
lasting 30 to 45 minutes. From a laypersons perspective, he could not see
people spending that much time on the phone. He said he would like to see
some idea about a degree of validity -- that people are willing to participate
and that it would get a good cross section.
Mr. Campbell noted that he limits his students to 15 minute
phone interviews. Mr. Steinhaus said the last time they conducted the survey
the average interview had lasted 15 to 20 minutes. He said it uses a skip
pattern so that if the individual does not have any children in the home, it
will skip to other sections. He said people will not be answering every
question on the survey. Mr. Steinhaus reported when the survey was conducted
three years ago, they achieved a 95% response rate in Boone County.
Mr. Steinhaus suggested that the Council discuss this proposal
at a pre-Council meeting, and he would invite some of the members from the technical
assistance committee and other members of the steering committee to answer any
questions. Ms. Coble said that would be fine.
The motion to table B191-98, made by Mr. Campbell, was seconded
by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B192-98 Authorizing an agreement with Missouri
Department of Health for Core Public Health Services;
appropriating
funds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this is an annual renewal of the agreement
with the Missouri Department of Health.
B192-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows; VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN,
COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading
as follows:
R131-98 Approving preliminary plat No. 2 of
West Pointe Subdivision.
Mayor Hindman noted that a request for withdrawal had been
received on this preliminary plat.
CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions
were read by the Clerk.
B180-98 Accepting conveyances for electric
and utility purposes.
B181-98 Accepting conveyances for water and
utility purposes.
B185-98 Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code
to expand the boundary of the Fourth Ward.
B190-98 Approving a final plat of Ewing Industrial
park, Plat 3.
B193-98 Allowing copper wire to be buried in
a sewer easement; authorizing a waiver of claim and indemnity
agreement
at 2300 Business Loop 70 East.
R133-98 Setting a public hearing: repair and
stabilization of a section of the streambank of Bear Creek between
Garth
Avenue and Creasy Springs Road.
R134-98 Setting a public hearing: improvements
at the intersections of Nifong and Bethel and Nifong and
Forum.
R135-98 Setting a public hearing: construction
of sidewalks and sidewalk ramps along a portion of West Ash
Street.
R136-98 Authorizing an amendment to the agreement
with Larkin Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc.
R137-98 Authorizing a grant application to
the Missouri Department of Transportation for planning funds.
R138-98 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri
Department of health for sexually transmitted disease
clinical
services.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions
were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO
ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading
as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R139-98 Authorizing a grant application to
Boone County for funding for the improvements to the Oakland
Gravel
Road and Scott Boulevard projects.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
In the case of Oakland Gravel Road, Mr. Beck said the City
would share the cost on a 50/50 basis, and the request is for $580,500. Regarding
Scott Boulevard, he said the City's share would be $300,000 (25% of the project
cost).
The vote on R139-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R140-98 Approving a preliminary plat of Highland
Ridge, Phase 3.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the staff as well as the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval of this preliminary plat.
Chris Korschgen, 6200 Schuster Road, explained that his property
(25 acres) adjoins the entire west boundary of the subject tract. Mr. Korschgen
said he also owns a little strip along the south side. He spoke to Mr.
Bondra in the Planning Department about a utility easement that would exist between
Lots 303 and 304 on the plat. Mr. Bondra called the engineering firm to
see if it could be platted in. He said they also had discussions with Bob
Walters, and Highlands Realty had no objections to the easement; although, it
was requested that the easement not go through the trees on the boundary line
between Lots 303 and 304, but rather go on the north side of the tree line. For
future consideration, Mr. Korschgen said he would be looking for sewer, natural
gas, and cable television easements along the tree line.
Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Korschgen if he was wanting to be
annexed at some point. Mr. Korschgen said most likely because he is right
on the edge of the City limits.
Mr. Hancock said that easements are typically granted on final
plats, and when a final plat is submitted on this property, perhaps something
could be worked out with the adjoining property if they feel it would be beneficial
to try to obtain an easement. He said staff would keep it in mind and work
on it at the time of final platting.
The vote on R140-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R141-98 Authorizing an agreement with the University
of Missouri for the Senior Games and Show-Me State
Games.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that each year the City has been a primary
sponsor of the Show-Me State Games. He said it is primarily supported with
in-kind services -- providing ball diamonds and that sort of thing. The
Convention & Visitors Bureau budgets $15,000 toward the games. Mr.
Beck stated this resolution would authorize the staff to provide similar support
this year.
The vote on R141-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R142-98 Authorizing the Boone County Fair
Board to use parking lots at Ninth & Ash and Armory in connection
with
the Boone County Fair Parade.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said the Council would be approving the use of the
parking lots by the Fair Board. He said the Police Department will handle
the parade.
The vote on R142-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R143-98 Authorizing an agreement with the
Memorial Day Weekend - Salute to Veterans Corporation.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Coffman said he did not want to suggest that the Council
make changes in the contract; however, he would like to propose an amendment
that would be a statement of the Council's expectation. He read the following
statement which he said would be in the ordinance itself, not part of the contract: "It
is expected that the Memorial Day Weekend - Salute to Veterans Corporation will
respect the First Amendment Rights of those who congregate on the airport grounds
during the air show." Mr. Coffman's thought was that whatever might occur
at the air show, and whether or not it would be within the bounds of the First
Amendment, would ultimately be decided by a court and it probably would not be
the best endeavor for the Council to attempt to draw boundaries regarding such.
Mr. Coffman made a motion to amend R143-98 per his above statement. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
Annette Sanders, 730 Idlewood Court, spokesperson representing
the Salute to Veterans Corporation, said for the last eight years they have contracted
with the City to utilize the tarmac at the Columbia Regional Airport for the
Salute to Veterans Air Show. She said there are approximately 117 individuals
present tonight in support of the Council's approval of the contract for 1999
as it was originally presented with no amendments. Ms. Sanders reiterated
the points she made at the June 1, 1998, meeting. She explained there are
only three ways in and out of the tarmac, and any of the groups wanting to solicit
petitions for signatures could have positioned their members right outside the
three entrances and had complete, unhindered access to every person attending
the air show. She said there is no freedom of speech issue here and there
is no reason to change the contract or add any language to the ordinance.
Mr. Coffman asked who pays for the various aircraft and equipment
present as part of the performance. He also asked about the fuel. Ms.
Sanders said the Corporation raises all of the private funds that are used to
pay for the items Mr. Coffman made reference to. Mr. Coffman asked who
was involved in the security and crowd control and how these individuals are
paid. Ms. Sanders said the Highway Patrol, the Boone County Sheriff's Office,
and the City of Columbia Police Department supply the security, and the cost
for these individuals is worked into each of those entity's operating budgets
-- as would be true for every major event.
Norman Benedict, 3113 Shoreside Drive, a Salute to Veterans
volunteer since its inception in 1989, read parts of letters received since the
1998 celebration concluded. He said these participants support the fine
program, and state clearly just what Salute to Veterans means to them and how
grateful they are to the people of Columbia for making it happen.
Jean Madden, 1111 Doral, explained that he is the voice of
the airport and is in charge of crowd control. He said keeping things moving
is often difficult and he could not imagine what it would be like if they had
anyone come out and espouse any cause. He said if the Corporation opened
the gate and made it an opportunity for people to espouse causes, good or bad,
they would have a real mess.
Mr. Coffman asked if someone came to the air show wearing
a t-shirt with a message on it, if this person would be asked to take the shirt
off. Mr. Madden said he would not do that. Mr. Coffman said his point
was that there has to be a line drawn, and it is not always a clear line.
Dale Deerhoff, an attorney representing the Salute to Veterans
Corporation, spoke in defense of the First Amendment rights of the organization,
as well as its 3,000 volunteers and the thousands of people who congregate every
Memorial Day for this observance. He stated that the Supreme Court has
held that the private organizer of a public event on public property has a First
Amendment right to choose the content of its message. He said that right
includes the right to exclude from participation persons imparting a message
the event organizers do not wish to convey. He said the rights to free
speech includes the right not to speak on certain subjects. He cited more
case law of the same nature. He pointed out that the Supreme Court has
recognized that face to face solicitation is especially intrusive. He listed
a number of large, public events where people are not permitted to solicit for
donations or support. Mr. Deerhoff said the statement Mr. Coffman suggested
adding was a wonderful statement of principle, but if it has any significance
at all, it will apply to all events.
Mr. Coffman asked about the various recruiters. Mr.
Deerhoff said as he understood it that is a condition for the Defense Department
to supply the Thunderbirds, Blue Angels, etc. He said those groups do not
come unless the military recruiters can be there. Mr. Coffman said because
it is required by contract did not make it relevant. Ms. Sanders said it
is very relevant. The Department of Defense requires not only that the
Corporation provide tarmac space to recruiters, but that they give them prime
space and all amenities in order to acquire the assets of the Department of Defense. She
said aircraft are assets -- no aircraft, no air show. Ms. Sanders said
the recruiters are restricted to static display tents that are very clearly labeled,
they are not out shaking hands or stopping people trying to get them to sign
up to serve.
Dick Starks, Kansas City, explained that he flies 1916 World
War I replica aircraft and that he is a member of the Dawn Patrol. He has
been flying his plane in air shows for 12 years -- from Oshkosh, Wisconsin to
Wichita, Kansas. He had been honored and privileged to display his aircraft
at the Salute to Veterans for the last four years. Mr. Starks is hopeful
the event would be allowed to continue as it has in the past because of its uniqueness. He
said it is the only air show he knows of devoted entirely to honoring our Veterans. He
noted other shows charge enormous entrance fees, and there are always people
present promoting their own causes. Mr. Starks noted that he writes for
Kit Planes magazine, the second largest aviation magazine in the country. This
year, Mr. Stark's managing editor attended the show. He stated the September
issue of the magazine contains a four column editorial praising the Columbia
air show. He read an excerpt from the article.
Jim Coy, an 18 year resident of Columbia, is the current Commander
of the 7227th Medical Reserve Unit, and staff physician at the University of
Missouri Hospital and the Truman VA Hospital. He has also served as the
Chairman of the Airborne Veterans Committee for the Salute to Veterans Corporation
since its inception. He reflected on what Memorial Day means to him and
his family and read various quotes. He asked that the contract not be changed.
Jo Sapp, 1025 Hickory Hill Drive, said she was no stranger
or enemy of the military. She probably would have enjoyed the air show
tremendously had she been allowed to stay. Ms. Sapp explained that she
had been escorted from the air show by a uniformed Columbia Police Officer. When
the officer escorted her out, he had been very nice and had taken her to an area
populated by smokers. She believes the right to petition the government
to be fundamental to our system, and while she respects the right of private
businesses to limit access to their property, she had no idea that an event that
was free and open to the public and held at a City owned airport would be off
limits for a fundamental principle of democracy -- petition initiative, especially
when the event is a celebration of those who died to defend American democracy. She
found this to be ironic and appalling. Ms. Sapp read aloud the staff's
legal opinion as it relates to public property and public forums. She interpreted
that to mean that it lies within the City's power to designate the air show,
and similar events held in Columbia, as sharing the same First Amendment protections
as traditional public forums such as streets and sidewalks.
Eleanore Wickersham, 4920 Forum Boulevard, said she was also
not against veterans. She listed family members who have served in the
military and asked that their sacrifices not be allowed to be in vain. She
asked the Council to not give away the freedoms that they, and millions of others
have fought for. As a petitioner, Ms. Wickersham explained that she travels
to six cities in the Ninth District, often with the League of Women Voters. She
said they had gone to events on public property organized by private corporations,
but only here in Columbia had they encountered a problem. She understood
there are many other air shows that have political activity at them and that
Columbia is the exception. Ms. Wickersham asked why should the people in
Columbia have less freedom than their neighbors.
Bill Wickersham, 4920 Forum Boulevard, said he is a member
of the Columbia Interfaith Peace Alliance, and currently serves as vice-president
of Mid-Missouri Veterans for Peace. He is a retired federal employee who
served as a regular US Army enlisted man, and is a graduate of the US Army Infantry
School in Fort Benning, Georgia. Since in some ways the patriotism of some
folks on his side of the issue has been impugned, he wanted the Council to know
that he works very closely and helped found an organization in Washington, D.C.
called the Center for Defense Information. He explained this is an organization
of former general officers, admirals, and other high ranking military who have
a different sense, in some ways, of patriotism. He said one of the areas
they have been interested in is air shows. Mr. Wickersham requested that
the City Council reject the City Manager's recommendation that the Memorial Day
Weekend Air Show be deemed a temporary private forum. He said the major
funding for the program comes from public dollars allocated to the US Air Force
and other military services. He noted that Pentagon figures cited in 1997
indicated that the operating costs for a B-1 bomber were $16,972 per hour. On
the training issue, the Center for Defense Information seriously challenges an
air show as the best place for training. In addition to those costs, Mr.
Wickersham said public funds are used for personnel, transportation, bands for
public entertainment, dog care, and a variety of other activities for a recreational
and ceremonial event to which the general public has been invited. His
point is that the air show is a public event which should ensure First Amendment
rights for all individuals and organizations who wish to circulate petitions
in an orderly and unobtrusive manner. He asked that all contracts be amended
in such a way that they ensure the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.
David Sapp, 1025 Hickory Hill, said they did not want to shut
down the event. He would be speaking before the Council regardless of whether
this incident occurred at an art fair, a downtown event, etc. Mr. Sapp
said he was simply opposed to any further erosion of the rights of free speech. He
said since this issue had come up, he realized that places for public access
are rapidly diminishing, and thus the right to petition the government is being
taken away. He also stressed his belief that the air show is a public event.
He asked the Council to treat it as such.
Kay Callison, 600 Crestland, felt this is an issue that has
to do with City policy applicable to art fairs, Earth Day, and other similar
events. As she reads the City's opinion about a private forum, she said
if she were to go to Earth Day as a private citizen wearing a "nuke the whales" t-shirt,
she could be thrown out. Ms. Callison explained that dress can be a speech
issue and has gone all the way to the Supreme Court. She is not comfortable
with that and did not want such a public policy. Ms. Callison said if the
people at the air show do not think they are violating the free speech rights
now, then what objections would any group have to stipulating this language in
their contract.
Ewell Blank, 3209 Crawford, President of the Veterans for
Peace, thanked the organizers of the Salute to Veterans Air Show. However,
in trying to do better and bigger things each year, he thought the Corporation
has gone beyond some of the things necessary for the air show. He wanted
the air show to be made a celebration of life as well as of military, and asked
that a way be found to make the celebration one that is truly about life and
liberty.
John Murray, 911 Edgewood, President of the Board of the Missouri
Chapter of the ACLU, spoke in support of Mr. Coffman's amendment. He did
not believe the ACLU supported the particular petition drive that was going around,
but did and do support the right of the people on public property to circulate
a petition and to speak. He was concerned about the suppression of free
speech. He asked the Council to support Mr. Coffman's amendment.
Mr. Coffman said he did not feel that this issue was about
whether or not Veterans deserve to be honored, as there is no question about
it. He had no particular stake in the petition that lead up to this controversy,
in fact, he has some First Amendment concerns about the petition's objectives. Mr.
Coffman reported this issue is about the right to petition the government, which
is explicit in the First Amendment, and he is most worried about the increasing
erosion of access to this type of activity. Mr. Coffman believed the air
show to be a public/private partnership because many of both entities are working
together, which is a good thing except it creates a real ambiguous area as far
as what the Constitution applies to. He found it disturbing that in Columbia
we cannot find a way to honor veterans and honor the constitution, for whom most
of these veterans fought. He urged the organizers to respect as much free
speech as they believe is possible without disrupting the event.
Mr. Janku thought the Council should consider the general
context of how these types of decisions are made relating to access of public
facilities. He explained there is a whole range of activities from sporting
events to very religious or political activities, and he did not recall the Council
getting involved in those things as far as stipulating who should be allowed
to participate in the activities. Mr. Janku said the Council gives very
little scrutiny to the events, other than considering traffic or businesses being
impacted adversely.
Mr. Kruse asked if Mr. Janku was saying that the Council should
not allow the organizers to petition at these events. Mr. Janku thought
the organizers should have control over their own event. He said there
might be some other type of activity that somebody would like to perform as part
of the First Amendment. Mr. Janku said petitioning is only one small aspect
of the First Amendment, and he is concerned that the Council would become the
arbiter of things. Mr. Kruse agreed and said he did not want the Council
to adopt this role. He felt that if an event is on public property, people
should have the right to speak freely.
Mr. Campbell said he has organized some large meetings open
to the public and held on public property. He recently thought to himself
had somebody come in and started petitioning about something that was definitely
away from the principal purpose of that gathering, what would he have done. Candidly
speaking, Mr. Campbell would have asked them to leave. On the other hand,
he said freedom of speech is a very precious thing and he is sure that everyone
present respects it. Mr. Campbell said he respected the City attorney's
position on the issue.
Mr. Janku said as the amendment really does not affect the
contract that has been in place for years, what was the purpose of it. Mrs.
Crockett said it would do nothing. Mr. Janku did not feel that the organizers
should be made to feel like they are going to be forced to open up the tarmac,
and lead the petitioners to feel like they are going to be let in, unless that
was what was actually going to happen. He thought if that is the intent,
and is in fact what the Council would be doing, it should be expressly stated. Mr.
Coffman said in his mind the amendment outlines that the Council has a concern
about it, but recognizes that the extent to which people attending the air show
have First Amendment rights, it will be interpreted by someone else -- the court.
Mr. Campbell said it should be understood that it would not
be part of the contract, only a statement on the resolution itself.
Given the information the Council received on case law regarding the airport
being public or private, Ms. Coble is concerned that there is no meaning in the
statement. Mr. Coffman said that is when it is used for airport purposes,
but in this case, he felt it is being used for something much like a fair.
Mrs. Crockett said if she went out to the airport tomorrow
morning, as a private citizen or a City Council member, she could not get on
the tarmac unless she was boarding a plane. She said that limited her to
the use of the tarmac. When the Salute to Veterans Corporation takes over
the tarmac, she felt they have the control of it. She said this year, the
focus of attention is on a group of about eight petitioners, but over the years
the Salute to Veterans Corporation has had hundreds of groups that want to come
out and be on the tarmac. Mrs. Crockett said if the Corporation allows
access to one group, they would have to let every organization on the tarmac. She
asked how could spectators enjoy the air show if they were continuously dodging
all of these groups. Mrs. Crockett wanted to see the air show left as is,
and any of the other groups can do their thing in the parking lot.
Mayor Hindman did not see the Council getting in the middle
of this conflict. He thought the City should have a policy that public
property will be made available on a reasonable basis for people to conduct their
own matters. He said it would be up to these organizations to follow the
law. Mayor Hindman did not think it is the Council's place to start redefining
the law or to set special provisions. In this case, Mayor Hindman said
the Salute to Veterans Corporation has organized an air show for a good number
of years very successfully. They have developed a number of very specific
policies that they follow very carefully. He would rather see the organization
be more liberal with letting people in, but that is still the way it has been
done. Mayor Hindman thought the opportunity should be made available to
allow public activity on the City's property with the understanding that it is
up to the organizer's to follow the law. Regarding the amendment, Mayor
Hindman said the contract itself has provisions that the Salute to Veterans Corporation
must follow all applicable laws, and he did not feel it was up to the Council
to make a separate expression pertaining to First Amendment rights.
Regarding the amendment, Mr. Kruse said it would not be part
of the contract and he saw it as being similar to a policy resolution, a sense
of the Council. He could see, and has seen first hand, both sides of this
issue.
Ms. Coble felt it would be incorrect of the Council to pass
something that has no effect. From the information this evening, she is
not clear on what the interpretation would be regarding the First Amendment rights. She
said from what the Council has heard from lawyers on both sides, those who seek
to petition inside the fence would have a First Amendment right to do so, whereas
those escorting them to the outside of the fence would have a First Amendment
to do so also. Mr. Coffman asked what the problem was if the language was
ineffectual. Ms. Coble asked whey the Council would add the language if
it was ineffectual. She suggested that the organization engage in discussions
beforehand to lay out where activities would be located and allowed throughout
the event. Mr. Coffman said he felt the language might provide some measure
of protection in a law suit if the City were made a defendant.
The motion to amend R143-98, made by Mr. Coffman, seconded
by Mr. Kruse, was defeated.
The vote on R143-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: COFFMAN. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:
R145-98 Amending infrastructure cost agreement
with developer of Forum Chapel Plaza.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this issue had been discussed earlier at the
pre-Council meeting -- the situation on Forum Boulevard and the payment to the
City of the roadway costs for the extra lanes that were to be constructed in
conjunction with the development at the corner of Forum and Chapel Hill Road. The
question is whether or not the Council should authorize the staff to negotiate
a revised agreement with the developer of the property. Mr. Beck said the
Council considered the $128,000 vs. the $153,000 reimbursement in regards to
the timely payment back to the City for the cost of the street. He said
there are several lots remaining to be sold in the area.
Mr. Patterson explained that $153,000 was the cost for the
right turn lane based on the actual measured quantities during construction. The
estimate of $128,000 was based on quantities provided by the developer's engineers
as far as the estimated items to be constructed, in accordance with the agreement. The
agreement is very specific about who would pay for what on the improvements. He
said the developer feels that $128,000 was what was agreed to and that was what
he should be required to pay. Mr. Patterson reported the developer has
offered a single lump sum payment of $128,000, rather than making payments over
a period of nine years. He noted that the developer's attorney was present
to answer any questions regarding the issue.
Craig VanMatre, attorney for the developer of Limerick Heights,
said his client originally thought this project would cost him about $90,000,
and he was going to give up some valuable real estate for a right turn lane for
which he would not be reimbursed. He said the developer planned to repay
the City incrementally pending the sale of the ten lots. In the meantime,
four lots have been sold while waiting for the numbers to come in. The
cost of the project had been determined just a couple of weeks ago, and another
lot is coming up for sale on July 15. Mr. VanMatre said he persuaded his
client into using most of the proceeds from the sale of that lot to pay the City
off in full to be finished with the reimbursement on a compromise basis. This
had been based mathematically on the contract Mr. VanMatre personally drafted
that the correct figure would be $153,000. He said the $128,000 would represent
a $25,000 savings, which is attributable to a mistake made by the developer's
engineer in estimating the correct dollar amount. He said if it is not
done this way, the money will get stretched out over the sale of the rest of
the lots. He thought there was some risk that the other lots will not sell
for awhile.
Mr. Janku understood that this would be accelerating the payment
for a lesser amount. Mr. VanMatre said that is correct.
Mrs. Crockett asked if there were other contracts out on any
of the remaining lots. Mr. VanMatre replied there were not. He said
the back lots are zoned O-1 and have substantial restrictions on them because
of the agreement with the neighbors regarding substantial buffering.
Mayor Hindman said there were questions like the present value
of money and various other issues that the Council is unable to deal with. He
asked if the Council could authorize the staff to negotiate in the best interest
of the City. Mr. Boeckmann said the Council could authorize the City Manager
to enter into a contract amendment similar to Exhibit A, but instruct him to
negotiate on the dollar amount.
Mrs. Crockett asked if any money had been set aside from the
first four lots that were sold. Mr. VanMatre said there was no lien on
the property and he did not handle the closings. He said that is why he
wants to get this straightened out, so he can get a lien recorded. He is
going to record a deed of trust in favor of the City reflecting the lien of $153,000
before the lot sale closes so the City would be assured that his client would
adhere to the contract he originally signed. Mr. VanMatre gave his word
he would get that done before July 15 -- that the City would have a mortgage
on the property to secure the $153,000. Mrs. Crockett asked how many others
the developer is financially obligated to. Mr. VanMatre said that was a
point, but there was plenty of equity there, theoretically, to cover the $153,000. He
said the City would just have to wait the nine years to get the money. Mr.
VanMatre acknowledged there should have been some money withheld on the past
lot sales, but it did not happen.
Mr. Boeckmann asked about the status of the deed of trust. Mr.
VanMatre said it was expected to come Federal Express today, but it did not arrive
yet. He said it was being signed by the people out in California and he
was promised they would send it out today. He was hopeful he would have
it tomorrow. He said that would happen before the 15th. Mr. VanMatre
said he had his client's signature on it, just not the trustees.
It was decided that the staff would negotiate in the best
interest of the City.
The vote on R145-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. 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:
B194-98 Authorizing the repair and stabilization
of a section of the streambank of Bear Creek between Garth
Avenue
and Creasy Springs Road; appropriating funds.
B195-98 Amending Chapter 14 of the Code to
make Buttonwood Drive, south of Nifong Boulevard, a one-way
street.
B196-98 Appropriating funds for the rehabilitation
of the north cargo apron at Columbia Regional Airport.
B197-98 Amending Chapter 22 of the Code to
add a new section pertaining to deferred tax bills for sanitary
sewer
projects.
B198-98 Authorizing the installation of pedestrian
safety improvements at the intersection of Tenth Street and
Rogers
Street by City employees.
B199-98 Calling for bids to construct sidewalks
along West Broadway and along Smiley Lane.
B200-98 Confirming contract for the construction
of a water main along Clark Lane.
B201-98 Vacating utility easements and street
right-of-way for an unbuilt portion of Beach Point Drive;
accepting
conveyances.
B202-98 Rezoning property located on the northeast
corner of Austin Avenue and Grand Avenue from C-1 to
C-3.
B203-98 Amending Chapter 29 of the Code to
allow day care centers and similar establishments in District R-2
as
conditional uses.
B204-98 Approving the final plat of Meadowlands
Subdivision, Plat No. 15, a major subdivision.
B205-98 Approving a replat of lot 243 of West
Pointe, Plat 1-B-1.
B206-98 Appropriating funds for memorial trees
and benches.
B207-98 Appropriating funds for public health
and corrections nursing services.
B208-98 Amending the FY 1998 pay plan to change
the pay grade and titles of three positions in the Parks and
Recreation
Department.
B209-98 Authorizing a settlement agreement
with Richard C. and Nan B. Erickson: accepting conveyance.
B210-98 Authorizing right of use permit to
allow Union Electric to install and maintain a gas main across Rebel
Hills
substation property.
B211-98 Accepting conveyance for water utility
purposes from the National Benevolent Association of the
Christian
Churches.
B212-98 Authorizing an agreement with Sprint
Spectrum, L.P. to lease space on the Walnut Street water tower
for
PCS antennas.
B213-98 Establishing October 1, 1998, as effective
date of the solid waste utility fee increases.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Transfer of Funds Request.
Report accepted.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None.
COMMENTS OF THE COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
Mr. Janku said a recent publication outlined Columbia's cost
of living and showed the City's utilities at about 16% below the national average. He
credited the Water and Light Department.
Mr. Janku explained that he had received a letter from the
Housing Authority asking about the possibility of a reduced speed limit on Elleta
Boulevard. He referred the letter to the staff for their recommendation.
Ms. Coble had a request that if the 30 mph speed limit on
the newly repaved Clinton Street could not be changed, if a "Caution, Children
At Play" sign could be installed. She said Clinton is a very convenient
shortcut off of Broadway and cars move through quickly.
Ms. Coble said an issue has been raised about people being
tax billed for street repairs and then others bring large commercial trucks on
these newly constructed roads. She asked what the residents were to do
who have just paid for the tax billed street resurfacing. A particular
question had been raised dealing with Hope Place.
Ms. Coble said she had been getting calls about Third Avenue. She
said it is in really bad shape and asked if repairs were being delayed until
the completion of the storm water project. Mr. Patterson said that is correct.
Ms. Coble said there is a sidewalk that is heavily traveled
at Paquin and Hitt where there is a support wall that is crumbling and people
have to walk out in the street. Mr. Campbell said that wall belongs to
the University, and he saw representatives surveying the area. It was suggested
that someone check with the University about it.
Ms. Coble congratulated Chief Botsford and the members of
his department who serve in the Specialized Domestic Violence Unit on the innovative
project relating to a domestic violence warrant sweep through the City and the
County. She said her office has been receiving calls from around the state
wanting more information as the project is an effective crime prevention intervention
tool. It also serves as a very clear message to the public about the City's
stance toward violence against those in a family. She thanked the police
department for their work.
Mrs. Crockett said she had received a call from the Indian
Hills Neighborhood Association requesting another shelter house in the park,
in addition to some playground equipment adjacent to the shelter. She noted
residents are using their park more and more. Mr. Beck said that would
be the capital fund that had been discussed earlier. Mr. Janku noted that
this neighborhood would also be eligible for CDBG funding. Mrs. Crockett
said the Neighborhood would like to have a written response as to the City's
intentions.
The meeting adjourned at 12:55 a.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Penny
St. Romaine
City
Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia