City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes - Final  
City Council  
City Hall  
Conference Room  
1A/1B  
Monday, June 16, 2025  
5:00 PM  
Pre-Council  
701 E. Broadway  
Columbia, MO  
I. CALL TO ORDER  
Mayor Buffaloe called to order at approximately 5:02 p.m.  
6 - Buffaloe, Foster, Waterman, Peters, Carroll, and Sample  
Present:  
Water and Light Advisory Board Applicant Interviews  
Mayor Buffaloe provided an overview of the commission and its duties. The questions  
asked included why the applicant was interested in serving on the board, how the  
applicant understands the duties of the board, and an acknowledgement of the time  
commitment needed to serve on the board. She asked about the experience the applicant  
had on utility infrastructure projects and how it can support the work of the board. She  
asked for examples of the applicant considering complicated issues. She asked about  
balancing sustainable practices with financial constraints. She asked the applicants their  
views on the current rate structure, as well as the factors the applicants would consider  
regarding rate adjustments. Both participants had the opportunity to ask questions to the  
Council.  
The applicants interviewed included:  
Ryan Westwood  
Larry Skaer  
Pedestrian Study  
Attachments: Street and Intersection Pedestrian Safety Study Presentation  
Columbia Pedestrian Safety Study DRAFT  
Pier Cities with Median Ordinances Memo  
DRAFT Maps  
Shawn White, a principal with CBB, presented the Street and Intersection Pedestrian  
Safety Study. He noted that Missouri has approximately 1,000 traffic related fatalities  
annually. He added that about a third of Columbia’s fatalities are pedestrian fatalities, with  
about 80% of those being at night. In the study, the firm reviewed where fatalities  
occurred. He noted that Stadium & Worley was an area with increased pedestrian injury,  
and highlighted some examples.  
Shawn discussed the Safe System Approach, adding that it isn’t often just the failure of  
one system that leads to a fatality. He noted the number of programs at the state and  
federal level looking to address pedestrian safety. He noted that Columbia follows national  
standards for pedestrian safety, and that Columbia was the first city in Missouri to adopt  
Vision Zero.  
The study recommendations included maintaining designated pedestrian areas so they  
have safe places (e.g. sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.), ensuring temporary traffic control set  
up to warn drivers that pedestrians will be present, and ensuring pedestrians use  
temporary pedestrian refuge as necessary when crossing. Shawn discussed driver  
speeds related to drivers being aware of their surroundings as well as survivability, with  
higher volume roads posing more of a risk.  
Ms. Carroll voiced a concern of pedestrians being able to cross the street with the short  
time signals. Shawn noted federal regulations with the signal timers, adding that in areas  
near certain businesses, such as senior centers, more time may be allotted.  
The presentation included example cities with median ordinances, including Springfield,  
MO, Sioux Falls, SD, Abilene TX, Bismarck ND, and San Angelo TX. The  
recommendations included restrictions put on individuals' ability to be in the median if the  
speeds are higher than 35 MPH, the traffic daily volume is 15,000, or the medians are  
less than 6 ft wide.  
Mr. Foster asked about the age of the pedestrian fatalities in Columbia and about the  
jurisdiction as some of the roadways highlighted are MoDOT maintained. Ms. Peters  
noted that on College Ave. the university put up a wall to limit pedestrian traffic. Ms.  
Carroll noted that the City has a significant population of nondrivers, including seniors and  
low income residents - she noted that there are often pedestrians in unexpected places  
due to roll carts in bike lanes and the incomplete sidewalk network. She noted that  
individuals using mobility assistance may have to navigate in the roadway if the sidewalk  
they are using abruptly ends.  
The Mayor noted that this study is still a draft - she added an interest in seeing if the map  
provided could also overlay our existing sidewalk network. Ms. Carroll hoped to use this  
discussion to initiate communication with MoDOT related to the crosswalk timers on their  
roadways within city limits. The Mayor asked about when staff would like the feedback  
from Council. Shane Creech, Public Works Director, noted that they were seeking  
feedback for next steps and the timing is at the discretion of Council. Ms. Peters  
expressed an interest in an education component to help students better understand who  
has the right of way in an intersection. The Mayor asked that Council to provide feedback  
and questions to staff within the next few weeks.  
Council Budget Priorities  
Attachments: FY26 Council Budget Priorities Presentation  
Matthew Lue, Finance Director, reviewed the Council budget priorities first discussed in  
April. He reviewed the FY 2025 Council Priorities, including Housing, Public Safety,  
Social Services, and Infrastructure. The current Council priorities include Housing, Social  
Services, Technology, Infrastructure, Organizational Excellence, and Public Safety,  
noting that it may be beneficial to narrow this list to three main objectives. He noted that  
it would be a tough budget year. Mr. Foster agreed that Council needed to narrow the list  
down. The Mayor noted that she felt like it was a given that employees were the top  
priority. She also noted that infrastructure isn’t a one year project. She asked De’Carlon  
Seewood, City Manager, how he evaluates budget requests through the lens of these  
priorities. De’Carlon noted that, if cuts are needed, he doesn’t want to cut items that  
Council has specified as a top priority. Mr. Foster asked about how infrastructure is  
differentiated from our Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Ms. Peters added that it would be  
beneficial to know how we are defining these items so Council will know what they are  
prioritizing.  
Ms. Carroll noted that many of their priorities seem linked, like housing and social  
services. She noted concerns about budgets for nonprofits, adding that nonprofits are  
often partners with the City to provide social services.  
The Mayor noted that a risk assessment of the potential federal funding cuts could help  
inform their priorities. She added that more agencies may seek support from the City in  
the event of federal cuts. De’Carlon added that, if approved, some of the items included in  
the H.R. 1 could lead to cuts, citing CDBG funding as an example. The Mayor asked  
about analysis to maintain programs that may be at risk of losing federal funding. Mr.  
Foster stressed that staff would need to be nimble when facing potential cuts. He noted  
that we should strive to ensure everyone who lives in the city should feel safe, have  
opportunities, and adequate infrastructure wherever they live in the community. He asked  
if there was a way to tease apart public safety from organizational excellence. De’Carlon  
noted that approximately 50% of the general fund budget was public safety.  
Ms. Peters asked for clarification on the technology priority. De’Carlon noted that the City  
has a robust IT team who are able to develop products, allowing for cost savings. He  
noted that technology focused on what is needed to make the City a better equipped,  
better informed organization. Ms. Peters offered her priorities as public safety and social  
services.  
Ms. Carroll noted social services and housing remain a key priority for her. She added  
that as times get lean for government, they also get lean for residents. She asked about  
a timeline for a public safety tax. Ms. Sample agreed with Ms. Peters that no project  
should be left unfinished. She noted housing and infrastructure as priorities for her. Mr.  
Waterman noted that public safety and employees should be top of the list, but agreed  
with Ms. Sample on the infrastructure. He felt that housing could be considered a  
component of infrastructure as well.  
De’Carlon clarified that all the current list were priorities, but staff was looking for  
feedback on which items Council prioritized the highest. He noted that, if considering the  
general fund, infrastructure primarily meant public works projects as the utilities were in  
separate funds. Ms. Carroll discussed prioritizing incentives for infill as it relates to  
affordable housing and asked if the City was able to do so as currently situated.  
De’Carlon noted that we do not have a sustainable way to do so.  
II. ANY OTHER ITEMS COUNCIL MAY WISH TO DISCUSS  
None.  
III. ADJOURNMENT  
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:54 p.m.