Proposed LP 70_Columbia.png  
Roundabout.doc  
MS. BUFFALOE: Moving next to the Functional Classification Map Revisions to  
Business Loop 70. Staff comments?  
MR. SKOV: Yes, Ms. Chair. We have a functional classification map for the  
Columbia Metropolitan Area, as do other -- actually, it's not the metropolitan area,  
it's specific to the urbanized area, but this is maintained by MoDOT, so, again, it's a  
federal related document. There are two requests that have been made by the  
Central District Office. They're both in association with the I-70/63 interchange  
portion of the I-70 improvement project. You might -- I'm sure committees are all  
aware -- the committees are all aware that the westbound I-70, while a branch of the  
Business Loop was recently closed by MoDOT, and that caused some changes that  
these functional classification revisions will address. I'm just going to go right to the  
map so you can see what we're talking about here. The section in red there where's  
it's got the arrows that say Business Loop 70, that is currently designated as a local on  
the functional classification map. The request is to upgrade this from local to a  
principal arterial. That section formerly had no function because it was -- it was really  
local. There was no connectivity there. You'll recall that the Business Loop did  
terminates west of Hinkson Creek until ten years ago, or whenever that -- that road  
was completed such that it makes a connection with Conley Road onto the south and  
the east. So that portion is one of the changes being requested. The other one is a  
future round-about there. You can see it will be constructed by MoDOT as part of  
the I-70 project. The roundabout also will be a principal arterial, and not only will it  
include a connection to the Business Loop. It also connects to, in the future, I-70  
eastbound off-ramp, and an I-70 eastbound on-ramp. So, again, those two things are  
part of this functional classification map revision request on the Central District Office.  
That's just a -- that's our map, our Functional Classification System map of Columbia  
Urbanized Area. There's another category that's somewhat similar to the major  
roadway plan, but it's not exactly the same. This is not something that CATSO has a  
direct impact on. We do give our blessing to it, but we do not accept the actual  
classifications directly. The Tech Committee did review this. They did pass a motion  
forwarding the two to FC map revisions to the Coordinating Committee with a  
recommendation of approval, and that's what we suggest that the Coordinating  
Committee does is pass a motion giving approval to these two proposed Columbia  
FC Functional Classification Map revisions. Thank you.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Question for staff? Can you bring up the map again, of the  
image map, like the drawn on one?  
MR. SKOV: Yes.  
MS. BUFFALOE: So these are -- sorry. I was a little falling behind on --  
MR. SKOV: That's fine.  
MS. BUFFALOE: So this is for what is currently under construction?  
MR. SKOV: No. The -- the roundabout is not currently in construction, to my  
knowledge. I would defer to my MoDOT colleagues on that. But I am not aware of  
it being in construction, but, I mean, there's construction happening out there, but the  
round-about will be something that will be looked at in the future.  
MS. WATKINS: It's part of the plan.  
MS. BUFFALOE: So it will be part of, like, that 4D or whatever-- whatever one  
we are now, not the first phase, but the next Columbia phase, whenever that happens  
and through I-70; is that correct?  
MS. WATKINS: No. This is part of the current construction phase.  
MS. BUFFALOE: It is part of the current construction. Okay. I couldn't  
remember where we fell off.  
MR. YONKE: We're scraping right where this is right now.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay. Okay. And so this is then -- will this change - and so  
this is going to update our classification for East Business Loop.  
MR. SKOV: Yeah. The portion that you see there in red --  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay.  
MR. SKOV: -- will be affected. It will be -- it's not classified currently. It's  
ending -- it's just a local. But it will be a principal arterial as will be the roundabout.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay. Yeah. Just wanted to be clear. You can go ahead  
with a motion request.  
MR. SKOV: Again, the Tech Committee did pass a motion suggesting this be  
approved by CATSO Coordinating Committee, and that's what we suggest the  
Coordinating Committee does is pass a motion giving approval to those two  
proposed functional classification map revisions.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay. Any other questions besides my own? All right. I'll  
make a motion giving approval to the two proposed Columbia Functional  
Classification Map revisions. Do I have a second?  
MR. YONKE: Second.  
MS. BUFFALOE: All those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? (Unanimous  
voice vote for approval.) All right.  
IX. CATSO UNFUNDED NEEDS LIST UPDATE  
Attachments: CATSO Unfunded Needs List Memo 2-18-2025.docx  
Revised Draft CATSO 2025 Unfunded Needs List 2-18-2025.docx  
MS. BUFFALOE: Moving next to the Functional Classification Map Revisions to  
Business Loop 70. Staff comments?  
MR. SKOV: Yes, Ms. Chair. We have a functional classification map for the  
Columbia Metropolitan Area, as do other -- actually, it's not the metropolitan area,  
it's specific to the urbanized area, but this is capped by MoDOT, so, again, it's a  
federal related document. There are two requests that have been made by the  
Central District Office. They're both in association with the I-70/63 interchange  
portion of the I-70 improvement project. You might -- I'm sure committees are all  
aware -- the committees are all aware that the westbound I-70, while a branch of the  
Business Loop was recently closed by MoDOT, and that caused some changes that  
these functional classification revisions will address. I'm just going to go right to the  
map so you can see what we're talking about here. The section in red there where's  
it's got the arrows that say Business Loop 70, that is currently designated as a local on  
the functional classification map. The request is to upgrade this from local to a  
principal arterial. That section formerly had no function because it was -- it was really  
local. There was no connectivity there. You'll recall that the Business Loop did  
terminates west of Hinkson Creek until ten years ago, or whenever that -- that road  
was completed such that it makes a connection with Conley Road onto the south and  
the east. So that portion is one of the changes being requested. The other one is a  
future round-about there. You can see it will be constructed by MoDOT as part of  
the I-70 project. The roundabout also will be a principal arterial, and not only will it  
include a connection to the Business Loop. It also connects to, in the future, I-70  
eastbound off-ramp, and an I-70 eastbound on-ramp. So, again, those two things are  
part of this functional classification map revision request on the Central District Office.  
That's just a -- that's our map, our Functional Classification System map of Columbia  
Urbanized Area. There's another category that's somewhat similar to the major  
roadway plan, but it's not exactly the same. This is not something that CATSO has a  
direct impact on. We do give our blessing to it, but we do not accept the actual  
classifications directly. The Tech Committee did review this. They did pass a motion  
forwarding the two to FC map revisions to the Coordinating Committee with a  
recommendation of approval, and that's what we suggest that the Coordinating  
Committee does is pass a motion giving approval to these two proposed Columbia  
FC Functional Classification Map revisions. Thank you.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Question for staff? Can you bring up the map again, of the  
image map, like the drawn on one?  
MR. SKOV: Yes.  
MS. BUFFALOE: So these are -- sorry. I was a little falling behind on --  
MR. SKOV: That's fine.  
MS. BUFFALOE: So this is for what is currently under construction?  
MR. SKOV: No. The -- the roundabout is not currently in construction, to my  
knowledge. I would defer to my MoDOT colleagues on that. But I am not aware of  
it being in construction, but, I mean, there's construction happening out there, but the  
round-about will be something that will be looked at in the future.  
MS. WATKINS: It's part of the plan.  
MS. BUFFALOE: So it will be part of, like, that 4D or whatever-- whatever one  
we are now, not the first phase, but the next Columbia phase, whenever that happens  
and through I-70; is that correct?  
MS. WATKINS: No. This is part of the current construction phase.  
MS. BUFFALOE: It is part of the current construction. Okay. I couldn't  
remember where we fell off.  
MR. YONKE: We're scraping right where this is right now.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay. Okay. And so this is then -- will this change - and so  
this is going to update our classification for East Business Loop.  
MR. SKOV: Yeah. The portion that you see there in red --  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay.  
MR. SKOV: -- will be affected. It will be -- it's not classified currently. It's  
ending -- it's just a local. But it will be a principal arterial as will be the roundabout.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay. Yeah. Just wanted to be clear. You can go ahead  
with a motion request.  
MR. SKOV: Again, the Tech Committee did pass a motion suggesting this be  
approved by CATSO Coordinating Committee, and that's what we suggest the  
Coordinating Committee does is pass a motion giving approval to those two  
proposed functional classification map revisions.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay. Any other questions besides my own? All right. I'll  
make a motion giving approval to the two proposed Columbia Functional  
Classification Map revisions. Do I have a second?  
MR. YONKE: Second.  
MS. BUFFALOE: All those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? (Unanimous  
voice vote for approval.) All right.  
X. REQUEST FOR ASH STREET MAJOR ROADWAY PLAN REVISION - DISCUSSION  
Attachments: Ash Street Designation Local Motion.pdf  
DRAFT CATSO Tech Minutes 2-11-2025.docx  
Jan 2025 West Ash CATSO doc.docx  
MS. BUFFALOE: Item 10, Request for Ash Street Major Roadway Plan Revision.  
Do we have a staff report?  
MR. SKOV: I just would mention a couple of things here. We obviously  
received requests from the West Ash Neighborhood Association, as well as Local  
Motion, to give consideration to an Ash Street downgrade from its current major  
collector designation to a neighborhood collector. There are two letters from  
organizations that were included with the agenda packet. There also was a copy of  
the draft minutes from the February 11th CATSO Tech Committee meeting to  
provide some additional background on this item. Again, those are just the draft  
minutes, they’re very brief, from the Tech Committee meeting where we had a  
discussion on this item. That's the roadway plan just FYI. The Tech Committee did  
review and discuss the request at their February 11th meeting. They heard from  
representatives of the West Ash Street Neighborhood Association and Local Motion,  
provided as the case's request. The Committee did not take any action, but I'll go  
back to the map for the Committee's discussion. I don't think I have any further --  
anything further to add, Ms. Chair.  
MS. BUFFALOE: All right. So any from the Committee for Staff? I know I do.  
Nobody got questions Mitch. I guess I have a quick question. So on this Major  
Roadway Plan, I was looking -- today agenda has -- on the Major Roadway Plan,  
and on the Functional Classification Map not one that’s there talking about the  
Business Loop changes. They show Stewart as two different designations. So on this  
map, it shows -- like, Stewart Road -- and I know it came up as Ash but that’s been  
one that has been emailed as a comparison one. So on the -- on the functional -  
sorry, what does FC stand for again?  
MR. SKOV: Functional Classification.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Functional Classification, on the attachment for Item 8, I think  
this is. If I read my Roman numerals correct -- it shows that Stewart is a major  
collector, but then on that map of our CATSO major roadway plan, it shows Stewart  
as a neighborhood collector. And I guess that my question is, do we have some  
different designations as City roadway plan versus a CATSO?  
MR. SKOV: Well, for the CATSO Major Roadway Plan, we have a designation  
and the functional class map, which we don't set.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay.  
MR. SKOV: We don't set the functional classification map.  
MR. BUFFALOE: Okay.  
MR. SKOV: That's a federal aid, and it's related to the federal aid system. It's  
something we give our blessings to, but do not actually make a determination on  
those. And the reason that, I think, Stewart is shown as a collector on the functional  
class map is that it would not be -- there is no lower classification than local. I believe  
it's shown as a minor. I can't -- I can't see the map very well, but --  
MR. TEDDY: It's a major collector on the Functional Class.  
MR. SKOV: On the functional map?  
MR. TEDDY: I think that might be the Mayor's point.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Yeah.  
MR. SKOV: Okay. Well, obviously --  
MR. TEDDY: We have it as a neighborhood collector on our Major Report.  
MR. SKOV: And that's -- that's an appropriate designation for Stewart Road. I  
don't know why it's that on the Functional Class Map, but that's not something that  
we control. So the fact that it's a neighborhood collector on the Major Roadway Plan  
I think is appropriate for how it functions.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Yeah. Yeah.  
MR. TEDDY: It's not as long a road. It dead ends at Fifth and the University  
campus and then just west of West Boulevard, whereas Ash is about a three-mile  
roadway as a continuous road west. That's -- that's not the size of the segment that's  
of concern to the neighborhood groups, but that's the total length of it uninterrupted  
and it crosses or connects six major roads.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Right. Do we have any examples in town where that  
continuous roadway changes classification based on the physical built environment of  
where it is, because I think that's where we're hearing a lot feedback is that it's  
different, you know, between the central City areas, and because of the existing built  
environment. I think when I was looking on one of our plans, it showed from building  
structure to building structure in some areas, it was almost close to what we would  
want in right-of-way for a major collector, so I didn't know if we had any other  
examples or if we had the possibility to explore --  
MR. SKOV: The Business Loop is an example that's crossing. I think multiple  
or most of its area, at least from Route B, I believe, to Creasy Springs Road, I believe  
it's an arterial, and then it downgrades to the west of that, along the Cosmo Park area.  
So that -- that is an example just of a roadway that does change designation based on  
the functionality of it.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Yeah.  
MR. SKOV: Because the traffic doesn't drop off west of Creasy Springs Road.  
MR. BUFFALOE: Yeah.  
MR. SKOV: Considering Cosmo.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Yeah. Because what I was looking at, you know, obviously I  
looked at them today, just to see the difference between, like, structures on  
Broadway, Worley and Ash, and then even the of Ash itself in different areas is just  
different as far as the structures, like when you get closer to the ARC and everything.  
So then I was looking at the -- the recommendations, I was trying to find our Major  
Roadway Plan when these conversations might have happen, and I found out that  
Council memo from 2017, and it talks about - and I’ve mentioned this to you before,  
Mitch, about is there a policy for how you would approach, so do you want to speak  
to what are the recommendations for if we want to review the designation, what  
would be the process for that. And you mentioned public hearing and would it be a  
Council directive or coordinating committee directive.  
MR. SKOV: It could be a Council request to CATSO coordinating, or it could  
be a CATSO coordinating directive to staff instead of public hearings.  
MS. BUFFALOE: And what would that -- what would the request be? What  
would the motion be for that?  
MR. SKOV: The motion would be to -- to staff, set a public hearing to give  
consideration to reclassifying Ash Street from a major collector to a neighborhood  
collector. And, again, that would be -- we need to do that in advance. We need at  
least 15 days of public notice and comment area periods, and the Tech Committee  
would be reviewing again before a public hearing is held. The next series of meetings  
is in May.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay. I don't know, like, do you -- I didn't write down any  
word you just said, so I'd like to make that motion that you just said. So say asking  
staff to set a public hearing for --  
MR. SKOV: Reclassification.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Reclassification. So I guess my question is more clarified  
before I make my full motion is, is it possible to do it within a limited space, or would  
it have to be the full of Ash.  
MR. SKOV: Sorry?  
MR. TEDDY: It could be for a portion of that. It doesn't have to be the entire  
length.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Right. So it could be from Garth or Providence -- I actually -  
- Shane, if that were to be a potential, what would be the --  
MR. CREECH: I guess it would depend on what the area of concern is exactly.  
MS. BUFFALOE: I think it's the --  
MR. CREECH: You narrowed it down quite a bit much.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Yeah. I think, for me, my thought for thinking was it would  
be Clinkscales to either Garth or Garth -- what's the next street?  
MR. TEDDY: Providence.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Well, I don't if Providence because Providence has a lot of  
commercial --  
MR. CREECH: No. Between Garth and Providence, there is actually quite a bit  
of commercial.  
MR. TEDDY: Or just probably the start of a real neighborhood.  
MS. BUFFALOE: More residential?  
MR. TEDDY: Yeah.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay. Right. So I'd like to make a motion to ask staff to set  
a public hearing for the reclassification of Ash Street from Garth to Clinkscales. Do I  
have a second? Did you follow my motion?  
MR. SKOV: Yes, I did.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay. Do I have a second?  
MR. TEDDY: I'll second.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Second. All right. Discussion?  
MR. YONKE: I guess I -- the only discussion I've got on it is I'm wondering  
whether this is really the right thing for the desire, because if you look at Ash in that  
neighborhood area, and actually its downtown section, as well, it's part of the old grid  
and street network. And the old grid and street network is a much different animal  
than most of the other types of roadways that we find, especially new roadways that  
get built to the standards. And so you'll find things like Broadway, which is an  
arterial, Ash and Worley, all three relatively similar in its right-of-ways and things like  
that because they function as a system. Similarly, they function as that with Garth and  
then West Boulevard and Clinkscales as the cross-reference roads. And what I'm  
wondering is, would it be better served to have the City investigate that system to see  
if some standards for how that whole system should really work together for traffic  
calming and all because they all have similar issues because my concern is that if you  
alter a system like that that's organic, you'll have unintended consequences of if you  
get it out equilibrium and you throw too much then to the other roadways that are all  
working as a network. And then it might be looking at it too narrowly without taking  
into account how that system works. And maybe if you took it into account how that  
system works, you could come up with some standards that you could then adopt that  
would be workable for all of those sections, and then it wouldn't necessarily matter  
whether it was designated as a neighborhood or major collector or whatever because  
it would have its own set of standards that you guys would be using. It seems like that  
might address the concerns better than just reclassifying the section, and that's the only  
reason I have a concern with it.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Well, I would agree that a full central city transportation  
system probably needs to have its own sort of review system because this area of Ash  
is way different than Ash when you get closer to Fairview, you know, just because of  
age of when it happened. I think the concerns I'm hearing from residents is that but  
we're also currently working with the system that we have, and we're -- we are a  
major project we're working on, and it is impacted by a classification -- the current  
classification of the streets.  
MR. CREECH: I -- I would agree with that.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Oh, okay.  
MR. TEDDY: I don't think that anything we're proposing is necessarily tied to a  
classification group.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Oh.  
MR. CREECH: I mean, we'll be proposing more as to do with the limited  
amount of space we've got between the houses.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Yeah.  
MR. CREECH: We're trying to do the best we can do down in there.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Yeah.  
MR. YONKE: I don't know that the classification of the roadway would change  
what we are proposing.  
MR. TEDDY: Yeah. The City street standards speak to that also. It makes  
note that while we have uniform standards for each type, neighborhood collector  
being one type, major collector being another, that when the street already exists and  
it's already when developed around it, flexibility is needed. So, and the case of Ash  
Street has been pointed out that it has lots and lots of driveways and your major  
collector standards says no driveways are allowed, but we wouldn't ever consider the  
designation of a plan to prohibit existing driveways and a closing. They're necessary,  
so that's a flexibility for right-of-way width. It doesn't mean either neighborhood  
collector standard for most of Ash. That's another example of the flexibility. So the  
City has license, if you will, that in the context sense of that design. I think that's  
important.  
MS. BUFFALOE: So what would the process look like for the -- what Thad is  
referring to then. That sort of review.  
MR. TEDDY: I think the first thing I would -- I would say in this is we just -- we  
just recently in August passed our 2025 Capital Improvement Sales Tax, and there's  
nothing proposed within that along Broadway or Worley, and the Ash Street project  
that we're working on now was in the 2015 Capital Improvement Sales Tax. So in  
the next ten years, all three of their function is essentially the same way. And I agree  
with Thad that they all have to function together. If you do something to one of them,  
that's going to impact the other two. And so the problem I have is we can study it  
and look at it, but if nothing is going to change on those in the next ten years, I'm --  
I'm not exactly sure what -- what that end result would be. We'd probably have  
more information, but I don't know that we would have any way to improve on that.  
That's going to end it right now.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Would the improvement (indiscernible 11:34;10) run the  
2015 Capital Improvement Sales Tax for -- for Ash, will those improvements in - that  
you say it's related, so will we see then some sort of impact on them or brought -- and  
you know what I mean the balancing between Broadway and Worley?  
MR. CREECH: I mean, I would say the project that we have proposed is trying  
to balance all of those, all of those desires, you know, to move traffic volume in  
relation to the other two roadways, but also to provide pedestrian and bicycle  
facilities.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Any other discussion on the motion?  
MR. TEDDY: Well, I just wanted to comment on Thad's remark. We have  
talked about this. There are those other major collectors that Ash actually -- actually  
intersects with. I think at minimum, we at least want to make that part of the staff's  
analysis. It was -- what about those? What about Garth, West and Clinkscales or  
most of Clinkscales, which is -- these are also major collectors, and they have similar  
traffic volumes. Worley has a higher traffic volume, and it's in that major collector  
category and it has similar land use, although it's longer and it gets into the mall area,  
and that probably would be closer to I-70 probably explains higher traffic counts.  
But I think we would want to do something contextual for that report, because we  
might be back in this situation when we're doing another major city project or a city  
project on one of those major collectors.  
MS. BUFFALOE: So I think, regardless of what happens with this vote for the  
second public hearing, I think having those conversations about how review the whole  
system as it stands together would be probably something that's going to need to  
happen. I apologize speaking of a ten-year plan, but we're talking about how -- you  
know, that maybe some of the thing might be not part of the Capital Improvement  
Sales Tax, they may be just part of our planning and overlaid discussion that don't  
necessarily fit that infrastructure, and that's not that we would require. All right. So  
we have a motion and second on setting a public hearing for reviewing reclassification  
of Ash Street from Clinkscales to Garth, a motion and second. Any other discussion  
on this? All right. I'll have -- do you want me to call roll, or how do you -- I don't  
know how you guys do votes at a council meeting.  
MR. SKOV: However you want to do that. We have a recorder here, so --  
MS. BUFFALOE: I think I would like to call role so you -- Mitch, would you  
mind calling the names?  
MR. SKOV: Oh, sure.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Thank you.  
MR. SKOV: Mr. Devereux?  
MR. DEVEREUX: Yes.  
MR. SKOV: Mr. Yonke?  
MR. YONKE: Yes.  
MR. SKOV: Mr. Creech?  
MR. CREECH: Yes.  
MR. SKOV: Ms. Buffaloe?  
MS. BUFFALOE: Yes.  
MR. SKOV: Mr. Teddy?  
MR. TEDDY: Yes.  
MR. SKOV: Mr. Henderson?  
MR. HENDERSON: Yes.  
MR. SKOV: Ms. Watkins?  
MS. WATKINS: Yes.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay. So motion passes to have a set public hearing for  
having this reviewed for reclassification. I appreciate that. Thank you. All right.  
XI. CATSO DRAFT COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT HUMAN SERVICES  
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE  
MS. BUFFALOE: Next we have the CATSO Draft Coordinated Public Transit  
Human Services Transportation Plan Update. That's quite a mouthful for the title.  
MR. SKOV: It's the longest acronym I can think of.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Go ahead. Go ahead. Do the staff report.  
MR. SKOV: Yeah. This item is currently being prepared. It's in draft format.  
It's one of those documents that I don't think too many people see. I have to see it,  
but it is something we are required to turn in to the Federal Transit Administration, so  
it's on schedule to be presented to the committees in May. It's just FYI.  
MS. BUFFALOE: All right. Any questions for staff? No. All right.  
XII. OTHER BUSINESS  
MS. BUFFALOE: Going on, is there any other business?  
MR. SKOV: No, not to my knowledge.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay.  
XIII. GENERAL COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, MEMBERS AND STAFF  
MS. BUFFALOE: Great. General comments by the public. Would anyone wish  
to speak? Any comments from members? We appreciate that. Appreciate the  
additional information, Mitch. Mitch, any comments from staff?  
MR. SKOV: Not from me. Thank you.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay. Great.  
XIV. NEXT MEETING DATE  
MS. BUFFALOE: When is our next meeting date?  
MR. SKOV: It's May 22nd, which is -- this will be back on the usual Thursday  
schedule. I believe this was due to weather and what have you. It can get changed  
for weather reasons, but that will be the next one, May 22nd, Thursday.  
MS. BUFFALOE: Okay. Well, it’ll probably be so beautiful no one will want to  
come.  
XV. ADJOURNMENT  
MS. BUFFALOE: We'll go ahead and adjourn.  
(The meeting adjourned at 3:09 PM)  
Members of the public may attend any open meeting. For requests for accommodations related to  
disability, please call 573-874-CITY (573-874-2489) or email CITY@CoMo.gov. In order to assist staff in  
making the appropriate arrangements for your accommodation, please make your request as far in  
advance of the posted meeting date as possible.  
USB DRIVES PROHIBITED: Due to cybersecurity concerns, flash drives and other media devices  
are no longer permitted for delivering files or presentation materials. A speaker who desires to  
display a presentation must upload the presentation, in advance, to the city network using an  
upload portal. To upload your files and learn more, visit CoMo.gov/upload. (Effective Jan. 1,  
2023)