City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
City Council  
Council Chamber  
Columbia City Hall  
701 E. Broadway  
Tuesday, September 7, 2021  
7:00 PM  
Regular  
I. INTRODUCTORY ITEMS  
The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for  
a regular meeting at  
approximately 7:27 p.m. on Tuesday, September 7, 2021, in the Council Chamber of the  
City of Columbia, Missouri. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited, and the roll was taken  
with the following results: Council Member BETSY PETERS, Mayor BRIAN TREECE,  
Council Member PAT FOWLER, Council Member ANDREA WANER, Council Member  
KARL SKALA, Council Member IAN THOMAS, and Council Member MATT PITZER were  
present. City Manager John Glascock, City Counselor Nancy Thompson, City Clerk  
Sheela Amin, and various Department Heads and Staff Members were also present.  
The minutes of the regular meeting of July 6, 2021 were approved unanimously by voice  
vote on a motion by Treece and a second by Skala.  
Treece explained the minutes were not yet complete for the July 19, 2021, August 2,  
2021, and August 16 regular meetings nor the August 9, 2021 and September 1 special  
meetings.  
Skala asked that B267-21 be moved from the consent agenda to old business.  
The agenda, including the consent agenda with B267-21 being moved to old business,  
was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Treece and a second by Skala.  
II. SPECIAL ITEMS  
None.  
III. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS  
None.  
IV. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT  
SPC48-21  
Lydia Olmsted - Accessibility issues with the new CoMo.gov website.  
Lydia Olmsted noted she was a member of the Disabilities Commission and wanted to  
express concerns along with potential fixes the Council could help to facilitate with regard  
to the City’s website. Olmsted stated the website was not screen-reader friendly, and  
explained a screen-reader read what was on the screen to people like her that could not  
read print. Olmsted commented that she could not access the COVID information page,  
the boards and commissions page, the city council meeting broadcasts, and the  
strategic plan information. Olmsted pointed out there were many other pages that were  
not accessible with screen-readers, and those were only a few examples. Olmsted noted  
she had worked with Information Technology (IT) staff for about 20 hours reviewing the site  
and meeting with them regarding concerns with the site. Although they seemed fairly  
interested in helping, they were not overly familiar with the assistive technology she used .  
They also did not have access to the JAWS screen-reader so they were unable to test  
the site to ensure it was accessible and ADA compliant. Olmsted suggested the City hire  
an outside expert who could specifically help to ensure the website was screen reader  
accessible and ADA compliant. Olmsted also suggested the City purchase a JAWS  
screen reader license so the site could be tested in terms of accessibility.  
Olmsted  
thanked the Council for listening to some of her prior comments regarding accessible  
pedestrian signals and truncated domes as they had been extremely helpful for her, and  
noted she hoped to see the similar changes happen in positive ways with the website.  
Treece thanked Olmsted for sharing her concerns and potential solutions.  
SPC49-21  
Susan Renee Carter - City demographics: racial disparities, concerns and  
needed changes.  
Susan Renee Carter commented that she had some concerns about the City of Columbia  
profile page that would be included in the budget. One issue was that the City was  
measuring from 2015 to 2019 instead of the latest census data that was available from  
2020. Carter understood the document indicated that the relationship between population  
changes and other economic factors was not clear, and questioned why that was not  
known when trying to develop outcomes for the City. In addition, the methodology used  
for measurements was not provided, and much of it seemed to be based on assumptions.  
The document discussed the relationships of population, income, and the use of services,  
but there was not any data in support of it. Carter understood the median household  
income for blacks was $12,650 for 2019, which was a concern. Also, the poverty level for  
black households in 2019 was 35 percent, which was twice as much as white citizens,  
and the unemployment rate for the black population was listed as 9.9 percent, which was  
close to three times that of white citizens. Carter noted it had been skewed as being  
somewhat better than it had been, which was concerning to her. Carter suggested they  
ensure accuracy when speaking about numbers, and explained that given the mission  
statement, vision statement, and core values, she expected to see outcomes targeting  
the black population, but that had not been included. Carter stated she did not see any  
outcomes related to how black people were include with everyone in the community in  
terms of the City saying how it wanted everyone to live, work, and live the life they wanted  
to live. Carter noted she also did not see any data tied to how anything would be  
improved by spending all of this money. They paid people to provide job skills training and  
mental health services, but there was not information as to the results at the end. Carter  
suggested developing outcomes related to concerning statistics, ensuring the data was  
accurate, and showing whether or not the outcomes were being met. Carter felt listing  
demographics alone was meaningless and did not help plan for the next year in terms of  
what needed to be done for the people. Carter commented that if things were not going  
well, they should correct the situation by trying to determine what people needed to live a  
better life and whether what they were currently doing was useful. Carter suggested they  
look at all of the different agencies in terms of what they already had, and to then bring  
them together to help target people more specifically and deliberately. Carter felt they  
needed to consolidate resources for people instead of asking them to run around all over  
the place trying to determine where they could obtain certain types of assistance, like  
money for utilities or mental health services. There needed to be a unification of all of the  
rich resources available in the community.  
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS  
PH32-21  
FY 2022 Annual Budget for the City of Columbia.  
Discussion shown with B244-21.  
B241-21  
B242-21  
Adopting the FY 2022 Annual Budget for the City of Columbia.  
Discussion shown with B244-21.  
Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code relating to certain Public Health  
and Human Services Department fees.  
Discussion shown with B244-21.  
B243-21  
B244-21  
Amending Chapter 22 of the City Code to suspend transportation fares for  
users of the GoCOMO Public Transit System for the period October 1,  
2021 to September 30, 2022.  
Discussion shown with B244-21.  
Amending Chapter 27 of the City Code as it relates to water rates.  
PH32-21 was read by the City Clerk, and B241-21, B242-21, B243-21, and B244-21 were  
given third reading by the City Clerk.  
Finance Director Matthew Lue provided a staff report.  
Treece asked for an estimate if they adopted all 39 of the staff amendments. Lue replied  
it would result in an increase of about $6 million. Treece understood it would be paid for  
out of the various funds that were identified. Lue stated that was correct. Lue noted about  
$2 million would involve the general fund, and the remaining would be scattered. Treece  
asked about the bulk of the general fund amendments. Lue replied it was due to the  
changes associated with Police and Fire. Treece understood that was referenced in Staff  
Amendment #22. Lue stated that was correct.  
Thomas commented that he had requested an amendment to reinstate the $35,000 for a  
community media center in FY 2022 and to provide that same amount of funding for FY  
2021 as that had not been provided. Thomas understood Lue had indicated that amount  
was in the budget for FY 2022, and that the other $35,000 had not been included. Lue  
explained they had included it on the amendment sheet handed out tonight, and it was  
identified as Council Amendment #5.  
Skala stated he wanted an amendment so that excess sales tax would go toward  
restoring funds in the land acquisition category that had been diminished, and asked for  
that amendment to be prepared for the next meeting. Peters asked if that would come  
from the park sales tax. Skala replied it could. Skala understood there had been some  
accommodation by the Parks and Recreation Director to restore some of the funding, but  
he did not feel it was enough and wanted to see a standalone amendment with a  
mechanism to restore it to a level that was acceptable to the Council.  
Pitzer asked for clarification regarding Staff Amendment #31, which involved the G&A  
fees for solid waste as it appeared as though they were taking them from solid waste and  
moving them to electric. Lue replied electric was subsidizing the G&A fees for solid  
waste, and had been for some time. This had been unknown and it was a big expense.  
As a result, they were going to phase those costs in over the next few years. Pitzer  
understood the electric utility had been subsidizing solid waste. Lue replied that was  
correct in terms of G&A fees. Peters asked for clarification regarding G&A fees. Lue  
replied G&A fees were general and administrative expense fees. Peters asked for further  
clarification. Lue replied they were items associated with human resources, payroll,  
inspectors, and some employees within the division along with fixed fees. Pitzer asked  
how long this had been going on. Lue replied he did not know. Lue explained they  
realized it when they had reviewed all of the G&A fees this year as they planned to  
include them as actuals versus budgeted amounts. When that review was done, they had  
noticed it would create  
a
huge expense to solid waste, which could not be  
accommodated without an increase in the rates. Pitzer understood the electric utility had  
been subsidizing solid waste for a number of years. This year that cost would have been  
$775,000. Lue replied he could not speak as to how long this had been happening, but  
when they had reviewed the G&A fees this year, this was the result.  
Glascock  
commented that for years, there had been a complicated G&A fee calculation. Glascock  
thought it had taken 27 different steps, and one never knew what the impact would be.  
As a result, he had asked staff to develop a standard way of determining G&A fees so it  
was fair and predictable every year, and this was the outcome. They felt this was too  
much for solid waste to absorb now, but next year, they thought it would be back to  
where it needed to be and would be more predictable for each department. Pitzer stated  
he understood the need for predictability, but was trying to determine how electric got  
involved with solid waste. Glascock replied it had been the result of that complicated  
calculation.  
Pitzer asked for clarification regarding Staff Amendment #18, which involved the  
seventeen temporary staff positions for the Department of Health and Human Services.  
Pitzer noted they had talked about how that should be a priority for the American Rescue  
Plan Act (ARPA) funds, but this amendment involved the funds coming from the general  
fund. In addition, the text of the amendment indicated the possibility of utilizing ARPA  
funding for it. Pitzer wondered if this amendment should be for the general fund or whether  
they should specify it would come from ARPA funding. Lue replied that was very much as  
Council decision. Pitzer understood the Council would need to amend this amendment if  
they wanted to utilize ARPA funding. Lue stated that was not necessarily the case. The  
amendment was not presented in terms of from where the money would come so if the  
Council wanted it to come from ARPA funding, they would be able to do that with this.  
Treece commented that the fund or amounts could be changed when they took up the  
amendments as his intent was to walk through each amendment. They could then vote  
on them individually or as a group.  
Fowler understood Staff Amendment #18 referenced other sources revenue as an offset,  
and asked if the offset from cooperative agreements was for just twelve of the seventeen  
temporary positions.  
Public Health and Human Services Director Stephanie Browning  
explained the amendment included what they anticipated as the total cost. Browning  
noted they had been told for more than a year that the Missouri Department of Health and  
Senior Services would provide some additional funding. Browning stated they had  
provided $255,000 to date, and she understood there would be more. Browning explained  
she was asking for what was needed in terms of authority, and pointed out the Boone  
County Commission had agreed to pay a third. Browning stated if she could find another  
way to pay for it, she would attempt to do so. Fowler understood that if they were going  
to take a portion out of the ARPA funds, it would be after all of those other sources had  
been exhausted. Browning stated that was correct, but clarified they might have to start  
with general fund or ARPA funding because they might not know for months what other  
funding they might receive. When they received the other funding, they would pivot so  
they were spending money from that new source immediately.  
Fowler asked how much the City had received from the Volkswagen settlement.  
Glascock replied he did not recall. Fowler asked if it was apportioned annually whereby a  
new payment was received every year.  
understood they had to apply for it.  
Glascock replied he did not recall, but  
Peters asked for clarification regarding the reason for the Volkswagen settlement.  
Glascock replied Volkswagen had not followed emission standards and had settled the  
issue with the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), and the use of the  
funds from that settlement involved electric charging stations, buses, and other  
environmentally friendly items.  
Fowler understood there would be an expenditure for software that tracked the fleet in  
solid waste, and that a statement was made indicating that tracking the fleet made the  
routes more effective and decreased idling times, and asked for clarification. Glascock  
replied he understood they had never run a computer simulation of the routes, and they  
wanted to model their routes to determine if they could be more efficient and effective in  
terms of picking up trash. This software would assist them in creating routes.  
Fowler  
asked if that would help them understand the cost of providing that service. Glascock  
replied yes. Fowler understood the City was in the beginning stages of the cost of  
service study for solid waste. Glascock stated that was correct.  
Fowler asked if the reduction involving the WIC program was due to less money being  
available or changes to the eligibility requirements. Browning replied there had been a  
reduction in caseload, and that was how the funding was determined. Browning noted  
they had seen an increase in the caseload lately and thought there could be a mid -year  
adjustment if necessary. Fowler asked if the reduction in caseload had been due to  
people not circulating because of COVID or if there was another explanation. Browning  
replied it had varied over the years. Browning explained their caseload had increased  
dramatically when they had moved to the Worley Street location, likely due to  
accessibility. Browning pointed out it could also be associated with the demand at any  
particular time. Fowler understood it was still in the same location. Browning stated that  
was correct.  
Fowler commented that there was a reference to a generous amount of grant funded  
money for marketing a new route at the airport, and asked for clarification. Economic  
Development Director Stacey Button replied it was through the USDOT SCASDP grant  
program.  
Fowler asked Skala if he was not only speaking about a portion of park sales tax if it  
rebounded to address the land acquisition category, but an additional amount as well .  
Skala replied he was talking about sales tax in general as their targets were typically very  
conservative. In the last year or so, they had exceeded the targets by a substantial  
amount, which had put them in a good financial position. Skala stated he wanted the  
funds restored to the high watermark level for land acquisition as quickly as possible .  
Fowler asked for clarification on the amendment as she was having trouble determining  
how that would be calculated. Skala understood it would be based on sales tax returns .  
If there were excesses in sales tax returns beyond the projections in the budget, those  
monies could be set aside for land acquisition. Fowler understood that would be  
specifically for land acquisition by the Parks and Recreation Department. Skala  
commented that the Parks and Recreation Department typically oversaw land acquisition,  
but understood other funds were sometimes utilized and provided the purchase of land  
near the Flat Branch area that had involved both park sales tax and general fund money  
as an example. Fowler hoped they could define that better as it lacked specificity and  
she wanted to know exactly what she would be voting on.  
Fowler understood $1.5 million would be moved from the general fund to the Parks and  
Recreation Department budget for the Sports Fieldhouse, and asked if that was correct.  
Lue replied yes. Fowler asked how they would make up the difference in finishing up that  
project. Glascock replied that needed to be decided as he believed another $3 million  
would be needed.  
Treece opened the public hearing.  
Traci Wilson-Kleekamp explained she was with Race Matters, Friends, and understood  
most of the amendments were staff amendments. Wilson-Kleekamp wondered about the  
analysis behind making the suggestions as a lot of them were very hardware oriented and  
there was not much that was people oriented. Wilson-Kleekamp wanted to know about  
the methodology of how things were chosen. Wilson-Kleekamp wondered how the  
amendments associated with funding the Sports Fieldhouse or the idea that excess  
sales tax should go to the Parks and Recreation Department to acquire land were  
chosen. Wilson-Kleekamp wondered why any extra funding would not be placed with the  
Public Health and Human Services Department instead. Wilson-Kleekamp asked if there  
was a rhyme or reason to the prioritization of these things. Wilson-Kleekamp understood  
the electric utility had been subsidizing the solid waste utility due to a certain formula,  
and they did not even know if that formula was fair. Wilson-Kleekamp asked how data  
was used to make decisions. There were charts, but not analyses or methodologies.  
Wilson-Kleekamp felt there were some serious challenges that needed to be addressed,  
and did not see that there was work behind the numbers.  
Bill Folk referred to a commentary he had recently written that had been published in the  
Columbia Missourian and explained heat was the number one weather related killer in the  
United States and that it would be much worse with the warming climate they were  
experiencing. Over the next 50 years, what they had considered once in a lifetime heat  
event would likely occur 4-5 times per year. Folk stated heat killed, and it especially  
killed the most vulnerable, i.e., those who could not control the heat stress they were  
experiencing. Folk thought they needed to be sure to anticipate what was going to  
happen due to the warming climate and felt the Council had the opportunity to use some  
of the ARPA funds to begin mitigating the heat stress they would experience. Folk noted  
one of the top ways to mitigate heat stress and heat islands was to plant trees. Street  
trees in particular reduced the heat stress that individuals experienced and removed the  
pollutants that were causing the warming climate. This included carbon dioxide and other  
pollutants that caused asthma and other respiratory problems. Planting trees would  
reduce the heat stress along with the causes of the heat. Folk stated he had not seen  
this really important aspect that had been highly recommended by the Environmental  
Protection Agency (EPA) in their plans for ARPA funding. Folk asked the Council to  
make a commitment to begin to restore the tree canopy in Columbia. Folk pointed out  
the First Ward in particular was well below what was recommended in terms of the  
projected tree canopy needed to reduce the heat stress they would experience. It was  
true of other wards as well. Folk explained about one-third of the trees in Columbia were  
in fair or poor health, and the heat they would experience would harm them as well. Folk  
stated they needed to make a commitment on an annual basis to ensure their tree cover  
was adequate for the projected impact of climate change.  
Peter Norgard commented that the ARPA funding was a unique and unlikely opportunity  
for the City to demonstrate compassion and humanity toward those that had truly  
suffered through the COVID pandemic, and he feared those monies were at risk of being  
misspent. Norgard understood Congress had attached few requirements to how these  
allocations were to be spent, but they had provided some implicit guidance. Congress  
had authorized four general categories it deemed appropriate for the use of ARPA money,  
and they were for direct assistance to households, small businesses, and non-profit or to  
aid industries, such as tourism and hospitality, hazard pay to essential workers, public  
services, and necessary investments in infrastructure. Norgard felt the City’s funding  
priorities should reflect the priorities Congress intended for the money and the needs of  
the community. Norgard commented that he lived two blocks away from the Salvation  
Army Harbor House, and the number of unhoused and homeless individuals had  
increased dramatically over the last 1.5 years.  
In addition, mental health crises were  
common and increasing. Norgard understood the City was prioritizing $13 million for  
infrastructure projects, which was more than 50 percent of the entire allocation. Norgard  
noted Columbia had an entire shadow community of people in need, and they were, once  
again, on the verge of entirely missing the picture. They had chosen not to ask the right  
questions and were operating on limited information or information that was limited by  
their own sheltered middle-class experiences. They had also chosen to keep relying on  
the generosity of interfaith and non-profits along with their advocates who had been  
working tirelessly to stem the growing tide. Norgard commented that they were tossing  
out little scraps with the hope the problem would go back into the shadows. Norgard  
believed they had an obligation as a moral society to offer hope and assistance to the  
growing numbers of marginalized citizens. Norgard commented that the priorities  
reflected in the proposed ARPA expenditures did not reflect his values or priorities as a  
compassionate and caring citizen.  
Norgard asked the Council to subject the ARPA  
allocations to a robust public hearing process separate from this budget discussion .  
Norgard noted it was taxpayer money and felt the public should have a say in how it was  
spent. Norgard also believed the money should be utilized for people before projects.  
Christopher Moody noted two business leaders, Jackie and Doreen, were starting a  
non-profit called Caring Hearts and Hands of Columbia that helped families of dying  
people by providing affordable options for care. Moody explained they had presented at a  
1 Million Cups event, and people had asked for their stories. Moody had suggested to  
them that they obtain video testimonials of people going through these life changing  
events to show they were making a positive impact in the community. Moody stated he  
had been on the Board of Directors of PACE, which was an organization that had gone  
under due to COVID, and they had classes teaching kids art, dance, and improvisational  
skills that were needed to grow. Moody believed it would have been great if they had  
been given the opportunity to video their work to show the community its impact, but they  
had not had Vidwest or Columbia Access Television (CAT). Moody understood there had  
been reference to trees and a shadow community of poverty earlier, and suggested  
someone take a camera and microphone to the areas to show how hot it was or to the  
homeless to illustrate their struggles. Moody believed public media and access to  
cameras, microphones, software, etc. was necessary. Moody pointed out he felt it was  
unacceptable that Mediacom was stifling fiber installation and preventing CAT from being  
streamed. Moody suggested everyone document what they stood for and broadcast it on  
CAT while also showing it to politicians and the community in an effort to make a  
difference.  
Adam Saunders stated he was speaking on behalf of the Columbia Center for Urban  
Agriculture (CCUA) and Columbia’s Agriculture Park, and noted they had been working  
with the City of Columbia via public/private partnership for the last six years. They had  
come a long way in broadening the vision of the Farmers Market with a permanent  
pavilion that connected to social service, food insecurity, education, etc. Saunders noted  
they had raised over $5.8 million for the project to include 75 percent in privately raised  
funds, and asked for help with this last piece via the general fund, unrestricted dollars, or  
ARPA monies. Saunders explained they had also communicated with Boone County and  
understood the County was considering the request. Saunders commented that since the  
beginning, they had been action oriented, and this last piece would include  
a
multi-purpose welcome center, which was shovel-ready. It would expand their educational  
programming for kitchen, gardening, nutrition, and entrepreneurship and would provide  
office space for CCUA and the Farmers Market. Saunders noted this investment could  
be further leveraged by investing in non-profit capacity to address some of the  
complicated problems related to food access, education, tree planting, etc.  
hoped they could work together in this budget process to complete this project.  
Saunders  
Billy Polansky noted he was also with CCUA and commented that the Agriculture Park  
was a resource for the community that improved the health of their neighbors and created  
resiliency in the food system.  
They were growing food for families in need and  
empowering people with the skills to grow and prepare their own healthy food at home.  
Polansky pointed out the Park was the headquarters of CCUA and supported all of their  
programs, which were disproportionately serving people that lived in poverty and people  
who were within minority racial and ethnic groups as they were targeting the most  
vulnerable and underserved members of the community with their programs.  
Polansky  
explained they grew food at the Park, and this had equated to about 30,000 pounds of  
fresh produce last year that was donated to families in need. Polansky noted they had  
been able to use CARES Act funding to get produce from local farmers to the Food Bank,  
and their Opportunity Gardens program had impacted about 100 low incomes families per  
year by providing materials and teaching them how to grow their own fresh and healthy  
foods at home. In addition, they had about 20,000 student interactions per year with their  
farm to school partnership with the Columbia Public Schools as they helped Title  
elementary schools with their gardens and students traveled to the Agriculture Park for  
field trips involving educational and healthy activities. Polansky pointed out they  
1
maintained garden sites across Columbia through different partnerships, helped with the  
Nora Stewart Early Learning Center, and had therapeutic gardening activities with  
veterans at the VA Hospital and Patriot Place. This year they planned to work with  
Phoenix Programs to provide therapeutic gardening for people in drug and alcohol  
rehabilitation, and last year they had launched the Henry Kirkland Black Farmer  
Scholarship whereby money would be given to African-Americans that wanted to become  
farmers or expand their farming enterprises. Polansky noted all of these programs were  
coordinated from the Agriculture Park, and they were currently in an old classroom trailer .  
The proposed welcome center would be the headquarters of all of those operations.  
Corrina Smith stated she was the Executive Director for the Columbia Farmers Market,  
which had been open since 1980 and had remained a centralized hub for fresh local food  
in the community. Smith noted it was a very unique space where urban met rural. Over  
the past six years, they had experienced tremendous growth by expanding their  
programming and partnerships, and one of the key partnerships had been with all of the  
organizations that worked at the Agriculture Park. Smith believed the Agriculture Park  
was a jewel for the community with the centerpiece being the pavilion that housed the  
Columbia Farmers Market. It was a blueprint for local agriculture across the country, and  
was paving the way for farmers markets to replicate nationwide. The programming they  
offered and the sales their vendors generated made a huge difference for their low income  
communities. In 2019, when they had moved into the pavilion, they had over 109,000  
customers visit the Farmers Market. Thus far this year, they had over 85,000 customers  
visit. In 2019, they had estimated $2.2 million had been sold in local food, which had  
gone back into the pockets of the vendors. Smith noted that like everyone else, they had  
expected more for 2020, but while things had not turned out like they had imagined, there  
were a few bright spots.  
The Columbia Farmers Market had not closed during the  
pandemic and while national supply food chains had broken down, theirs had remained  
open and strong. In addition, through many adaptations in 2020, their total sales were  
similar to 2019. Smith commented that they had already matched $35,000 in SNAP and  
WIC benefits for Boone County residents this year through their SNAP and WIC matching  
programs, and it was surpassing prior year numbers. They had also dispensed another  
$34,000 in SNAP benefits to customers.  
Smith explained the program allowed low  
income Columbia residents the opportunity to access and eat healthy locally grown and  
raised food. As they looked forward to the future and the final pieces of the Agriculture  
Park being completed, they anticipated expanded and continued growth.  
Smith noted  
the expansion of the pavilion would put the remaining two-thirds of the venders under one  
roof, keeping them and their customers dry and safe from the weather, and the  
construction of the welcome center and commercial kitchen would offer Columbia food  
entrepreneurs a much needed space to cook their value added products, which could  
then be sold to the Columbia community. Smith stated this space would be another  
economic development opportunity offered through the Agriculture Park.  
Smith  
commented that the Columbia Farmers Market and the Agricultural Park made the  
community and their food supply chain stronger and better.  
Dustin Stanton explained he was the President of the Columbia Farmers Market and was  
representing the 80-plus vendors, the staff and management, and their tens of thousands  
of customers. Stanton understood comments had made with regard to the low income  
residents they served and he wanted to point out there were low income farmers involved  
as well. The year 2020 had shown a farmers income with inflation added to it was the  
lowest it had been for over 30 years. The ability to have a place to market one’s goods  
for a new generation to have the opportunity to grow an operation was truly beneficial .  
Education was important too since they wanted to train the current and next generation of  
farmers, consumers, and students. Stanton noted the Farmers Market had supplied the  
local area with food every week. In 2020, they had over 70,000 customers, and this year,  
they were at 85,000 customers to date.  
Stanton commented that job creation was  
important as well, and to date 134 jobs were being supplied by the farmers and farm  
workers. The anticipated growth for next year alone was 224 workers, and this number  
would continue to grow as more investments were made to the Agriculture Park. Stanton  
pointed out this investment impacted the people, i.e., customers and farmers, and that  
investment continued to stay within the City. Stanton stated they were looking for an  
opportunity to do what they loved and enjoyed, and building this would allow them to  
expand their operations.  
Jonathan Asher noted he was speaking on behalf of funding for public media. Asher  
commented that about ten years ago while attending the University of Missouri he had  
come across the CAT-TV studios and had witnessed someone responding across the  
room to a complicated question asked by an elderly woman with purple hair, known as  
Pat Holt. Asher explained he had been intrigued by CAT but had no interest in having a  
cable show so he had never gotten involved. Asher stated he did not feel Vidwest, as an  
organization, was at all like the old CAT-TV. It was larger in scope with very passionate  
volunteers. Asher explained he had been to Vidwest Studios this past Saturday and had  
been able to see the run through of a movie that would be shot locally next month, and  
stated he would be going again this Sunday for pictures that would run in a local  
magazine. When the CCUA Harvest Hootenanny could not be held in person, it was  
streamed live by Vidwest. In addition, Vidwest had live-streamed the State bicentennial  
which had involved about 30 events in three days.  
People also utilized the Vidwest  
Studios to film music videos. Asher stated there was so much that was accessible to  
people, and noted he viewed it as a mirror of the physical things that could be built in the  
Moberly Area Community College (MACC) Makerspace except that it involved digital  
assets. Asher asked the Council to fund it and to fund it more significantly.  
Carrie Gartner explained she was speaking on behalf of the Business Loop Community  
Improvement District (CID) with regard to the shared spaces along the Business Loop, to  
include Vidwest Studios and the MACCLab Makerspace. Gartner noted both were  
modeled similar to the CoMo Cooks Shared Kitchen where there was a very low monthly  
fee for entry. It made it more accessible and lowered barriers for people that wanted to  
start a business. Gartner commented that minority and women business owners utilized  
the shared kitchen the most. They were people that did not have the funding to buy the  
equipment and build out a space. It was workforce development and entrepreneurship .  
The MACCLab Makerspace had a key workforce development component since it was  
connected to the mechatronics lab. It allowed people to start a business and trained  
them to work at other businesses by providing higher level skills. They were key elements  
for the Business Loop, and involved small amounts of money for the huge impact they  
would make on the lives of people that wanted to start a business in Columbia. Gartner  
stated she also wanted to advocate for stormwater management for the Business Loop  
as it was currently a sea of asphalt since it had been built in the 1960s and because  
stormwater was a barrier to some really interesting redevelopment there. A regional  
stormwater management system where property owners paid into the stormwater  
management system could really help encourage redevelopment in an area of town that  
was still affordable for people. Gartner commented that she realized this might not be at  
the top of everyone’s list and that there would be other funding and opportunities in the  
future, but pointed out it was a plan that required the involvement of city government. It  
could not be done by a private entity and was too large to be done by a CID like theirs .  
Gartner noted they could all be partners, but it really had to be spearheaded by the City  
of Columbia. Stormwater management was an infrastructure program that would help  
them rebuild their street, and if they could make it beautiful with a trail that connected  
Cosmo Park and Stephens Lake Park, it would be icing on the cake. Gartner asked the  
Council to consider it as she felt it was a perfect project for the City to do.  
Fowler asked if the shared kitchen was a City funded project or a Business Loop CID  
funded project. Gartner replied the CID had partnered with REDI. REDI had incurred the  
bulk of the cost associated with it, which included the equipment and buildout that  
needed to be done at Mizzou North. The CID funded staff, which included the kitchen  
manager, along with promotions, which included the booth at the Farmers Market.  
Gartner felt it was a great partnership between the two organizations.  
Fowler asked if the funding provided by REDI had been from its subscribers or if it was  
City of Columbia money. Button replied REDI funds came from public and private entities  
so it included the City, the County, and the University along with over 70 private entities.  
Those funds were then allocated to their programs, one of which was CoMo Cooks.  
Fowler asked how much it had cost to build out the kitchen. Button replied she thought it  
had been roughly $70,000-$75,000 for the equipment, space, and buildout. Fowler asked  
if that $70,000 came from money the City had put into REDI or if it had been apportioned  
to all of the subscribers and investors in REDI. Button replied the funds that came in,  
regardless of who it came from, went into REDI’s operating budget, and from there,  
reserves were set aside. The REDI Board then looked at various projects and programs  
to determine how those dollars would be invested back into the community, and this had  
been one of those programs.  
Aimee Davenport asked for support for the public media center. Davenport noted she was  
a long time Columbia resident, a mother of two daughters, and a Vidwest board member.  
Davenport commented that she had moved here 25 years ago to raise her family after  
moving around a great deal when she was younger, and the reason was that Columbia  
had always been ever evolving and had offered opportunities for growth and learning in  
ways she did not think was possible for a Midwestern town. Davenport stated it was  
things like what Vidwest and other great organizations were doing that allowed her family  
to flourish and succeed.  
facilitate more of that kind of growth and learning for the residents of Columbia to keep  
them evolving. Davenport noted it was place where students, residents, small  
Davenport believed a healthy, public media center would  
a
businesses, non-profits, and those without large marketing budgets could access and  
learn about technology to which they otherwise would not be exposed. Davenport felt it  
had a lot of value in getting stories out and in decreasing the socioeconomic digital divide .  
All segments of the community needed to be exposed to this kind of thing regardless of  
whether it involved the creation of a podcast or a commercial or the live-streaming of an  
event. Davenport stated Vidwest was ready to administer the program, and pointed out  
they were putting together a very aggressive fundraising strategy knowing the City had  
lots of priorities. It was their goal to supplement the funding they were asking from the  
City over the next year to two years. Davenport asked for the Council’s consideration and  
vote to fund the media center in FY 2022 so they could continue with what they had  
done.  
Charisse Smith commented that she was a local small business owner, and as an  
entrepreneur of the area, she had made use of REDI, the Women’s Business Center, etc.  
Smith stated she loved being a member of the HUB, and thought it would be nice if she  
had digital services support prior to learning of Vidwest. Smith noted Vidwest was her  
digital makerspace, and with them, she had been able to expand the scope of 3-D  
services provided to her clients, which included Mizzou and others. Smith believed the  
video side of things was the future and felt it was important for it to be accessible to  
people that would not be able to access it otherwise.  
Aída Guhlincozzi explained she was new to the Columbia community joining as  
a
researcher, and had recently seen the choices that had been made with regard to  
performance pay and the three options for raises that had been proposed via a records  
request by Race Matters. Guhlincozzi felt the option chosen was the least reasonable in  
terms of statistical method and led to the fewest number of City employees receiving a  
raise. This was not only disappointing, but it had also led to a lack of faith in the fairness  
of the process. Guhlincozzi stated she had taken the data and examples provided from  
the records requests and had visualized some of them via graphs, which she had provided  
to the Council. Option 1, the selected option, had led to the fewest number of people  
receiving a raise and was often based on almost unattainable goals of performance  
scores. Guhlincozzi commented that her reason for bringing this up was due to her fear of  
a similar lack of data oriented process being put into place when making choices about  
spending ARPA funds. Guhlincozzi hoped this and future budget meetings would not end  
in the ARPA funds being categorized into usages prior to a thorough, transparent, and  
publicly engaged data-driven process for identifying the best uses for these funds per the  
entire community’s wishes. Guhlincozzi asked the Council to engage the public before  
implementing the ARPA funds. Although Guhlincozzi was hearing many wonderful and  
important projects being requested, she believed more time, discussion, and input from  
all members of the community was needed to ensure they were taking care of people,  
especially the most vulnerable and least represented on the Council and in government in  
general.  
Aaron Phillips stated he was a local filmmaker who had moved to Columbia in 2015 to  
attend the University of Missouri for photojournalism, but had later realized documentary  
film was more his calling.  
Phillips noted he had been involved in filmmaking, i.e.,  
documentary, commercial, or narrative, over the last 3-4 years, and most of that  
community consisted of volunteers. It was through relationships and friendships that  
projects were made. Studio money involved a high level, but everything else involved the  
sheer will of making something with the people around them. Phillips commented that he  
had been involved with Vidwest as a volunteer, helping to set up the studio, parse through  
the equipment, setting up the live-stream, and determining how that service could be  
provided to the community. Phillips noted he had seen several young African-American  
men in the Vidwest Studio that were taking photographs for paying gigs and would  
otherwise not have access to a studio. Phillips commented that this was a resource that  
would be different from what he understood the last iteration of CAT had been, and this  
was due to the fact that both technology and society were changing. Phillips thought a  
public television output like cable television could be a good product to offer, but he did  
not know if it should be the primary goal because offering a public media center to the  
community in terms of a place to go, equipment, and people available to teach the  
equipment involved such a high learning curve. Phillips explained he had been an  
instructor for a filmmaking workshop for high school students this past summer and it had  
been good to see the spark in the eyes of kids. Phillips felt that was the beginning of  
what Vidwest could be for the community.  
Dani Perez noted she would provide numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and  
Prevention (CDC), the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), and the U.S. Census  
Bureau. From January to June 2019, those with symptoms of anxiety were at 8.2  
percent, those with symptoms of depression were at 6.6 percent, and those with both  
were at 11 percent. During December 9-21, 2020, those with anxiety were at 36.9  
percent, those with depression were at 30.2 percent, and those with both were at 42.4  
percent. Perez pointed out this was based on self-reported frequencies of both anxiety  
and depression so the numbers were likely a lot higher, but felt this data was more solid  
than anything she had seen provided from the City that supposedly supported the priority  
of a lot of the projects that had been presented in the budget. Perez commented that  
she believed infrastructure was important, but they were in COVID times, and there were  
people in town that had never felt this level of anxiety or depression. Many had not even  
been able to grieve properly, and others, like the Asian community, were dealing with  
hate due to COVID when they were not to blame. Perez suggested creating a local  
telehealth system and a mobile clinic that went to the many Columbia communities,  
including the homeless villages. Perez noted there were communities that felt they were  
never seen or heard, and there was not enough accessibility.  
The cost to see a  
psychiatrist was over $300 even with insurance. Perez stated the lack of data was  
discouraging when considering the priority of projects. Perez hoped the data she shared  
would show the Council what the real needs were within Columbia. Perez felt data from  
credible sources was needed along with an explanation of the thought process as to how  
they decided on any project because no one currently knew how decisions were made .  
Perez reiterated she believed decisions should be made with proper data.  
Lily White stated she was the Vice President of External Affairs at the Columbia  
Chamber of Commerce, and explained she wanted to highlight the rehabilitation needs of  
the business community and the areas in which they wanted the Council to focus in  
terms of ARPA funding. White noted they wanted the Council to consider allocating  
funds to support business development specifically focused on small, minority-owned,  
women-owned, and historically underrepresented businesses as they had been heavily  
impacted during COVID-19. Anything that put those businesses further behind would  
affect the community’s diverse culture and growth in those business areas. White also  
asked the Council to consider allocating funds to strengthen the community by  
developing improved infrastructure and public utilities, especially in terms of roads and  
reliable broadband. White commented that she thought it was important to note that  
infrastructure was generally the least reliable in the low income and historically  
underrepresented populations, which affected the equal opportunity in education and job  
availability. White suggested the Council also consider allocating funds to continue  
growing and developing the workforce in Columbia as the Chamber had found desperate  
workforce needs in all industries, specifically entry level areas.  
The Chamber’s  
Workforce Division and other organizations in the community needed funding to create  
necessary programs to fill the worker gap that had been found. White noted that making  
these areas a priority would continue to address the inequities that were noticeable in the  
community prior to COVID-19 and had been highlighted as weaknesses throughout the  
pandemic. White stated the Chamber hoped to continue working with City leadership  
during the COVID-19 pandemic and any recovery process with regard to these and any  
other areas of focus with which the Council chose to move forward.  
Chimene Schwach explained she had lived in Columbia for about 12 years and noted she  
had been appalled earlier when no one was able to say how long or why the electric utility  
had been subsidizing the solid waste utility. Schwach commented that Columbia was a  
mid-size city, and she did not feel there was any excuse to not utilize data and sound  
methodologies to make decisions as to how money was spent in the community.  
Schwach suggested the Council spend money to figure out how to do math, projections,  
analyze statistics, etc. Schwach stated she was a privileged middle-class woman with  
middle-class kids that played sports, and did not believe they needed another sportcation  
center in Columbia to help out her middle-class and upper-class kids’ friends on a daily  
basis at the expense of kids that could not afford to be on AAU teams or other  
specialized teams. Those kids could not even get on the local high school teams  
because they could not afford to be on club teams and travel like others. Schwach noted  
they did not need another basketball, football, or special soccer facility to bring people  
into the City for those that could afford to pay for it. Schwach commented that the word  
“equity” could not be found within the main mission of the City’s strategic plan, and this  
budget did not look as though it had any equity. Schwach asked that the ARPA funds not  
be included in the general budget, especially since at one point the Council had indicated  
they would not put it into the budget. Schwach believed the money needed to be set  
aside for a robust public discussion on all of the fabulous projects mentioned by various  
people, and that data was needed with regard to those projects, to include the amount of  
money needed, the outcomes of the project, and the accountability for those not meeting  
projections. Schwach stated they had the opportunity to interrupt structural inequities and  
suggested they put people before projects. Schwach pointed out there were enough  
people in Columbia with money who could help, but the City needed to take the lead. If  
the City used this money to interrupt structural inequities, everyone would rise up. By  
housing the unhoused, sheltering the unsheltered, providing everyone access to the  
website, etc., everyone would be able to participate, making the democracy and the  
community better, and ultimately everyone would become wealthier.  
commented that there was actual data and research that showed this.  
Schwach  
Nickie Davis, 11 S. Tenth Street, stated she was representing the Downtown Community  
Improvement District (CID) and referenced a letter that had been sent to the Council in  
July. Davis noted small businesses were still suffering from COVID. They were still in  
the middle of a pandemic and still having to pay their back rent, utilities, etc. Davis  
understood the City had offered reimbursement of the license fees and small businesses  
were still awaiting those checks. Davis asked for business recovery funding for small  
businesses. Davis noted many of the alleyways, sidewalks, and intersections in the  
downtown were not ADA accessible, and noted those items to be addressed if they  
wanted the downtown to be a tourism spot. Davis stated businesses also had to deal  
with sewer and water main issues all of the time causing them to have to close. Davis  
asked that those issues be fixed so the businesses could survive and continue to offer  
services to Columbians and tourists in the downtown.  
Pat Kelley, 1007 Grand Avenue, commented that she was the Acting President of the  
Ridgeway Neighborhood Association, and explained the Association had not met much  
this year since many of the neighbors did not have online access causing them to have to  
meet in person, but they had met with regard to the ARPA funding. Kelley noted they had  
unanimously supported the use of ARPA funds to directly help people whose lives had  
been directly impacted by COVID or those that had been traditionally underserved. Kelley  
stated they had also voted to support an inclusive public discussion to determine the best  
use of the funds. Kelley commented that those that had seen their neighbors sleeping in  
the park, met kids asking for food, or knew people who lived in constant pain because  
they could not access dental care understood this was a once in a lifetime opportunity to  
empower the least fortunate and give hope to people that had lost loved ones, work,  
housing, or healthcare this year as it would make Columbia a better community for all.  
Andrew Hutchinson, 510 Spencer Avenue, explained he was the representative for  
Laborers Local 955 and was present on behalf of the City employees represented by  
them with regard to Council Amendment #1, which would provide hazard pay of $1,000  
monthly to police, fire, and solid waste employees. They had conducted an internal poll  
and had found the members to be supportive of this, but they also felt it should be  
extended to all essential workers throughout the City. If hazard pay was provided, it  
should be provided to members that worked in close quarters or who work in the public .  
COVID-19 had affected a lot of members in their work places regardless of whether they  
were mechanics working in close quarters in fleet operations, solid waste workers doing  
refuse or recycling or working at the recycling facility, or bus drivers dealing with the  
public on a consistent basis. Many had lost out on pay or had suffered adverse health  
impacts as a result of exposure to COVID-19. They had also used a lot of sick leave or  
bereavement leave. It had affected everyone in a lot of different ways. Hutchinson stated  
they appreciated that the Council valued the hardworking employees of City government,  
but asked that these payments be provided to all workers that worked with the public or  
worked in close quarters, i.e., those that had not had the privilege of working via Zoom.  
Hutchinson commented that even if the overall amount was lower, they believed the  
service of everyone should be rewarded.  
Rebecca Shaw, 2615 Vail Drive, stated she had a lot of questions. Shaw understood  
there was a proposed amendment for hazard pay on which Andrew Hutchinson just  
commented, and asked for the data that had led them to the $1,000 per month mark and  
the conditions that defined the hazardous working conditions. Shaw commented that she  
was sure the City had other staff interacting with the public in other areas during COVID,  
and wondered why they were not also included for hazard pay. Shaw explained she was  
supportive of hazard pay, but thought it should be extended beyond just the unionized  
members of the City. Shaw understood the letter from the Human Services Commission  
(HSC) had included a link to the CoMoHelps report, which had been a collaborative  
project between some of the nonprofits in town, and the report had showed that the  
greatest increased needs during COVID were food, healthcare, housing assistance,  
childcare, and education. Shaw thought data of that nature could lead the efforts in  
determining what the citizens most needed. It showed what services the organizations  
were unable to get from the City and the County along with the greatest needs. Shaw  
commented that she did not feel ARPA funds should be a part of the budget discussion.  
Shaw noted that during the budget work session, Mark Palmer with VAC stated they  
needed 3-6 months to fully form an operational plan and have a better understanding of  
the budget necessary to run an opportunity campus. Shaw asked why funds could not be  
placed on hold until they had that information as the shelter was obviously very important  
to many stakeholders within the City. Shaw agreed broadband was a worthwhile project,  
but wondered how they knew $10 million was needed. Shaw asked if there were reports  
or if numbers had been run by City staff showing there was a $10 million need for  
broadband. Shaw also wondered about the timeline for that money, i.e., when costs  
would be incurred requiring money to be disbursed, etc., and asked if funding could come  
from multiple funding sources. Shaw believed it was concerning that $10 million of the  
$25 million would go toward one infrastructure project. Similarly, funding had been  
proposed for recommendations by the Mayor’s Task Force on Community Violence, but  
had not included a detailed list of which projects would be funded, how those were  
chosen, and how the estimated funding was valued. Shaw noted the public wanted to  
see those details if they were available.  
Susan Maze, 902 N. Seventh Street, asked the Council to move the full $25 million of  
ARPA funding to a separate process with robust public input as it was the public’s  
money and the public needed to be aware of how decisions associated with it were being  
made. Maze commented that the $25 million was about one-fifth of the general fund. It  
was less than a full year of policing and ten years of health and social services funding. It  
was an immense amount of money that could help people that were traditionally  
underserved and did not normally receive much help from the City. Maze stated she had  
sent an email to the Council in March of 2020 detailing what she was seeing from her  
front porch in terms of the unsheltered community. The numbers were increasing and the  
amount of desperation was obvious to anyone paying attention. People were sleeping in  
bus shelters and there were arguments and fights. There were no toilets, handwashing  
systems, etc. Maze noted she had invited the Council to sit on her porch to view what  
was happening, and the response from the City was to take out the bus shelter where  
people were living along with issuing a RFP she could not speak about in polite company.  
Maze commented that she wanted to disrupt and fix the problem for most of these  
unsheltered people with a place to stay and transitional housing options. Maze noted that  
someone had told her that it might be the neighborhood’s responsibility to take care of  
these people, and after getting over being mad, she started providing one lunch a week for  
one of the organizations that did not receive public funding but still fed the unsheltered  
camps twice a week. It started out with only 25 people and had increased to over 50  
people. The problem was not going away and needed to be fixed, and it could be  
addressed with ARPA funding. Maze asked the Council to keep the funds intact and for  
a robust public process.  
Jessica Cooper provided a handout and noticed those speaking on behalf people of color  
had not been people of color, and stated she was concerned that black people were not  
being heard. Cooper explained she was a small business owner and a founding member  
of the Columbia African American Business Alliance (CAABA) referenced on page 83 in  
paragraph 8. Cooper noted a few other CAABA founding members/small business owners  
were in attendance. Cooper commented that they sat on the supplier diversity program  
with only a little under three months of operations. They had held meetings with various  
other small business owners to collectively work to build the black business presence in  
Columbia. Cooper pointed out some of their concerns were listed on the handout  
provided, but a few concerns not mentioned included the expansion of employment for the  
supplier diversity program. Cooper wondered why this was operated by an individual and  
not a collective. Paid jobs needed to be implemented into the budget to be able to begin  
the process of building the entrepreneurial ecosystem that was spoken of but not proven .  
Cooper understood the funding listed under services and miscellaneous for the supplier  
and diversity budget was only 18.9 percent of the entire economic development budget,  
just shy of $130,000. Cooper commented that the supplier diversity program had 133  
MBEs registered and wondered what the businesses could do with only $128,672 as that  
was about $967.46 per business. With only two grants given out annually, Cooper  
wondered how the strategic plan priority areas specifically focused on the resilient  
economy goal statement on page 82. Cooper asked what was being done locally to  
change the structural inequity those as black people were already forced to face in  
America. In 2020, in America, approximately 450,000 black owned businesses had to  
close their doors, and approximately eight out of ten black owned businesses failed  
within the first 18 months. Cooper wondered what they were doing to prevent these  
economic disparities in Columbia. Cooper stated CAABA was ready and willing to speak  
with the Council before they finalized the usage of ARPA funds, and asked that they be  
spoken to directly about what they went through as small business owners within the  
City. Cooper also asked that they be allowed to collectively, with the City Council, agree  
on how to fund CAABA to provide a benefit to the businesses within the Columbia  
community. Cooper stated she looked forward to a response to the email CAABA would  
send the Council to schedule a conversation. Cooper asked the Council to show them  
that they actually cared about the black lives and businesses in the community by  
modifying the budget with data representation, analysis, and quarterly evaluations.  
Jeff Stack, Sexton Avenue, stated he opposed the notion that they needed to provide  
$5.8 million of ARPA funding to police, fire, and sanitation workers. Stack thought they  
needed to be selective and appreciated the comments of Andrew Hutchinson earlier.  
Stack noted he was potentially agreeable to a raise for the solid waste workers, but not  
necessarily the others because half of the money in the general fund budget was already  
spent on public safety. Stack felt they were giving too much money to the Police  
Department and suggested they re-envision what public safety really meant in the  
community. Stack noted he appreciated the amendment to remove the expansion of  
Forum Boulevard as there was plenty of concrete there already and heavy traffic for only a  
couple of hours per day. Stack did not feel they needed to put more and more concrete  
all across the community. Stack commented that he believed the ARPA funding should  
be considered separately from the budget, and that the items funded with that money  
should be developed from a public process. It was a unique opportunity to do a whole lot  
better for the community by recognizing the needs of people. Stack pointed out he had  
been at the soup kitchen last night serving about 60 people and 7-8 people had no place  
to go at the end of the evening, including a 25-year old woman who continued to show  
more and more dire signs of psychological deterioration. They continued to deny and  
pretend that these types of problems did not exist, but they were all a party to them via  
their collective neglect. Stack stated they needed to get on board to try to take care of  
the real needs of people and not try to rush through the ARPA opportunity. Stack  
implored the Council to take seriously the needs of the people within the community  
instead of rushing to benefit businesses, especially those that had  
economic interest. Stack asked the Council to try and do better.  
a very narrow  
Treece understood this was not the first time Stack had advocated for the unsheltered  
population and asked if the Council should spend $3 million tonight for a homeless  
shelter or continue to talk about it. Stack asked if it would be opened right away because  
he could see the wisdom of opening up some type of shelter. Stack noted the City had a  
great deal of funding in the general fund that could be used to support and open up a  
shelter now. Treece commented that he kept hearing that they should talk about it some  
more. Stack stated he felt that should be done for a long term project, but believed they  
could open some kind of safe space indoors now. Stack noted a lady pointed out to him  
last night that a guy was driving through the soup kitchen area to proposition a woman  
that might be desperate. Stack explained people were vulnerable, and a shelter should  
have been established years ago. Stack recognized more had been done than in the past  
in terms of support for Room at the Inn, but more needed to be done. Stack stated he  
had run into someone yesterday that had quit drinking and was doing well, but had  
started his habits again because they could not find him a place to stay. Stack noted  
City Hall could be opened up in the evenings as it was a big space. Stack felt they were  
only limited by their lack of creativity and lack of compassion.  
Andrew Grabau commented that he believed the City had a tremendous opportunity to  
invest in homeless services, and as the Director of the Heart of Missouri United Way, he  
thought it was important to advocate for their nonprofits that were ready to invest and to  
make the change that needed to happen in the community. Grabau stated he wanted  
remind the Council of two points and to urge action as they considered how to use the  
ARPA funds. Grabau suggested the Council look at the existing infrastructure in terms of  
City programs and to leverage the wisdom of its employees in trying to allocate the  
funding that was so important to alleviating disparities and advancing equity in the  
community. Grabau also asked the Council to consider an investment in capacity  
building in the nonprofit sector as he thought it was important that the Council ensure the  
agencies would succeed when providing ARPA funding. Grabau thought the last thing  
they wanted was to see the initial investment not be met with some of the organizational  
capacity necessary for success. Grabau stated they wanted the funds to be  
transformational and to change the community for the better, and suggested they ensure  
they provide organizational capacity support in addition to funding so they could succeed .  
Grabau commented that he believed having input from the nonprofit sector agencies  
providing day-to-day services was really important and that they continue to allow those  
voices to be heard along with providing opportunities for them to speak with regard to the  
use of funds in the future.  
Susan Renee Carter suggested the City collect data, set goals, and determine whether  
those goals were being met. Carter reiterated that black households in Columbia had a  
poverty rate of 35 percent according to the 2019 numbers, and that 9.9 percent of black  
citizens were unemployed. Carter stated it did not make sense to hear people speak  
about not having employees due to those numbers. Carter thought they needed to figure  
out how to match businesses and people so people had jobs and a way to earn a living  
while businesses had employees. Carter believed they could do better in terms of data  
collection, determining outcomes, and being deliberate about how they helped people  
while also helping businesses.  
Alyce Turner stated she was pleased to see the additional staffing of 17 people at the  
Public Health and Human Service Department as she believed it was needed given the  
COVID pandemic. Turner pointed out she had been distressed when hearing Public  
Health and Human Services Director Browning state they could not do mask enforcement  
when also promoting vaccinations due to staffing. Turner understood they might never  
have a mask ordinance, but thought there needed to be more testing. Turner suggested  
the City reach out to the University of Missouri as she felt the 600 active cases were not  
the only active cases since there was not enough testing in the community. People were  
walking around with COVID exposing their families and others. Turner understood the  
Columbia Public Schools (CPS) had some testing, but pointed out there was a lack of  
testing for the general public. Without accessible drive-by testing, they would not really  
know the burden within the community. Turner reiterated she thought the City should  
reach out in that regard.  
Barbara Jefferson, 305 N. Fifth Street, commented that she believed a consultant was  
needed to obtain public input from those that had been burdened the worst even if it took  
6-8 months so they could have the data to determine the best use of the ARPA funds.  
Jefferson felt those burdened the worst should benefit from that funding and 6-8 months  
was not long when they had several years to make use of the funds. Jefferson stated the  
money in the general fund reserves could be utilized for the homeless if the City wanted  
to do something now. Jefferson explained it bothered her that they had quickly gone  
through the budget and the amendments as it did not provide the public enough  
information. Jefferson suggested they find another way to address the budget. Jefferson  
commented that she was also upset that she, a black person, had been told she could  
not place a chair near the exit when there was now a white police officer in a chair there.  
There being no further comment, Treece continued the public hearing to the September  
20, 2021 Council Meeting.  
Treece suggested they go through the staff amendments and dispose of those.  
Peters understood they would discuss the City’s budget, which was separate from the  
ARPA money, and they were not comingling the two. Treece stated he thought that was  
up to the Council. Peters understood what they would be reviewing now was strictly the  
City’s budget. Treece agreed they were discussing the City’s budget, but there were  
items in it that could be funded with ARPA funds if the majority of Council wanted to do  
so. Peters understood that at the moment they were listed to come from the general  
fund. Treece stated that was correct, and noted there was nothing in the City’s budget,  
despite the slide, indicating they were appropriating money for stormwater, broadband,  
homelessness, etc. as that has been provided for discussion purposes only. Treece  
reiterated that if the majority of Council wanted to utilize those funds to pay for any of  
those priorities, he would be agreeable. Peters stated she would prefer to deal with only  
the City’s budget at this time.  
Fowler commented that she wanted to have a roll call vote on anything that might be  
ARPA funded if they decide to bring something forward utilizing those funds. Treece  
understood.  
Treece asked if anyone wanted to discuss Staff Amendments #1-#4, and no one  
indicated they did.  
Treece asked for clarification regarding Staff Amendment #5. Lue replied it was the result  
of the new way in which they were trying to budget to be more precise, and was an  
overstatement. Treece understood they had a grant last year they would not have this  
year. Lue stated that was correct. Fowler understood it was being offset so it could be  
zeroed out. Lue stated that was correct.  
Treece asked if anyone wanted to discuss Staff Amendments #6-#9, and no one  
indicated they did.  
Fowler referred to Staff Amendment #10 as she understood there was a separate channel  
of ARPA funding having to do with transit, and asked if there were others they had not  
discussed. Glascock replied this had come directly from the Federal Transit  
Administration (FTA), and thought there could be funding from the Federal Aviation  
Administration (FAA) involving the airport. Treece understood they also received CDBG  
funding. Glascock agreed and noted it came through a separate channel as well. The  
$25.6 million was for general use, and the others were more specific in nature. Fowler  
asked if they would have additional information at another time about the other channels .  
Fowler stated she had heard reference to housing money, and understood that might be  
the CDBG money, but noted she was not clear on the amounts that had already been  
received. Glascock replied those would come forward to Council as the funds were  
programmed. Fowler asked how much CDBG money had been received. Glascock  
replied he did not know. Fowler understood the City had not received FAA funds, but were  
watching for it. Glascock stated some funds had been received from FAA. Glascock  
pointed out this amendment was related to an item they had not caught. It was an  
omission that should have been included in the original budget. Community Development  
Director Tim Teddy explained $2.161 million in CDBG funds had been announced but had  
not yet been received. Teddy understood the Department of Housing and Urban  
Development (HUD) had indicated the City could not submit any plans or proposals until  
they had issued administrative guidance on that particular program. Teddy pointed out the  
funds were to benefit persons suffering from homelessness.  
Treece asked if anyone wanted to discuss Staff Amendment #11, and no one indicated  
that desire.  
Peters asked why water, electric, sewer, and solid waste were supporting a railroad they  
were not using in reference to Staff Amendment #12. Glascock replied the railroad did not  
make enough revenue to cover its expenses, and thus it was funded by the other utilities  
that used the railroad for the subsidy. Peters asked how these utilities used the railroad .  
Glascock replied there was sewer at the transload facility and trash was picked up there .  
Glascock commented that if they wanted to keep the railroad, they needed to provide it  
some revenue. This was the solution, but they could always utilize the general fund .  
Peters stated she did not want to go that route, but wanted a report as to what the  
railroad did.  
Fowler commented that she shared that concern because the railroad was a unique  
asset for a city, and hoped they had the opportunity to have a complete discussion as  
Columbia had invested a lot in it over time.  
Glascock noted this process had been developed when Tad Johnsen had been the  
Utilities Director, and it had been discussed with the Council at that time. It had been  
covered before, but they could bring forward another report.  
Treece noted it, like Staff Amendment #31, skewed all of their cost of service studies  
because the rate increases might not have to be as high if they were not subsidizing  
other utilities. Treece understood the electric utility had paid for part of the water rate  
study. Instead of comingling funds and subsidizing utilities with other utilities, Treece felt  
they needed to raise the rates of those items not meeting their cash targets or make  
changes to things like the railroad.  
Treece asked if anyone wanted to discuss Staff Amendments #13-#15, and no one  
indicated they did.  
Waner asked if the position associated with Staff Amendment #16 would be able to  
address any of the concerns that had been brought forward at the beginning of the  
meeting with regard to accessibility of the website with screen-readers. Glascock replied  
the City only had one person that worked on the website, and when he was gone, there  
was not a backup, so this position would help with coverage in that regard. Glascock  
thought that person could assist with the accessibility issue as well.  
Fowler asked if an additional allocation was needed to obtain the software mentioned.  
Glascock replied he did not believe so as he thought that could be done via a line item  
within the Information Technology (IT) Department that allowed the purchase of software.  
Glascock pointed out he would also want to discuss the issue with staff before they  
actually included it in the budget if the Council preferred it be included in that manner .  
Fowler asked Glascock if this would come back to the Council or if it would be handled  
administratively. Glascock replied he understood there were lots of documents that were  
not accessible, which needed to be addressed, so they would either bring something  
forward or handle it administratively. In either situation, the Council would be provided a  
report indicating how it would be handled.  
Treece asked if anyone wanted to discuss Staff Amendment #17, and no one indicated  
that desire.  
Treece referenced Staff Amendment #18 and stated he believe the funding of the  
positions in the Public Health and Human Services Department was an appropriate use of  
ARPA funding as it was essential to their response to the public health emergency with  
respect to COVID-19. Treece noted he would prefer to change the source of funds from  
the general fund to ARPA funds in the amount of $486,760.  
Skala asked if they could go ahead with the general fund mechanism and change the  
funding to ARPA later should that be the decision the Council wanted to take or if they  
had to make that decision and change now. Glascock replied he thought they could  
make changes to a funding source at any time as long as it was an appropriate use of  
the funds. Skala stated he would feel more comfortable doing that as that would allow  
them to leave the ARPA funding out of the discussion for now. Skala pointed out there  
were many people that felt it required more consideration and a separate process, and he  
agreed. Skala noted he also thought they had already agreed by consensus that this was  
how they intended to proceed. Skala understood there had been a page in the budget  
with a number of proposals, but those were just proposals, which he viewed as a  
placeholder, as they could all significantly change in the future. Skala stated he thought it  
should be a separate process and that they should proceed with the way it had been  
written on the amendment sheet. Skala noted it could be changed in the future if that  
was what they chose to do.  
Thomas stated he agreed these were appropriate expenditures for the ARPA funds, but  
thought they should utilize the general fund budget for now. Later, when the ARPA funds  
were finally allocated, they could transfer the expenses to those funds if decided. Thomas  
noted he wanted to flag this as one of the expenditures the Council felt should be paid for  
through the ARPA funds, which he would support. Fowler understood that support would  
be at a later time. Thomas stated that was correct.  
Thomas explained he felt another process was needed for the decision, and his  
recommendation was to ask the Public Health and Human Services Department along  
with the Housing Programs Division to review all of the input received regarding ARPA in  
order to come up with recommendations. Thomas also felt they needed to use the  
appropriate commissions to vet those suggestions.  
Pitzer stated it sounded as though they would wind up funding this through ARPA if there  
was not grant funding, and suggested they make it clear that this was the priority of  
Council with a vote.  
Skala commented that a lot of people had suggested the need for more participation and  
advice from the boards and commissions, and felt they could always make the  
determination to shift these expenses to be funded by the ARPA funds later.  
believed it was a good idea to flag it as a logical candidate for further discussion.  
Skala  
Peters stated she would leave it with the general fund for now, and thought they would  
have plenty of discussion in that regard in the future.  
Treece understood it would be left to be funded with the general fund.  
Treece asked if anyone wanted to discuss Staff Amendments #19-#21, and no one  
indicated they did.  
Fowler asked if Staff Amendment #22 was to correct a prospective error whereby not  
enough money was budgeted or a shortfall in that the employees were underpaid. Lue  
replied not enough money had been budgeted.  
Treece asked if anyone wanted to discuss Staff Amendments #23-#24, and no one  
indicated they did.  
Treece understood Staff Amendment #25 was associated with B244-21 and noted they  
would forego the water rate increase. Fowler asked if this would be discussed or if this  
was a total withdrawal at this time. Glascock replied staff had recommended the three  
percent voter approved increase, but Pitzer had asked why the rate increase was needed,  
and they had not had any reason other than the fact the voters had approved it. This  
could wait until January like they had done this past budget year to allow for better data  
regarding revenues. Glascock stated it had been a mistake on his part to bring it forward  
at this time versus in January. Fowler commented that she agreed it would be better to  
wait until they had relevant data.  
Treece asked if anyone wanted to discuss Staff Amendments #26-#30, and no one  
indicated they did.  
Treece understood Pitzer had asked questions earlier regarding Staff Amendment #31 in  
terms of subsidizing the general and administrative fees of the solid waste utility with the  
electric utility. Pitzer stated he did not have any other questions and felt they had made  
their concerns clear so the issue would be corrected.  
Skala suggested they be provided a report for clarification as to why this had occurred in  
the past and what the intent was for the future. Glascock commented that he felt an  
update was needed with regard to how general and administration fees were  
administered, and believed the Council should establish a policy as to how those fees  
were calculated. This would eliminate the continuous change in how the fees were  
calculated by staff. Skala asked Glascock how he would propose that to be done. Skala  
wondered if it needed to be initiated by a report. Lue pointed out staff had corrected how  
general and administrative fees were being proposed and had that process in a written  
format so they could bring that to Council. Glascock noted he could provide information  
as to how it had been calculated in the past so the Council could see why it had been  
changed. Skala stated he felt that would be helpful.  
Peters thanked staff for bringing this to the attention of Council, and noted she looked  
forward to seeing a report so they could understand it moving forward.  
Thomas commented that he had experience in calculating these types of fees and there  
were different ways of doing it, all of which were dependent on assumptions which were  
difficult to validate. They just had to do the best they could. It was not as if one utility  
was stealing money or being subsidized by another. It was about a set of assumptions .  
Thomas suggested they go with the recommendation of the Finance Director.  
Treece stated he agreed with Peters in terms of this being brought to the attention of  
Council, and noted his concern was the undermining of the authority of Council to  
appropriate money as this was allowing money to slide around between different utilities  
at a time they were trying to base rates on the actual cost of service. They should not be  
gouging consumers by charging more than was actually needed for the actual cost of  
electricity and water. If they were using the electric utility to subsidize another utility, it  
needed to be addressed.  
Glascock suggested the Council ask for that calculation with every budget moving  
forward.  
Treece asked if anyone wanted to discuss Staff Amendments #32-#39, and no one  
indicated they did.  
Treece made  
a motion to amend the budget document associated with B241-21  
by approving Staff Amendments #1-#39.  
and approved unanimously by voice vote.  
The motion was seconded by Waner  
Treece suggested they move on to the Council Amendments if everyone was agreeable,  
and everyone agreed.  
Treece stated he would suggest using ARPA funds to provide hazard pay for police, fire,  
and solid waste employees as indicated by Council Amendment #1.  
Treece made a motion to amend the budget document associated with B241-21 by  
approving Council Amendment #1. The motion died due to the lack of a second.  
Skala commented that he thought they should continue with the way things were until  
they were at a point whereby they had more information and a more secure consideration  
of ARPA funding in general, i.e., the $12.5 million the City already had in hand along with  
the next disbursement. Skala felt Council Amendment #1 could be  
discussion at that time.  
a part of the  
Thomas made a motion to amend the budget document associated with B241-21 by  
approving Council Amendment #2. Thomas explained it would remove $1.5 million being  
allocated to the Forum Boulevard widening project from the budget.  
The motion made by Thomas to amend the budget document associated with B241-21 by  
approving Council Amendment #2 was seconded by Fowler.  
Thomas noted it was a $12.5 million project that would widen a road that did not have  
traffic congestion problems. Thomas did not believe the traffic counts justified the need for  
4-5 lanes. Thomas explained he lived close to it and understood traffic flowed through it at  
35-40 mph even at the height of rush hour. The only exception had occurred for about six  
months when Chapel Hill Road was closed for another project causing traffic to be  
diverted. Thomas commented that the portion of the road that was two lanes functioned  
better than the sections that were 4-5 lanes at the north end as it approached Stadium  
Boulevard and at the sound end as it approached Nifong Boulevard where the speeds  
were greater. Thomas stated it was very difficult to navigate by bicycle and to cross as a  
pedestrian. By completing the project, they would make the road worse without solving  
any problems. Thomas understood this project had been on the CATSO Long Range  
Transportation Plan and the City’s Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Plan for 3-4  
decades and there had not ever been any analytical evaluation of the need or of other  
options to solve whatever problem it had been developed to solve. Thomas felt it was part  
of a systemic approach to growth in transportation planning, which did not make sense at  
this time when they wanted to focus on climate, equity, and safety as it worked against  
all three of those things. Thomas commented that later tonight they would receive a  
report from the Community Development Department on some systemic problems with  
the CATSO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) along with the need to look at that  
plan in conjunction with the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). The CAAP  
called for a reduction in vehicle travel from 87 percent of trips to 15 percent of trips, and  
an increase in transit from one percent to 40 percent. Thomas stated he was not sure  
those goals were achievable but believed they needed to make the best effort they could  
to achieve them. Moving forward with the system of continually widening roads, whether  
needed or not, would not help with that effort. Thomas asked for the support of Council to  
remove this from the FY 2022 budget, have staff to evaluate the project, and allow for the  
comparison of the CATSO LRTP and the CAAP.  
Pitzer commented that it was disappointing they had to talk about this again as the same  
motion had been made and had died due to the lack of a second a couple of years ago .  
Pitzer pointed out $1.9 million had already been appropriated, and this would appropriate  
an additional $1.5 million. It would continue the process to fund the project. The funding  
was coming from the capital improvement sales tax and the county road tax. They were  
funds that were voter approved specifically for roads and capital improvements. The voters  
had said they wanted to tax themselves to spend money on those projects. Pitzer noted  
the bicycle and pedestrian access was quite poor on both sides of the crossing over the  
creek. In addition, the bridge was not in great shape and was one of the few crossings  
they had over the Hinkson Creek that was prone to flooding with some of the more  
serious rain events they had experienced. Pitzer stated what troubled him the most was  
that later this evening they would be talking about projects they wanted to complete with  
the park sales tax should it be renewed, and they were asking voters to trust that they  
would do the projects they said they would do with the park sales tax while talking about  
defunding a project that was on the 2015 capital improvement sales tax list. Pitzer felt it  
was shortsighted and ran the risk of alienating people to ask people to trust them when  
voting for taxes and then changing their minds when it came time to appropriate the  
money and going against what the voters had asked be done by defunding the project.  
Skala commented that for a while he had been fond of the idea of creating some road  
diets of three-lane roads along with turn lanes, but that had come to a screeching halt  
with Nifong Boulevard, which had been expanded due to the amount of traffic. Skala  
agreed with Pitzer in that this project had been around for a long time, and they had  
allocated $1.9 million. In addition, it had been determined it was needed earlier, and  
things had not gotten any better in terms of traffic. Skala stated he did not intend to  
support this motion to remove $1.5 million from the project.  
Fowler understood this money would go to other roads if it was not used for this specific  
project so the money would not disappear or have to be given back. Fowler noted they  
had also heard a lot today from voters and residents regarding data to ensure they were  
spending money efficiently and effectively. Fowler stated she would support the motion  
to remove the $1.5 million from this project as they had other road other projects that  
would welcome additional funding.  
The motion made by Thomas and seconded by Fowler to amend the budget document  
associated with B241-21 by approving Council Amendment #2 was defeated by voice vote  
with only Peters, Treece, Skala, and Pitzer voting against it.  
Waner made  
a motion to amend the budget document associated with B241-21 by  
approving Council Amendment #3. The motion was seconded by Peters.  
Waner believed it was important to set the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Office up for  
success because they tended to say so much of what they did was undergirded by  
equity, diversity, and inclusion. It was a good opportunity to put their money where their  
mouth was by having actual people doing this work as their regular full-time job instead of  
other duties as assigned, which was how it had been done forever. Waner felt that only  
having one person do the job was a lot, and noted it was almost perfunctory to have one  
person in that role. Waner believed they should have at least one other person hired into  
that office so they could move the needle forward on ensuring all of the decisions they  
were making were based on data and equity in that data.  
Glascock asked Waner if she would be amenable to using part of it for reconfiguring the  
City Manager’s Office because there was not currently space for this person on the  
second floor. The entire $86,000 would not be used because a person would likely not be  
hired until they were at least six months into the FY 2022 budget since the next city  
manager would make that hire. Waner stated she would be open to that.  
Peters asked if there was a need to reconfigure the space so everyone had a separate  
office. Peters wondered if an office could be shared. Glascock replied there would need  
to be some movement of people and the reconfiguration of spaces.  
Fowler stated she would support the motion as she wanted a second person in that  
office. Fowler noted she also wanted them to look more carefully at expanding the  
resources of that office because she felt dismantling equity in a community and in a  
dominant culture that had existed for generations would be a significant undertaking .  
Fowler asked for clarification regarding the reconfiguration. Fowler wondered if this would  
be a small fee or if they would be reworking the entire floor. Glascock stated they would  
have to rework the entire open area, which included cubicles and the conference room  
with the glass walls. Fowler suggested another portion of the budget be used for that .  
Glascock explained it was all general fund money, and all of the $86,000 would not be  
used next year. Glascock noted he would only use a portion of that money for the  
reconfiguration and reiterated it was still all general fund money. Instead of personnel, it  
would be used for something else. Fowler commented that once they hired those two  
people, she hoped they would put additional resources into that effort.  
Skala stated he thought it was a good idea to supplement the Diversity, Equity, and  
Inclusion Office with another position. Skala commented that a couple of years ago,  
$50,000 had been set aside for a similar effort and that had been supplemented the  
following year. The money was to be used for a racial equity lens look at the City’s  
ordinances and the plan had been to select a consultant along with local people that had  
talent in that regard as well. Skala noted that $75,000 had never been spent, and he  
believed this was an opportunity to imbue this office with enough help to accomplish  
some of their goals.  
The motion made by Waner and seconded by Peters to amend the budget  
document associated with B241-21 by approving Council Amendment #3 was  
approved unanimously by voice vote.  
Pitzer made  
a motion to amend the budget document associated with B241-21 by  
approving Council Amendment #4. The motion was seconded by Treece.  
Pitzer commented that this was a continuation of their discussion at the last meeting  
regarding the park sales tax in terms of increasing funding from the potential park sales  
tax renewal for additional trail projects and reducing potential park sales tax funding for  
the Sports Fieldhouse project by backfilling it with another funding source. Council  
Amendment #4 would provide for those other funding sources.  
Thomas understood this would move them closer to that $5.8 million. Pitzer explained  
they would discuss an agenda item later tonight with regard to the park sales tax project,  
and he believed the memo associated with that item discussed these funding sources  
along with an additional park sales tax balance to bridge the gap. Pitzer asked if that was  
correct. Parks and Recreation Director Mike Griggs replied that was correct except that  
they would not be able to close the gap. The proposed plan was to cut the $5.8 million to  
$1.5 million in future park sales tax. That along with the $1.5 million from the general fund  
and the $1 million from the tourism development fund meant they would have a total of $4  
million and a gap of $1.8 million. If they were to continue with the project, they would  
need to come up with another funding source for that $1.8 million.  
Thomas asked if the $1 million from the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) was  
essentially hotel tax revenue. Griggs replied yes. Thomas understood there had been an  
unexpected surplus in the general fund over the last year or two, and asked for the  
amount of the surplus. Lue replied he did not have the exact number, but it was around  
$30 million. Thomas stated he supported this amendment.  
Pitzer understood there was surplus in the park sales tax, and asked Griggs if that would  
be proposed to help with the gap or if it would be general fund or another source. Griggs  
replied he thought they would look at a combination of those two sources. Griggs  
commented that even with the last few months being better than predicted, they were still  
not at the $18 million needed for the 2015 park sales tax. They were close, but not quite  
there yet. They could use the balance of what they had in the park sales tax to either  
restore the $1.4 million for land acquisition or use it along with general fund money for the  
Sports Fieldhouse project. Griggs noted he did not believe they had enough money for  
both.  
Pitzer commented that he was a bit confused because they had discussed not reducing  
the Sports Fieldhouse amount from the park sales tax list without identifying other  
funding sources for it, and asked if an additional amendment was now needed to ensure  
that funding or if they needed to review the park sales tax list they would discuss later  
tonight to re-establish funding for it. Griggs replied he would prefer not adjusting the park  
sales tax list, and thought the choices were to utilize reserves or to look at the balance of  
the park sales tax that had not yet been appropriated.  
Fowler noted there had been requests by Dee Dokken and Carolyn Amparan to backfill  
the land acquisition fund if funding levels in the park sales tax allowed for it, and pointed  
out she was not opposed to moving money out of the general fund reserves to finish the  
Sports Fieldhouse.  
Pitzer asked Fowler if she was okay with changing the general fund amount associated  
with this amendment to $3.3 million as that would fill the gap. Fowler replied she wanted  
to hear what others thought of that idea.  
Fowler asked for the amount associated with land acquisition. Griggs replied the original  
2015 park sales tax had included $2.025 million for land acquisition.  
$600,000 right now so they were $1.425 million short in terms of restoring it.  
They were at  
Griggs  
explained they had hoped it would be restored by the FY 2023 budget or via a mid-year  
appropriation assuming they had the revenue. Fowler understood it was not in the park  
sales tax budget to move to the Sports Fieldhouse. Griggs agreed they did not have it at  
this time. Fowler asked if it was expected before the Council finished out the current  
fiscal year. Griggs replied the hope was that they would have enough by the end of this  
fiscal year. Fowler asked if that would be another $1.425 million. Griggs replied yes.  
Fowler felt that needed to go into land acquisition. Griggs stated that was the intent of  
staff. Fowler stated she supported that.  
Fowler noted she would like to hear how other council members wanted to make up the  
difference for the Sports Fieldhouse.  
Skala explained he had been looking beyond a conservative estimate of regular sales  
taxes in order to restore the land acquisition fund to the $2.025 million when he had  
originally made his request for another amendment. If the park sales tax revenues came  
in higher than what was needed to restore that fund, they could use it for any project, to  
include the Sports Fieldhouse.  
Peters suggested they utilize the general fund for the money needed to fill the gap on the  
Sports Fieldhouse project.  
Pitzer made a motion to amend Council Amendment #4 so it would include $3.3 million  
from the general fund instead of $1.5 million. The motion was seconded by Peters.  
Thomas commented that he was not necessarily opposed to this motion as he believed  
the Sports Fieldhouse should be completed. Thomas asked about the time frame for  
expending this money as he did not believe it would all be built in FY 2022. Griggs replied  
they would hire an engineering firm right away if the ballot issue passed, and thought they  
could speed up the time it took by two years. Thomas noted they were in danger of  
treating the $30 million surplus in the general fund as piggy bank from which to pull  
money and thought they needed to have a better process.  
Thomas stated another  
project he thought would be appropriate for the general fund surplus was the Agriculture  
Park, which was a jewel of the community, and as a result, he was not sure he was  
supportive of the motion to change the $1.5 million to $3.3 million tonight and would like  
to hear the thoughts of other council members.  
Peters stated she was in favor of the amendment because it would move the project  
forward if the park sales tax passed. If the park sales tax did not pass, they would need  
to discuss the issue further. Peters agreed she did not want to treat the surplus as a  
piggy bank, but noted they had money in the account over the required 20 percent.  
Thomas suggested they schedule a work session in a few weeks to determine how much  
of the general fund surplus they wanted to expend this fiscal year along with how they  
might want to expend it. They could then decide whether they wanted to fund the Sports  
Fieldhouse with $3.3 million or $1.5 million.  
Pitzer commented that they had discussed this at the prior meeting when they had gone  
through the list of park sales tax projects. If they did not do this, they would need to talk  
about it later tonight due to the agenda item associated with the projects on the park  
sales tax list.  
The motion made by Pitzer and seconded by Peters to amend Council  
Amendment #4 so it would include $3.3 million from the general fund instead of  
$1.5 million was approved unanimously by voice vote.  
The motion made by Pitzer and seconded by Treece to amend the budget  
document associated with B241-21 by approving Council Amendment #4, which  
would now include $3.3 million from the general fund instead of $1.5 million due  
to the amendment, was approved unanimously by voice vote.  
Thomas commented that at the time he had proposed Council Amendment #5, he had  
been unaware that $35,000 was already in the FY 2022 Office of Cultural Affairs budget.  
As a result, it would not make sense to vote on an amendment to do something that was  
already there, and asked Glascock if he agreed. Glascock replied it had been left in that  
budget and was not tied to any specific use. Thomas understood the City did not have a  
contract with Vidwest for the community media center project for FY 2021, which was  
coming to an end, and asked if that was correct. Glascock replied there had not been a  
contract for Vidwest for anything. Thomas stated he might want to propose an  
amendment to correct that by providing funding in the FY 2022 budget to retroactively  
compensate Vidwest for the work they had done, which he thought had met the goals of  
the Council and the goals of the public. Glascock explained that could not be done  
because they could not retroactively pay someone for work already done.  
Thomas asked for the status of the relationship between the City of Columbia and  
Vidwest Studios. Thomas wondered if staff had decided to not negotiate any kind of  
contract or agreement until there was a cable broadcast channel. Glascock replied that in  
FY 2020, which would have started at the end of 2019, the Council had asked for the  
public access channel via the contract with Vidwest, and that had never been done as  
had been specified in the contract.  
As a result, that contract had not been met.  
Glascock pointed out staff had never indicated they would not work with Vidwest and they  
were currently waiting for the conditions of that contract to be met. If Council no longer  
wanted a public access channel, direction indicating so was needed.  
Thomas stated he was persuaded by what he had heard from Schacht and others in that  
it might not make the best sense to do a cable channel, especially since they had run  
into some very significant barriers in terms of getting the channel working and because  
they had pivoted to providing similar outcomes for the community at the beginning of the  
pandemic with internet broadcast programming and the creation of the media center to  
allow for the voices of entrepreneurs and marginalized people to be heard. Thomas  
wondered if the Council needed to direct staff to work with Vidwest Studios to resolve the  
FY 2020 contract. Thomas commented that he did not know what that involved legally,  
but was sure something could be done. Thomas noted Vidwest had done some work that  
might not have met the letter of the contract, but had met the spirit of the contract.  
Glascock stated he did not agree. Glascock explained there was not a public access  
channel. Glascock suggested the Council state what services they wanted to be provided  
with that money as contracts were contracts for service, and when the service was not  
provided, payment could not be made.  
Fowler commented that when public access channel had first been established, it had  
always been included as part of the basic cable package, and those with cable had  
indicated it was no longer there. Fowler understood residents had to have a more fully  
featured package to actually access the public channel, and asked if that was correct .  
Glascock replied there was not a public access channel. Fowler asked about the City  
Channel. Glascock replied he did not know.  
Fowler stated she was troubled by the conversation at the last budget hearing regarding  
Mediacom not providing the feed to reestablish the channel. Glascock understood  
Vidwest had paid Mediacom for the fiber and they were waiting for the installation to be  
scheduled. Fowler asked if the Mediacom fiber connection was how the cable channel  
could be reestablished. Glascock replied he assumed that was the case. Fowler  
understood that process was outside of the control of Vidwest. Glascock agreed, and  
noted it was outside of the control of the City as well. Fowler asked what the City could  
do to encourage Mediacom to complete its work. Glascock replied he was not sure the  
City could force Mediacom to do anything.  
Treece made a motion to amend the budget document associated with B241-21 by  
deleting $35,000 from the general fund for the Office of Cultural Affairs. The motion was  
seconded by Skala.  
Treece commented that they were dithering over $35,000 for a contract that had been  
unfulfilled, and they were now going to budget it again to provide another chance for it to  
be unfulfilled. Treece wondered why they were holding these funds if Vidwest could not  
provide a public access channel.  
Peters wondered if they needed to look at this differently because it was not a cable  
access product without cable access. Peters thought the question was whether the City  
was willing and able to fund services for people to make videos for streaming, and asked  
if they would stream on the internet. Peters also wondered from where else they received  
funding or if the City was their only source of funding, and how many people they served,  
etc. Peters stated it was not cable related anymore and wondered if they should consider  
that it would never be cable related if Mediacom would not supply the cable line. Peters  
also wondered why the City was involved if there were other ways to get information out.  
Thomas commented that it was not all about the broadcast channel as it also allowed for  
training, capacity building, entrepreneurship opportunities, etc. Thomas pointed out Carrie  
Gartner had discussed how it fit with the vision of the Business Loop of shared spaces  
and building capacity. Regardless of whether it was a cable channel or streaming on the  
internet, there was value to people working, learning, and building capacity in the work  
space. Thomas explained he had been to the Vidwest Studios Open House and there  
had been dozens and dozens of people working on their projects and demonstrating them  
to the public that attended. Thomas noted it was a vibrant incubator of democracy and  
communication, and he did not understand why the City of Columbia could not be a little  
more flexible by looking at the big picture and providing a meager $35,000 per year for a  
really positive project. Thomas commented that since the $200,000 per year that had  
originally been provided from 2008 through 2013 had been eroded by the previous City  
Manager, they had likely had over 100 people testify as to how great a program CAT was  
and how important it was to the community in such a variety of ways. Thomas stated he  
thought it was strange that some of them had to continue to defend this small  
appropriation year after year. Thomas hoped the Council would have the sense to give  
whatever direction was needed to staff so Vidwest could receive its funding to continue to  
do the good work they did.  
Skala commented that he did not feel the history Thomas had provided was completely  
accurate as it was not the current or former City Manager that had eroded the funding  
that had gone toward this, and instead, it had been the City Council. The plan had been  
to start with $200,000, and that amounted had then been ratcheted down to $100,000,  
$50,000, and so on. Skala pointed out there was supposed to have been an attempt to  
raise money at this same time, which CAT-TV had been unable to accomplish. Skala  
noted that plan had been the product of several city councils. Skala stated he was  
somewhat sympathetic to the idea of helping Vidwest Studios since they were a different  
group with other expectations, and because it had some value in the community.  
Thomas explained his recollection was that in the first year after the five year contract  
had ended, the former City Manager had removed that from the budget entirely, and some  
on the Council had fought to get it back to $100,000. Skala agreed, but explained it was  
only a proposal similar to this proposed budget, and the City Council was who ruled on it.  
Peters understood they could not just give this money away, and that a contract would  
be required. Peters also understood the previous contract had not been fulfilled. Peters  
suggested renegotiating a contract with Vidwest that was more appropriate in terms of  
what they were able to do and legal.  
Thomas stated he would love for the City Manager to negotiate in good faith with Vidwest  
for a positive resolution to this situation.  
Waner stated she would be supportive of that as well. Waner thought the point of Peters  
with regard to reframing this discussion was incredibly important as the landscape of  
community media had shifted completely. Waner pointed out her husband was a member  
of Vidwest, and she believed it was an incredible community resource and one that they  
should partner with as a municipal organization. Waner noted she would like for those  
conversations to occur.  
Treece withdrew his motion to amend the budget document associated with B241-21 by  
deleting $35,000 from the general fund for the Office of Cultural Affairs.  
Skala asked if any further direction would be required. Treece replied no.  
Thomas commented that he wanted a vote to occur because he felt this conversation had  
occurred previously, likely in November or December of last year, as the FY 2021  
contract was being discussed, and direction had been provided then. At that time, they  
had known the COVID pandemic and the failure of Mediacom to provide fiber to the  
Vidwest Studios property had created barriers to Vidwest completing the terms of the  
contract, and they had provided direction without a vote then to renegotiate in good faith .  
That had apparently never happened, and it was now another year later. Vidwest had  
continued to operate without City funding. Thomas stated he would like some kind of vote  
so it was clear as to what the Council wanted to happen.  
Treece noted that vote would happen next week since there was $35,000 in the budget for  
Vidwest. Fowler stated she thought it was unspecified. Thomas commented that just  
because the $35,000 was budgeted did not mean the City Manager would negotiate the  
contract. Thomas pointed out it had been in the budget last year and there had never  
been a contract.  
Glascock explained the Council had provided a specific scope they had wanted for FY  
2020, and that had not been fulfilled. Glascock noted he needed to know the desire of  
Council if they wanted something to be renegotiated, i.e., a cable access channel, a  
streaming service, etc. Glascock stated the Council needed to say what they wanted.  
Treece noted they should not be addressing the scope of services this late in the evening  
when the budget had not even been passed. The $35,000 in the budget would be  
approved at the September 20, 2021 Council Meeting. Staff could then bring forward a  
proposed scope of services as was done with other professional services agreements.  
Thomas commented that he eventually wanted a vote of the Council providing direction to  
the City Manager with regard to what they wanted in terms of negotiating with Vidwest.  
Thomas stated he was agreeable for that not to happen tonight, but wanted to know how  
that would be handled in the future. Thomas asked if it would be an agenda item or if it  
could be done during comments at the end of the next meeting. Glascock replied it could  
happen however the Council wanted it to happen. Thomas understood it did not have to  
be an item on the agenda. Glascock stated that was correct. Thomas stated he would  
plan to do something at the next meeting.  
Treece noted there were other amendments to the budget including an asset useful life  
list, CIP project pages, a missing sewer project page, and a missing water project page,  
and asked if Council wanted to discuss any of those items.  
Fowler commented that the asset useful life list appeared to be a depreciation schedule  
or something like a depreciation schedule whereby they were explaining how those items  
were carried on the books after their useful lives had been reached, and asked if she was  
correct in terms of the purpose of that document. Lue replied yes. Fowler asked how they  
got to a place where they had lots of assets that did not show any salvage value, and  
wondered if that was because those items would be used until they would no longer  
function. Fowler wondered about the value to the City if they were looking at the total  
assets of the City. Lue replied salvage value only came into play if something was sold .  
Fowler asked what was done when the asset was written off. Lue replied the City did not  
write off assets. The assets only depreciated down to nothing. Fowler asked how the City  
assessed the value of a particular infrastructure item currently in use if it was zeroed over  
time. Lue replied the only reason to depreciate an asset was to not pay for it all in one  
year. Once the useful life of that asset was done, it no longer had any attainable value in  
that way. Lue explained that if the useful life was 20 years for a $20 million piece of  
equipment, after the 20 years, it did not hold a value for the City any longer. Lue pointed  
out this was an accounting issue.  
Fowler noted many of the assets associated with the COLT Railroad had been in place  
for the full length of time one would depreciate those assets, but they still had value to  
the City and represented a substantial investment. Fowler agreed it had been written  
down to zero from an accounting point of view, but believed it still had value.  
Pitzer asked why this document was being included as he did not recall ever seeing it  
before. Lue replied it had never been included in a budget before, and they had been  
going through a process of collecting documents that were useful for a budget and  
including them in the budget. The asset useful life document was one of those items.  
Pitzer understood they would see it in future years going forward, and asked Lue if he  
was looking for feedback or guidance on anything. Lue replied he was always open to  
feedback. Pitzer thanked Lue for bringing it to their attention.  
Treece made  
a motion to amend the budget document associated with B241-21  
by including the asset useful life document, the CIP project pages, the missing  
sewer project page, and the missing water project page. The motion was  
seconded by Skala and approved unanimously by voice vote.  
Pitzer made a motion to withdraw B244-21 from the agenda. The motion was seconded  
by Treece.  
Fowler asked for clarification. Treece replied it was the bill associated with the water  
rates. Treece explained it would be withdrawn from the agenda and would not be on the  
September 20, 2021 Council Meeting agenda for a vote.  
The motion made by Pitzer and seconded by Treece to withdraw B244-21 from  
the agenda was approved unanimously by voice vote.  
Treece commented that at a previous council meeting, Pitzer had mentioned the idea of  
adopting a resolution expressing the intent of Council with regard to the ARPA funds and  
using that resolution to direct the City Manager to bring back items that would inform the  
opinion of Council as they pursued additional public input. Treece felt there was some  
general consensus of the Council in the areas of a homeless shelter, a mental health  
crisis rapid access treatment center, workforce development, and community violence  
initiatives, and those items would add up to about $9.5 million. Thomas understood the  
associated dollar amounts were very high-level ballpark figures and that no real analysis  
had been done. Treece agreed and thought they needed to give the City Manager some  
flexibility as to the City’s contribution toward those items and the threshold of Council  
while allowing him to work with the groups that were organizing around these initiatives.  
Thomas asked Pitzer if he had drafted a resolution. Pitzer replied he did not have a  
resolution. Pitzer explained his rationale involved them speaking about some of these  
items being urgent and things they needed to move forward with in all due haste because  
he was having trouble reconciling that with taking 6-8 months for a more robust process.  
If there was consensus, they could include dollar amounts now as ballpark figures while  
telling the City Manager to move forward with those items. They would receive feedback  
later as to whether they were in the ballpark or not.  
Thomas asked Pitzer if he would be open to running all of this through the HSC and the  
Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) before getting to that point  
and for that to be included in the resolution. Pitzer replied no, but noted those  
commissions could have input into the process as it moved along as he was open to  
feedback, ideas, and suggestions.  
Thomas asked what the Council would be directing the City Manager to do. Pitzer replied  
that with the homeless shelter and the mental health treatment center, there were ideas,  
groups, and organizations that were moving forward and the City needed to be at the  
table for those discussions. Thomas asked how they would respond to all of the calls  
tonight for a more robust public process. Pitzer replied he thought most of the calls were  
asking for them to do something in those areas. Pitzer pointed out he was not sure about  
specifics, and thought the specifics were yet to be determined as he did not believe they  
could figure those out themselves. Pitzer stated he did not want to try to figure out how to  
run a mental health treatment center, but he was willing for the City to be at the table for  
those discussions and for the City Manager to determine who was best to be there to  
shepherd that process along. If it was urgent, they needed to move.  
Thomas commented that he thought Pitzer was right in that a lot of people in the room  
supported those projects, but that was not what he had heard people saying tonight .  
Thomas thought those that had spoken had expressed the need for a more robust public  
process before decisions were made. Thomas stated the only way he could think to do  
that was to utilize systems and processes in place, namely those commissions, to look  
at the allocations.  
Fowler explained structural inequities continued because they kept doing the same thing  
over and over again, and due to the inequities seen during COVID, she felt the  
expectation was for a different result. Fowler stated she did not believe they would gain a  
different result if they did not do things differently. Within the budget was $75,000 for  
project management funding that the people working on the opportunities center could  
apply for once the City issued an RFP. Fowler commented that she was not suggesting it  
would take them a long period of time to listen to the very people they were trying to  
serve. They had all of the people in this room that had been spending time with them  
week after week and had expertise and reach out in the community. Fowler did not  
believe they should make assumptions about how much money a project needed without  
having listened first to the community they intended to serve, i.e., homeless people,  
people with mental health issues, people that were struggling with housing security, etc .,  
as those people might tell a different tale of what would actually help them than the  
assumptions they and others were making. Fowler noted that every time she went out in  
the community and asked someone she would ordinarily not speak with about their life  
experiences, she was always surprised their answer was different than what she heard  
and what they tended to discuss at the dais. Fowler agreed they were struggling with  
what that process should look like, and even though she wanted to serve those that were  
most in need as fast as possible, she thought it would be a mistake to allocate money to  
certain items at this point when they had not spent the time on an evidence-based  
process with regard to what might make a difference in the lives of people that were  
suffering in the community.  
Fowler explained she and a member of the Disabilities  
Commission had spoken to homeless people at Field Park on Sunday morning at 8:00  
a.m., and one young man had spoken to them for 1.5 hours. Fowler stated all of the  
assumptions she had made about what would help that young man with regard to his  
mental health, physical health, and housing needs had not been completely accurate .  
Fowler commented that it was not enough for her to talk to one homeless person at Field  
Park regarding his experiences, and believed they needed those that were navigators of  
services to bring people into a safe environment and talk to them directly as to what  
would make a difference. Fowler noted she had also spoken to some small business  
people over the weekend, including a pastry chef, with regard to the shared kitchen, and  
that person had explained to her that the business model of the shared kitchen did not  
work for her burgeoning business.  
They had essentially missed the mark with the  
fabulous idea of the shared kitchen. Fowler suggested they figure out how to listen to the  
people they were trying to serve without making assumptions and move forward with  
issuing the RFPs that would provide planning money. Fowler also suggested they assess  
the assets of the community so they could then determine how to move forward. Fowler  
stated she would not vote in favor of a resolution that would move along some money or  
included any idea of going ahead and allocating some of that $25 million in ARPA  
funding.  
Treece suggested they do a resolution directing the City Manager to proceed with a RFP  
process with no dollar amounts for the homeless issue, a mental access treatment, etc .  
Fowler stated she did not agree with that. Peters understood Fowler did not want to move  
forward with an RFP process and wanted to instead talk to people in the neighborhood.  
Fowler thought they needed to design a process and noted this room was full of people  
that could help. Fowler suggested a working meeting to talk about how this could be  
done. Fowler wanted them to sit down with people face-to-face with regard to how to  
proceed. Fowler pointed out the RFP that had been issued right after COVID for someone  
to run an emergency shelter had missed the mark as there was not an organization that  
could have accomplished all of those things. In addition, by the time it had been issued,  
there was less than a month left to provide those services. The organization would have  
also had to provide a lot of money upfront to make it happen with reimbursements  
happening later. It had not met the needs at the time. Fowler stated she was not in favor  
of staff writing an RFP until they sat down with those that had come to them repeatedly  
asking for them to listen, collect data, and move forward in a different way this time.  
Thomas stated he agreed with the comments of Fowler, but felt the commissions he had  
mentioned could facilitate the process. It was part of their role as advisors to the Council .  
Fowler commented that she did not feel they were well versed.  
Treece stated he thought Fowler was trying to limit public input. Fowler disagreed. Treece  
explained he felt Fowler wanted to hear from one segment of the population. Fowler  
stated she wanted to hear from those they wanted to serve because they never listened  
to them. Treece did not agree. Treece understood Fowler wanted more input instead of  
listening to the input received and doing something about it. Treece did not think they  
could wait for another eight months and risk squandering the money.  
Skala stated he was sympathetic to a lot of what Fowler said, and explained he did not  
connect with everyone, but over the years, he had connected with a lot of them. Skala  
pointed out he had started office hours 14 years ago, and had met with several of the  
people that had spoken tonight at his office hours this past Saturday so they were being  
provided some of that information.  
Skala noted he felt one of the most successful  
programs had involved community policing in the underserved areas because when they  
had met with people in those area, they had found emergent leadership. In addition, many  
of the solutions suggested were a lot less expensive and simpler than the ones people  
had assumed would help. Skala also thought it was important to realize they had to  
proceed and go forward with some of this. Skala agreed they needed to have their ear  
open to a lot of people that were in dire straits, and when they spoke about ARPA  
funding, they would need to talk about it in terms of proportionality. Broadband, for  
example, was not about people or projects. It was sometimes the same. Skala noted  
they were all here to try to do the best they could for the community and the people, and  
some of the projects served that goal. Skala felt the people should be the ultimate  
benefactor for this so they needed to accomplish something with those funds. Skala  
stated they needed information as to how best to spend the money, but he did not believe  
it was a matter of saying they should do something else and that they were crazy if they  
did the same thing because he did not feel they were doing the same thing. Skala  
commented that he thought they were responding to a very different dialogue.  
Thomas asked if they could open the public hearing again to allow the public to respond  
to what they had been discussing as he thought it would be helpful. Treece replied no,  
and explained B241-21, as amended, B242-21, and B243-21 would lie on the table until  
the September 20, 2021 Council Meeting.  
Thomas made a motion to reopen the public hearing to listen to more public input on the  
ARPA funding process. The motion was seconded by Fowler, and was defeated by voice  
vote with only Fowler and Thomas voting yes.  
PH33-21  
Proposed construction of Fire Station #11 to be located north of the  
intersection of Scott Boulevard and State Route K.  
PH33-21 was read by the City Clerk.  
Public Works Director David Nichols provided a staff report.  
Pitzer asked when construction would begin and how long it would take. Fire Chief Any  
Woody replied he was uncertain at this time. Early on, he had been told 8-10 months for  
construction time. Pitzer understood staff had talked to members of the neighborhoods  
around this area. Woody stated they had, and he believed the neighbors were excited to  
have the fire station there. Pitzer stated he appreciated that along with some of the  
elements that had been brought into it, to include the community room and training  
center.  
Fowler commented that it appeared as though the fire station was located lower in the  
grade than the surrounding area based on the contour lines of the diagram, and noted she  
was worried about stormwater runoff. Fowler asked if it would set low with more elevation  
around it or was it the same elevation as the areas around it. Nichols replied he had not  
paid much attention to the actual grades, but did not believe the architect would depress  
this into the ground without managing the stormwater. Nichols explained the piping would  
go to a retention basin on the northwest corner.  
Nichols noted they would come back with a bid call ordinance once the final plans and  
specifications were complete so the Council would see this again soon, and they would  
then have a better date as to construction.  
Fowler stated the drawings made it appear as though the areas on the external  
circumference around the building were higher than where the building would be located .  
Glascock commented that there was a drop inlet with a pipe at the very bottom of the  
drawing where the street was located, and that was the low area. Toward the top was the  
same thing, and that was the low area on that side. Fowler understood the building was  
higher than the surrounding area because she could not see the contour lines for where  
the building would be placed. Glascock stated that was correct.  
Nichols explained there would be reviews of the iterations of the plan, and tonight they  
were asking for permission to move forward with the final drawings.  
Treece understood they would not build off of these drawings. Nichols stated no, and  
explained these were designs and they would now move to construction documents.  
Treece opened the public hearing.  
There being no comment, Treece closed the public hearing.  
Pitzer made a motion directing staff to move forward with construction plans and  
specifications for City of Columbia Fire Station #11. The motion was seconded by  
Treece and approved unanimously by voice vote.  
PH34-21  
Proposed construction of sanitary sewer rehabilitation project #8 in the  
Parkade Boulevard, Lynnwood Drive and Albert-Oakland Park areas.  
PH34-21 was read by the City Clerk.  
Utilities Director Dave Sorrell provided a staff report.  
Treece opened the public hearing.  
There being no comment, Treece closed the public hearing.  
Pitzer made a motion directing staff to proceed with the Sanitary Sewer  
Rehabilitation #8 project. The motion was seconded by Skala and approved by  
voice vote. Waner had stepped out of the meeting room during the vote on this  
item.  
VI. OLD BUSINESS  
R141-21  
Declaring the intent of the City Council on utilization of the funds anticipated  
to be generated by the proposed ten (10) year extension of the one-eighth  
of one percent local parks sales tax; declaring priorities for expenditure of  
funds for additional parks projects in the capital improvement plan if  
additional funds become available.  
The resolution was read by the City Clerk.  
Treece noted there was an amendment sheet that reflected the funds and what staff had  
moved around based on the public input they had received at a prior meeting.  
Thomas asked on which priority list the Bear Creek Trail project, from Blue Ridge to  
Brown Station Park, was located. Griggs replied they had moved the Bear Creek Trail  
project, from the Fairgrounds to Lange, to be on the Priority 1 list, and the Bear Creek  
Trail project, from Albert-Oakland Park to Lange, was on the Priority 2 list. Thomas asked  
if that was the same as Blue Ridge to Brown Station Park. Griggs replied it was not all of  
the way to Brown Station Park.  
It was from Albert-Oakland to Lange. Thomas  
understood that was on the Priority 2 list. Griggs stated that was correct.  
Dee Dokken, 804 Again Street, stated she was speaking for the Sierra Club and noted  
they appreciated the additional $500,000 for land acquisition although they felt that  
amount should have been higher. It raised the amount to eight percent of the total, but  
when people were surveyed, they had indicated they wanted 24 percent for land  
acquisition. Dokken noted they were happy with the amount identified, but felt more  
should have come out of the Fairgrounds project for it. Dokken stated she had been  
alarmed to hear talk of any 2015 park sales taxes that came in to be used for the Sports  
Fieldhouse since land acquisition had been on the list for which people had voted but the  
second phase of the Sports Fieldhouse had not. Dokken thought it had been settled that  
they would restore the land acquisition funding if possible and the only question involved  
how they would account for it. Dokken noted she was glad people had spoken up for that  
and hoped it was settled again.  
Lawrence Simonson, 201 W. Broadway, explained he was representing the PedNet  
Coalition and wanted to commend the Council and staff for taking their request for  
additional trails seriously by doing everything possible to meet that request. Simonson  
thanked them for the work they did during the budget session to find a way to make all  
the trail projects requested along with the Sports Fieldhouse and the Northeast Regional  
Park a possibility. Simonson also thanked the Convention and Visitors Bureau for their  
part in ensuring all of the great facilities and amenities could become a part of what made  
Columbia a great place to live, work, and play. In addition, Simonson praised Gabe  
Huffington, Mike Snyder, Mike Griggs, and the entire Parks and Recreation Department  
staff for their hard work in meeting the requests of the public. PedNet had thoroughly  
reviewed the changes made to the Park Sales Tax Priority 1 and Priority 2 lists and was  
impressed by the competency and professionalism of the Parks and Recreation  
Department. They understood compromises had to be made due to different challenges,  
but felt they had been well thought out, balanced, and reasonable. Simonson commented  
that based on this and their experience working with the Council and staff, the PedNet  
staff, board, and members would be showing full support for the park sales tax ballot  
initiative in November.  
Barbara Jefferson stated she had watched the budget meeting from home and had  
noticed there had not been much money for Douglass Park, which was concerning.  
Jefferson commented that when thinking about parks and trails, she was not sure they  
had fixed what had been broken. Jefferson understood there had been reference to poor  
minority people making use of the parks and trails, and she did not feel money was being  
spent for everyone to truly enjoy what was paid for with taxpayer money. Jefferson stated  
she did not see that many people of color making use of the parks and trails. Jefferson  
suggested they really think about who was benefiting from the taxpayer money, and  
whether it was really everyone.  
Peters asked for more information regarding the types of recreation and facilities people  
of color might want to use. Jefferson replied she appreciated the question and was not  
sure. Jefferson noted she did not want to go to football games. Jefferson commented that  
as far as she was concerned, Columbia did not have any entertainment for her. Jefferson  
stated she attended church, but understood not everyone attended church anymore .  
Jefferson noted she was not sure of the mixture of skin color at Albert-Oakland Park as  
she did not go to that park. Jefferson explained she also did not go to Douglass Park .  
Jefferson suggested the City invest in recreation that would be of interest to people of all  
skin colors. Jefferson pointed out she would not attend the Roots and Blues event at  
Stephens Lake Park either.  
Skala explained Indian Hills Park was a very vital park. Jefferson asked if she was  
expected to go all of the way across town. Skala noted he lived close to it. Jefferson  
stated she understood and knew all about Indian Hills, to include the shootings. Jefferson  
understood people in the Indian Hills area would come to Douglass Park to be around  
people of their own.  
Dani Perez noted she was supportive of trails and parks as she did not own a car for  
multiple reasons, and the trails were useful for those without a car. Perez agreed with not  
seeing many people of color on the trails as she walked them every day. Perez stated  
she did not have the answers, but knew there was not a lot of accessible public  
transportation to certain parks. Perez wondered why Cosmo Park did not have a bus  
stop. Perez commented that she thought they should be more mindful with regard to  
entertainment for different types of people. Perez noted she was a Latinx person, and  
everyone was different. Perez felt asking about recreating outside was  
a legitimate  
question because many people did not think people of color did things outside beyond  
having a barbeque. Perez believed further conversation in that regard was needed when  
speaking about parks. Indian Hills Park was a very nice park, but it was difficult for people  
without access to a car to get there. Perez suggested they also consider accessibility for  
those with disabilities. Perez thought it was great that there were a lot of concrete areas  
at parks, but noted not everyone had the means to drive themselves to the park  
entryways, and hoped that would be considered in the future as well. Perez asked that  
other wheels also be considered, such as skating, scooters, and wheelchairs. Those in  
wheelchairs tended to be overlooked, and they needed to be more mindful of that. Perez  
noted everyone deserved to explore the great outdoors and enjoy a car-free life.  
Skala made a motion to amend R141-21 per the amendment sheet.  
The motion  
was seconded by Pitzer and approved by voice vote. Peters and Treece had  
stepped out of the meeting room during the vote on this item.  
Thomas stated he believed this had been a good process with a lot of public input in a  
particular direction, and staff had responded with some good recommendations that fit  
within their plan even though it had not been their first proposal. Thomas felt they had  
reached a happy conclusion as to which projects would be funded.  
Skala referred to the community policing pilot program whereby they had focused on four  
underserved areas, which also had large populations of people of color. The gatherings  
had been useful as the suggestions had been mostly simple solutions for complicated  
problems, such as street lights, sidewalks, and public facilities. The City had been  
disappointing with items such as public facilities, but other items had been relatively  
inexpensive. Skala suggested they pay some attention to that. This was  
a parks  
category, and they would approve projects that made trails accessible to people. Skala  
pointed out people had habits and their own ways with regards to the outdoors, and  
thought they should be mindful of the distances, car travel, etc. Skala stated he  
appreciated the input received and the work of the Parks and Recreation Department.  
R141-21, as amended, was read by the City Clerk, and the vote was recorded as  
follows: VOTING YES: PETERS, TREECE, FOWLER, WANER, SKALA, THOMAS,  
PITZER. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:  
B267-21  
Amending the FY 2021 Annual Budget by appropriating funds for the  
purchase of buses and para-transit vans for the GoCOMO Public Transit  
System.  
The bill was given second reading by the City Clerk.  
Skala explained the reason he had removed this from the consent agenda was to ask  
about small buses, such as the paratransit sized vehicles, which were ADA compliant.  
Skala understood staff had indicated those types of vehicles did not meet the overall  
needs of the community. The smaller vehicles used gasoline or diesel fuel, the three CNG  
paratransit vans had numerous engine problems. In addition, they only had one entrance  
and exit point. Skala commented that staff had provided justifications, but was not very  
happy as he did not feel it terribly responsive to some of the needs they had, given their  
population and issues in terms of extending routes.  
Nichols pointed out not all of the grant would be used for capital purchases. Some would  
be moved for operating expenses.  
B267-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as  
follows: VOTING YES: PETERS, TREECE, FOWLER, WANER, SKALA, THOMAS,  
PITZER. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:  
VII. CONSENT AGENDA  
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the City  
Clerk.  
B261-21  
Granting the issuance of a conditional use permit to JAJ, LLC to allow an  
“assembly or lodge hall” use on property located on the west side of Port  
Way and south of Bull Run Drive (705 Port Way) in an M-N (Mixed-Use  
Neighborhood) zoning district (Case No. 217-2021).  
B262-21  
B263-21  
B264-21  
B265-21  
B266-21  
B268-21  
Approving the Final Plat of “Rory Point, Plat No. 1” located on the west side  
of Sinclair Road and north of Cascades Drive; authorizing a performance  
contract (Case No. 202-2021).  
Approving the Final Plat of “Columbia Industrial Development Corporation,  
Plat No. 2C” located on the north side of Mojave Court and east of Brown  
Station Road; authorizing performance contracts (Case No. 116-2021).  
Approving the Final Plat of “Crossroads North Plat 1-A” located on the  
southwest corner of the Vandiver Drive and Range Line Street intersection;  
authorizing a performance contract (Case No. 181-2021).  
Approving the Final Plat of “OPR Subdivision” located on the south side of  
Old Plank Road and west of Bethel Church Road (200 W. Old Plank Road);  
authorizing a performance contract (Case No. 200-2021).  
Approving the Final Plat of “The Villages at Arbor Pointe Plat 5” located on  
the west side of Arbor Pointe Parkway and north of Waco Road;  
authorizing a performance contract (Case No. 207-2021).  
Authorizing the replacement and rehabilitation of a portion of storm drain  
pipe on Aldeah Avenue, south of Ash Street; calling for bids through the  
Purchasing Division or authorizing a contract for a portion of the work using  
a term and supply contract.  
B269-21  
B270-21  
Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.  
Amending the FY 2021 Annual Budget by appropriating funds for Parks  
and Recreation Department reimbursement of expenses to Risk  
Management.  
B271-21  
R142-21  
R143-21  
R144-21  
Amending the FY 2021 Annual Budget by appropriating funds for  
construction of the Runway 2-20 extension project at the Columbia  
Regional Airport.  
Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the  
east side of Scott Boulevard and west of Persimmon Road (5170 S. Scott  
Boulevard) (Case No. 215-2021).  
Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located along  
both sides of Van Horn Tavern Road and east of Highway UU (5500 W.  
Van Horn Tavern Road) (Case No. 226-2021).  
Granting a temporary waiver from the requirements of Section 16-258 of  
the City Code to allow amplified sound exceeding a distance of 100 feet in  
the Clary-Shy Community Park located at 1701 W. Ash Street for the  
Columbia Chamber of Commerce’s “Small Business Fest” event.  
R145-21  
Authorizing a lease agreement with NPG of Missouri, LLC for the  
installation, operation and maintenance of a camera and associated  
equipment on a portion of the exterior roof area of the north terminal  
building at the Columbia Regional Airport.  
R146-21  
R147-21  
R148-21  
Authorizing an agreement for professional services with JAWhitt, LLC for  
development of a comprehensive program to assist disadvantaged  
business enterprises.  
Authorizing an agreement for professional services with Bartlett & West,  
Inc. for design of structural repairs to rehabilitate the Green Valley Drive  
bridge over the Hominy Creek.  
Authorizing execution of signature cards and certificates of resolution with  
Commerce Bank; providing for administrative authority to amend any  
banking authorization or corporate resolution forms and verify authorized  
signatories on the accounts held by City at such institution.  
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read by the City Clerk with  
the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: PETERS, TREECE, FOWLER, WANER,  
SKALA, THOMAS, PITZER. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and  
resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:  
VIII. NEW BUSINESS  
None.  
IX. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING  
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor unless otherwise indicated, and all were  
given first reading.  
B273-21  
Authorizing a second amendment to the collective bargaining agreement  
with Columbia Police Officers Association, Fraternal Order of Police  
Lodge #26.  
B274-21  
B275-21  
B276-21  
B277-21  
Authorizing an amendment to the collective bargaining agreement with  
Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 955.  
Amending Chapter 19 of the City Code as it relates to personnel policies,  
procedures, rules and regulations.  
Adopting the FY 2022 Classification and Pay Plan; providing for FY 2022  
salary adjustments relating to the Classification and Pay Plan.  
Establishing plan year 2022 active employee medical premium rates,  
active employee dental premium rates, and non-Medicare medical and  
retiree dental premium rates for the City of Columbia; providing for payroll  
withholdings.  
B278-21  
B279-21  
B280-21  
Voluntary annexation of property located on the south side of Richland  
Road and approximately 4,000 feet east of Rolling Hills Road; establishing  
permanent District R-1 (One-family Dwelling) zoning (Case No. 106-2021).  
Rezoning property along the north side of Ivory Lane and west of Cutters  
Corner Lane from District PD (Planned Development) to District R-1  
(One-family Dwelling) (Case No. 107-2021).  
Granting design adjustments relating to the proposed Preliminary Plat of  
Old Hawthorne North located on the north side of Ivory Lane and the south  
side of Richland Road to allow longer block distances, a longer cul-de-sac  
length, and private residential driveways on collector streets (Case No.  
105-2021).  
B281-21  
B282-21  
Approving the Preliminary Plat of “Old Hawthorne North” located on the  
north side of Ivory Lane and the south side of Richland Road; authorizing a  
development agreement; directing the City Clerk to have the development  
agreement recorded (Case No. 105-2021).  
Granting a design adjustment relating to the proposed Final Plat of  
Eastport Centre Plat 2-C located on the south side of Bull Run Drive and  
east of Port Way (5710 Bull Run Drive) to allow a terminal street without a  
turnaround at the closed end of Burnside Drive (Case No. 213-2021).  
B283-21  
B284-21  
B285-21  
B286-21  
B287-21  
B288-21  
B289-21  
Approving the Final Plat of “Eastport Centre Plat 2-C” located on the south  
side of Bull Run Drive and east of Port Way (5710 Bull Run Drive);  
authorizing performance contracts (Case No. 213-2021).  
Approving the Final Plat of “Forest Hills, Plat No. 2” located on the south  
side of Geyser Boulevard and west of Lake of the Woods Road;  
authorizing a performance contract (Case No. 125-2021).  
Approving the Final Plat of “Tandys Addition Block 1, Plat No. 1-A” located  
on the west side of College Avenue and south of Business Loop 70;  
authorizing a performance contract (Case No. 93-2021).  
Vacating a portion of a utility easement on Lot 3 within Westbury Village  
subdivision located on the west side of Scott Boulevard and south of Smith  
Drive (Case No. 111-2021).  
Vacating utility easements within Arbor Falls, Plat 1 and Plat 2 located on  
the north side of Highway WW and south of Pergola Drive (Case No.  
141-2021).  
Authorizing a consolidated grant agreement with the Missouri Highways  
and Transportation Commission for FY 2022 transportation planning  
purposes (Case No. 276-2021).  
Authorizing construction of the Grace Ellen Drive PCCE #27 Sanitary  
Sewer Improvement Project; calling for bids through the Purchasing  
Division or authorizing a contract for the work using a term and supply  
contract.  
B290-21  
B291-21  
B292-21  
Authorizing a joint funding agreement for water resource investigations with  
the U.S. Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior for  
hydrological monitoring of well sites in the vicinity of the McBaine wetland  
treatment units and the Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area.  
Authorizing a joint funding agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey,  
United States Department of the Interior for operation and maintenance of  
a streamgage on Hinkson Creek to provide historical stream flow data and  
flood stage information.  
Authorizing a contract with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior  
Services for crisis cooperative agreement program services to  
demonstrate measurable and sustainable progress toward achieving  
public health and healthcare preparedness capabilities and promote  
prepared and resilient communities.  
B293-21  
Amending the FY 2021 Annual Budget by appropriating funds to the  
Department of Public Health & Human Services for CARES Act COVID-19  
expenses.  
B294-21  
Authorizing a cost share request/agreement with the Missouri Department  
of Conservation for a Tree Resource Improvement and Maintenance  
(TRIM) grant for marketing consultant services to provide information on  
private tree care to improve the City’s urban tree canopy; amending the FY  
2021 Annual Budget by appropriating funds.  
X. REPORTS  
REP66-21  
Appointment of Stakeholders to the Hinkson Creek Collaborative Adaptive  
Management Stakeholder Committee.  
Skala explained he served on this committee and they were missing  
a couple of  
members. One was due to the demise of the Smart Growth group due to its success and  
the other was associated with a development council he was not sure still existed. Skala  
stated he, the Boone County representative, and a representative of the University of  
Missouri were suggesting those listed in the report be appointed, and they would  
appreciate Council agreeing.  
Treece made a motion that Susan Hart and Leanne Tippett Mosby be appointed  
to the Hinkson Creek Collaborative Adaptive Management Stakeholder  
Committee. The motion was seconded by Peters and approved unanimously by  
voice vote.  
REP67-21  
CATSO Long-range Transportation Plan.  
Teddy provided a staff report.  
Thomas asked for a summary of the content of the memo he had provided to the CATSO  
Coordinating Committee, and Teddy provided a summary.  
Thomas stated he thought it was more than just slimming down the performance  
measures, and understood it was to start a program to actually measure the performance  
measures. Presently, there was a long list of performance measures that were supposed  
to determine if the CATSO LRTP was achieving its goals, but they were not measured.  
Thomas noted he appreciated the recommendation to line up the CATSO LRTP with the  
CAAP as both were developed at about the same time. The process for the CATSO  
LRTP was the exact same as it had been every five or ten years going back to likely the  
middle of the last century, and it involved continually bringing forward more projects  
resulting in the City expanding.  
Thomas asked for the next steps on the CATSO Committee as these suggestions were  
made but no action had been taken at the meeting a few weeks ago. Teddy thought they  
would do some work on the performance measures and the CAAP between the quarterly  
meetings. Thomas asked if that would be done at the staff level. Teddy replied yes, and  
explained they would then offer the CATSO Coordinating Committee some ideas. Teddy  
noted they were at a period of time whereby they would prepare for the next 5-year  
update in a few months so at some point this would just fold into that. Teddy commented  
that they had submitted a work program in the amount of about $60,000 to obtain some  
professional services to help them with outreach in terms of public engagement. It was  
also something they planned to use with the Comprehensive Plan. If the Council wanted  
to change direction in the area of transportation, the Comprehensive Plan was a good  
place to do that. Thomas asked about the time frame associated with the next  
Comprehensive Plan. Teddy replied they would start next year, but they were already in  
discussions at the staff level with regard to how to approach the public engagement  
portion.  
Thomas commented that in support of those efforts he wanted to make a motion that  
they as a Council ask the Climate and Environment Commission (CEC) to look at the  
CATSO LRTP alongside the CAAP, particularly the transportation section of the CAAP,  
with regard to the realignments needing to be made because at the moment the two  
plans were going in completely different directions.  
Thomas made a motion directing the CEC to review the CATSO LRTP alongside the  
CAAP to identify any realignment that might be necessary. The motion was seconded  
by Fowler.  
Skala stated he thought this was a good idea.  
The motion made by Thomas and seconded by Fowler directing the CEC to  
review the CATSO LRTP alongside the CAAP to identify any realignment that  
might be necessary was approved without objection.  
REP68-21  
Amendment to the FY 2021 Annual Budget - Intra-Departmental Transfer of  
Funds.  
Treece understood this report had been provided for informational purposes.  
XI. GENERAL COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COUNCIL AND STAFF  
Lawrence Simonson, 201 W. Broadway, explained he was representing the PedNet  
Coalition and noted he was pleased with the conversation he had just heard regarding  
CATSO. Simonson stated PedNet wanted to encourage the Council, and was  
encouraged by the prior vote, to review the performance measures and evaluate the  
alignment of the CATSO LRTP with and against the goals of the City of Columbia.  
Simonson commented that he liked the idea of aligning the CASTO LRTP with the CAAP,  
and suggested they support the Chair of CATSO in his proposal to create a transit  
master plan.  
Jeanne Mihail, 3101 Crawford Street, stated she wanted to shift the focus from planning  
in the short term with next year’s budget to planning for the next decade, and specifically  
with regard to the redrawing of ward boundaries based on the 2020 census. Mihail  
explained she had expressed her interest in this project to Pitzer, who was her  
representative, and had shared recent analyses she had done of the ten years of prior  
municipal election participation data by ward and precinct. Mihail noted she had just  
started stitching together the 2020 census data to go with the precincts and wards to  
look at demographic data across the City in order to make informed and reasoned  
decisions with regard to how they might draw the ward boundaries.  
From her  
perspective, the primary reason for this was equity. When looking at the Council, they  
had done a nice job of gender equity, but had done a sorry job of representing the racial  
and ethnic diversity of the community.  
Mihail stated she believed drawing ward  
boundaries needed to be more than an exercise in just slightly altering what they already  
had. In the spirit of something new and the spirit of many of the comments this evening,  
Mihail thought they needed to do what they did based on data, and she planned on  
sharing what she was doing analytically in the hopes she could spur them to create a  
commission that thoughtfully considered the process.  
Jonathon Asher, 313 William Street, appreciated the Council for listening to public  
comments at this time of night, and noted he had volunteered with Vidwest Studios in  
various roles since they had taken over the mantel of CAT-TV, to include helping to move  
and organize the equipment from the old space to the new space. Asher pointed out he  
had not been the only volunteer as they had received a lot of help. Asher understood the  
only thing that was holding up the funding the Council wanted Vidwest to have was the  
fact that Mediacom had not installed the fiber optic line. The content was being made,  
and the facility was running. The only party that had not held up their end of the deal was  
Mediacom. Asher understood the public, education, and government channels were in  
existence as a result of the monopoly of the cable companies with regard to owning the  
wires that went into the homes and not allowing others the use of them. Asher  
commented that while cable television was not something to which he paid attention, the  
monopoly affected him because he had a son in college that had to go to school online  
and his fiancé worked for a Fortune 300 company online through the Mediacom wires.  
Asher could not believe a company the size of Mediacom could shirk its responsibility for  
so long, and understood Vidwest had no grounds to sue or compel Mediacom to fulfill its  
legal obligations. The City, however, had standing in that respect. Asher noted the City  
was the only entity that could compel Mediacom to install the fiber optic line to make the  
channel possible. Those at Vidwest had done everything possible to hold up their end of  
the bargain. Asher compared this to a project not being fully completed by a contractor  
and the City not paying its own employee because that had not been done.  
Asher  
reiterated he had an issue with the fact a company they were all beholden to in terms of  
service in order to function as human beings could drag its feet in a way that was  
strangling a tiny non-profit that wanted to do so much good. It was upsetting that there  
was a bureaucratic mess that kept them from moving forward.  
Dani Perez asked the Council for some empathy and compassion as the Council was on  
a platform and were all white in terms of race. Perez commented that she was upset  
because she saw a white man telling off a woman for having the audacity to say they  
needed to talk more and meet with the people on the ground. Perez understood that  
might not have been the intention, but it was what she had observed. Perez stated she  
had privilege, an education, a family that loved her, and light skin, but the Latinx,  
Indigenous, and Asian person in her who was queer did not feel represented.  
Perez  
noted she kept hearing people saying the focus was on one demographic, or that they  
needed to focus only on people in the room. Perez explained she had cognitive and  
mental health issues, but was able to be medicated because she was lucky. There were  
people who would never come to council meetings and who also did not have the  
capacity to tell the Council what their needs were in a way the Council would understand .  
Perez did not feel the Council should exclude them. Columbia had Asian, Latinx, Slavic,  
and Middle Eastern populations, and some did not speak English. Perez wondered how  
their voices would be heard. Perez thought the City needed to reach out to all  
communities to be a part of the conversation with regard to the ARPA funding. Perez  
pointed out they also had people that were deaf or blind, who had difficulty accessing  
information on the internet. Perez reiterated she did not feel represented even though she  
attended many council meetings, and she attended because she knew those of  
demographics she was a part of would not or could not attend due to a disability, a job,  
children, the pandemic, etc. Perez believed priorities needed to change due to the  
pandemic, and pointed out the pandemic had not caused the issues, but had elevated  
them. Perez commented that she did not see any compassion and very little empathy at  
council meetings. Perez suggested doing something different so those that did not have  
the same privilege had a voice and reiterated that she believed the Council needed to  
come to them. In addition, regardless of the intent, the actions of the Council tended to  
activate people. Perez recommended the Council be mindful of their body language and  
that their actions mattered, especially since they were white and many of them were  
men. Perez thanked Thomas for trying to allow them to speak earlier. Perez understood  
there was proper order to things, but thought that needed to change due to COVID. Many  
people did not feel represented and did not agree with the assumptions and projects that  
would potentially be associated with ARPA funding. Perez reiterated that she believed the  
Council should talk to the many populations and groups instead of assuming how they  
felt or what they wanted.  
Adam Saunders commented that he wanted to echo the accolades of Lawrence  
Simonson for the Parks and Recreation Department as he had also had the privilege of  
working with them over the past six years at Clary-Shy Park, which had been the home  
the ARC and was now also the home of the MU Healthcare Pavilion and the Agriculture  
Park. Saunders thought the Council might have been close to a motion, and appreciated  
their willingness to entertain more in terms of the Agriculture Park.  
Traci Wilson-Kleekamp quoted a Canadian urban planner who said “the truth about a  
city’s aspirations isn’t found in its vision, it’s found in its budget” as she felt that was  
something for them all to think about. Wilson-Kleekamp read from a post from The Center  
for Community Solutions dated July 30, 2021 entitled “Community Engagement on  
American Rescue Plan Act Dollars Vary Widely across the Country” and noted it had  
been shared with the City’s Public Information Officer. Wilson-Kleekamp thought the  
Council could have set up a process for public engagement over the summer, and pointed  
out many people could not attend council meetings because they were inaccessible in  
terms of the time. Wilson-Kleekamp noted she had a lot of privilege with a grandchild that  
was only with her every other week and the fact she was able to stay up late. The City  
did not provide childcare, had horrible public transit, and did not get proximate to the  
communities needing support. Wilson-Kleekamp stated she thought it had been  
interesting that a lot white people had advocated for people that were marginalized tonight  
as she felt that was radical for Columbia. Wilson-Kleekamp commented that she thought  
it was crappy that the public had not been allowed to speak to the changing course of the  
conversation regarding ARPA funds. The Council had the opportunity to speak all night  
while the public only had the opportunity to speak for a little bit. Wilson-Kleekamp noted  
she did not like the way Treece spoke to Fowler and Thomas, and did not agree with the  
comment made to her the other day indicating her behavior was similar to the protesters  
that had been at a prior meeting without their masks. Wilson-Kleekamp stated she found  
it extremely offensive as a black person. Wilson-Kleekamp explained she and others  
were present because they were the bench-holders for democracy for the people that  
could not be there, and believed they were asking legitimate, reasonable, and thoughtful  
questions. They were not trying to create  
a hostile environment. Wilson-Kleekamp  
suggested they set up processes to engage people to provide input because the ARPA  
funding was a once in a lifetime opportunity to do something with regard to equity, and  
she did not understand why they would not try to proceed in that manner.  
Wilson-Kleekamp hoped the Council received the message that the budget did not have  
the data and analyses necessary. Wilson-Kleekamp suggested the Council go to the  
community as council meetings did not have to be held in City Hall, and asked them to  
consider doing things differently than they had in the past.  
Roy Lovelady understood many different white groups had spoken tonight with regard to  
how black and brown people were impacted by COVID, and believed there had not been  
many black and brown people in attendance because they did not feel the Council trusted  
their stories. In addition, some did not even know they could even attend meetings. In  
response to the inquiry of Peters with regard to the interests of people of color since they  
did not seem to utilize trails, Lovelady explained they went where they were  
systematically designed to be and where they trusted each other, and in those places  
violence wreaked havoc because of the lack of resources. Lovelady stated he would like  
for black and brown people to be a part of this process, for the City to trust their stories,  
and for the City to apply what they were saying in order to make a true change. Lovelady  
reiterated a lot of black and brown people did not come to the podium because they felt  
their stories would fall on deaf ears. If the Council met them where they were, they might  
have the ability to change the narrative. Lovelady pointed out that most of the people that  
had come tonight because they wanted a part of the ARPA funds, and had collected data  
in that effort. Lovelady commented that if he ran a non-profit, he would likely send  
someone that looked like those he was collecting data from to collect that data. They  
could then report back to someone that could come to a council meeting to tell the  
stories and apply for some type of grant or funds. Lovelady questioned the process and  
the various organizations trying to obtain money for the people since the people were still  
struggling. Lovelady believed the mark was being missed somewhere if people were still  
struggling. Lovelady noted that if he was at the dais, it would send a message to him to  
leave that place of comfort and obtain information directly from the sources in order to  
supply people with the correct resources. Lovelady stated he wanted to make sure the  
voices that were heard were the ones everyone had come to talk about tonight. Lovelady  
commented that everyone agreed the black and brown community had been impacted by  
COVID, and suggested they determine how to fix it. Lovelady pointed out he had counted  
about 36 people speaking tonight, and only one had been black or brown, but all had  
agreed the black and brown community had been impacted the worst by COVID.  
Jeff Stack, Sexton Avenue, commented that he had given up on coming to council  
meetings a few decades ago because he felt those councils had been unresponsive even  
though he was a white male with unearned privilege. Stack thanked Fowler for having front  
porch type discussions even when she had another job. It was the kind of outreach  
needed and was good modeling. Stack stated he appreciated Thomas for wanting an  
impromptu public comment time, and understood why Treece might have been frustrated.  
Stack noted he was a bit frustrated as well, and it was likely due to the privilege of not  
having to listen to other people at times. Stack explained he understood that Treece  
might not have been thinking or feeling that way, but it was the reality. Stack pointed out  
he wanted to be engaged because he believed they had a really special opportunity in  
terms of ARPA funding to make the money actually mean something. Stack commented  
that he had been frustrated with the discussion earlier tonight because it seemed as  
though there had been consensus to wait until after the City’s budget was all settled to  
come back to the ARPA funds. Stack agreed with Wilson-Kleekamp in that this robust  
conversation could have started in June. Stack felt they were continuing to ignore people  
in their midst that were in urgent need of care, and provided Ernest Johnson, who was  
schedule to be executed next month for killing three people in the community, as an  
example. Stack noted Johnson was a man that had been in their midst and had wanted  
help with drug rehabilitation, was intellectually disabled, and had been neglected. Stack  
stated they had people in the community now that were in dire straits and he believed  
they needed to do better. They could not just deal with athletic complexes as those were  
most likely for the privileged people on the south side of town. Stack suggested the  
Council exercise compassion and empathy, and try to realize where they were at now,  
the opportunities they had, and the opportunities they were about to squander. Stack  
encouraged the Council to have a robust effort to listen to those that needed assistance.  
Barbara Jefferson noted she continually heard the words “poor” and “minority” and they  
were easy words to use, but those in that category received so little benefit. Jefferson  
suggested the use of those terms stop since they were not really benefiting. Jefferson  
understood there had been discussion about involving the commissions, and pointed out  
she served on the HCDC. Jefferson explained they had received 14 applications, and the  
“how does” question on at least 11 of the applications had been answered with “yes”  
which she did not find appropriate. Jefferson assumed it was the same response from  
prior years because those organizations knew they would receive what they wanted.  
Jefferson stated she did not feel it was good to depend on the committees of the City  
because she felt something was going since the same organizations tended to receive  
benefits with inadequate applications. As a member of that group, Jefferson felt it had  
been a waste of her time. Jefferson did not believe those applications should have been  
forwarded to her to be rated since they were not completed appropriately.  
Susan Maze. 902 N. Seventh Street, wanted to point out the issue of the unsheltered in  
her neighborhood, which had existed since 2014, and noted no one associated with the  
government of the City of Columbia had ever come to talk to her about it until Fowler was  
elected to the Council. No one had approached the neighborhood to ask what needed to  
be done or how it should happen. Maze assumed conversations were happening, but they  
were not happening with them. Maze explained a reason People Before Projects had  
been started was because the ARPA funding was once in a lifetime money. Previously,  
she had assumed there was no money to assist unsheltered people, and because there  
was no money there was no point in talking about it. Maze pointed out there was now  
money, and she understood how politics, power, and influence worked so they have  
begun that effort. Maze stated she thought it was important for the Council to realize the  
people affected by their policies and those that needed things from the City did not get  
talked to by the City.  
Dee Dokken explained she was representing the Sierra Club and appreciated the  
changes that might be happening with the CATSO LRTP in terms of aligning it more with  
the CAAP, having measurable performance goals, and having more public process.  
Dokken understood the Boone County representative of CATSO had indicated the County  
did not have a plan similar to CAAP and was not sure how much that could thwart this  
effort, and noted the Sierra Club would probably try to help bring the County along with  
any progressive actions.  
Waner asked if there was any indication as to how the excess reserve money would be  
spent. Glascock replied no if Waner was referring to the general fund excess, and  
explained that would come from discussions with the Council.  
Waner commented that she wanted to speak to some of the public comment that had  
been made earlier with regard to the CCUA in terms of the Agriculture Park. Waner  
pointed out there was a lot of data that supported the work CCUA was trying to do in the  
community. Waner understood 34 percent of Boone County residents had low food  
access, and many of the qualified census tracts in the community that were the hardest  
impacted were touching the Columbia Farmers Market. Waner stated she would really  
like to see the City partner with the County in getting the Agriculture Park project across  
the finish line because they partnered with many organizations to include the Food Bank,  
CPS, Phoenix Programs, and Patriot Place. It was truly an investment in people and  
would be an asset that stayed on their balance sheet. Waner reiterated she thought that  
was worthwhile for them to pursue in conjunction with the County, and understood a big  
piece of the funds was to support the community, but noted they also needed to make  
the money stretch and partnering with the County and private fundraising was a good way  
to proceed.  
Peters explained they had neglected some of the neighborhoods when working to adopt  
the Unified Development Code (UDC), and certainly the neighborhoods surrounding the  
downtown, including the West Ash, North Central, Old Southwest, Grasslands, Benton  
Stephens, and East Campus neighborhoods, in terms of being at risk to have properties  
combined and redeveloped. Peters suggested creating an ad-hoc committee to look at  
the impact of that on the neighborhoods and determine what might need to be changed  
within the UDC. Peters wanted to know how the Council felt in that regard. Peters noted  
she also wondered about a second ad hoc committee to review the other strange things  
that had come up with regard to the UDC as she understood the Community  
Development Department was maintaining a list.  
Peters provided the 300 foot street  
length requirement and sidewalks being required on both sides of the street as items they  
could review due to the amount of concrete involved. Peters explained she did not want to  
ask the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) to address it, which was why she was  
suggesting some ad hoc committees that could then go to them with their  
recommendations. Peters asked for the thoughts of the Council.  
Thomas commented that he did not have any objection to the proposal of Peters,  
particularly with regard to how the UDC worked for some of the inter-neighborhoods.  
Thomas stated he supported the comments of Waner to use some of the general fund  
surplus to assist the Agriculture Park as it was a real success. Thomas understood it  
had been 20 years in the making and there had been two previous attempts of something  
similar whereby people had the opportunity to learn from those experiences. Thomas  
noted there one final piece to finish, and he believed the City should be a part of it .  
Thomas commented that he thought they needed a process to decide how much of the  
surplus funds they wanted to spend in the short and medium term along with all of the  
potential ways to do that, and felt the Agriculture Park would rise to the top regardless.  
Treece commented that he was not opposed to the suggestion of Peters, but noted they  
had a lot of plates spinning at this time. Treece did not know who would be on the ad hoc  
committee or when they would come back to the Council. It seemed to be a lot to  
embrace at this time.  
Skala explained that in the past there had been a street standards committee that had  
made recommendations with regard to the width of streets and sidewalks on both sides,  
and that work had never been revisited. Skala stated he thought some of the other items  
mentioned were on the radar of the Community Development staff and the PZC to review,  
but not necessarily the issues involving the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown in  
terms of combining lots and redevelopment.  
Peters thought it would be nice to get a group together. Peters understood there were a  
lot of plates spinning but felt this would be six months to a year in the making so she  
wanted to get the process started.  
Fowler stated she appreciated the suggestion of Peters and wanted time to reach out to  
neighborhood association leaders since many of those neighborhoods were in the First  
Ward to determine where they were in terms of having the energy to participate at this  
time. Fowler asked if she could report back at the next council meeting. Peters stated  
she was agreeable.  
Pitzer noted he wanted to know what some of the negative issues were with respect to  
the UDC and how those issues had played out. Pitzer understood Peters had mentioned  
the combining of lots, and the Council had voted several of those down. Pitzer wondered if  
there were others that were happening that he might not know about. Pitzer pointed out  
the issue of short-term rentals would likely impact the neighborhoods mentioned, and that  
might be the most impactful thing that would happen.  
Peters understood the Community Development Director had the authority to allow lots to  
be combined so the neighborhoods with R-2, R-3, or multi-family zoning could be  
impacted without the issue ever coming before the Council. The issue in the East  
Campus neighborhood had been brought forward to Council because the neighbors had  
voiced concerns. Peters understood a couple of lots at Broadway and Fyfer Place had  
been combined because it was allowed by the UDC and no one had noticed it had been  
done. Peters thought that needed to be reviewed along with the appropriate overlays.  
Peters suggested they speak with the impacted neighborhoods within their respective  
wards to determine if someone would be willing to take the time to participate in this effort  
before they lost those neighborhoods.  
Peters understood the census population numbers were not too far off, and wondered if  
they wanted to proceed with a commission or just move about 2,000 people around while  
keeping things relatively the same. Peters noted they had heard from a constituent  
tonight that had indicated it needed to be reviewed for changes, but when significant  
changes had been discussed ten years ago, people had felt it was not appropriate .  
Peters pointed out they were the representatives of the City so she was not sure they  
needed another commission to deal with the issue, but wanted to hear the thoughts of  
others.  
Fowler asked if this issue could be taken up at a time that was not so late in the night .  
Peters replied yes.  
Peters explained that if they made ward determinations by the middle or end of October,  
it would allow the new ward boundaries to be used for the upcoming April elections.  
Peters understood they might not want to do that and she did not want people to feel  
they were being pushed in that direction. Peters asked the Council to look at the  
information that had been provided by staff with regard to reapportioning the wards so  
they could discuss how to proceed at the next meeting.  
Skala noted it had not been discussed, but he thought there had been some  
acknowledgement or a placeholder for the Northeast Park, i.e., the Fairgrounds, and  
wanted to ensure they kept that in the mix in terms of projects.  
Skala asked for the status of the West Area Plan. Glascock replied he had not talked to  
the County about that lately, but would ask the next time he met with them.  
Skala asked for a status on the recycling containers at Home Depot. Glascock replied he  
would bring something back in that regard.  
XII. ADJOURNMENT  
Treece adjourned the meeting without objection at 12:31 a.m.